[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1071, THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT; AND A
DISCUSSION DRAFT KNOWN AS THE ``NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 2001''
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
November 8, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-74
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-036 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 8, 2001................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate to Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 5
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam.. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
PAIRS communique submitted for the record................ 62
Statement of Witnesses:
Dalton, Penelope, Vice President, Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education....................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
DeVoe, M. Richard, President, Sea Grant Association.......... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Evans, Dr. David L., Assistant Administrator, Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Knatz, Dr. Geraldine, Chairman, Sea Grant Review Panel....... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Richmond, Dr. Robert, Professor of Marine Biology, Marine
Laboratory, University of Guam............................. 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
HEARING ON H.R. 1071, THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT; AND A
DISCUSSION DRAFT KNOWN AS THE ``NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 2001''
----------
Thursday, November 8, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:36 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. The Committee will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. We appreciate your attendance here
this morning. Some of you came from near, and some of you came
from afar--really afar--so welcome to the Committee this
morning to the hearing.
The National Sea Grant Program, generally known as Sea
Grant, was established in 1996 to improve marine resource
conservation, management, and utilization. The program is
patterned after the Land Grant College Program, which was
created in 1862. Sadly, it only receives a tiny fraction of the
funds received by Land Grant colleges.
Currently, there are 29 Sea Grant college programs that
represent a network of researchers, educators, and marine
advisory agents at over 300 academic institutions.
Sea Grant research must be relevant to the understanding,
assessment, development, utilization or conservation of ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Sea Grant education
programs include the development and training programs for
marine scientists and technicians, as well as education in
aquatic sciences for secondary school students and teachers.
Sea Grant marine advisory staff, the marine version of
agriculture extension agents, provide informal education for
the general public, technical advice, and instruction in
marine-related topics, and disseminate research findings to
user groups.
In addition to the core program of research, education, and
outreach, Sea Grant also has ongoing research programs in
dealing with oyster diseases and the human health effects of
oyster-borne diseases and on zebra mussels.
I am particularly interested in hearing about the progress
made in the oyster disease research program.
Our colleague from American Samoa, Congressman
Faleomavaega, has introduced H.R. 1071, the National Sea Grant
College Program Authorization Enhancement Act. I want to
compliment him for all of his hard work on behalf of this
legislation.
In addition, the Subcommittee has provided a draft
reauthorization proposal, and I look forward to hearing your
comments as we move through the coming weeks and months about
that proposal.
We also look forward this morning to your testimony.
And as we move through the coming months and years with a
better understanding of a cooperative international association
with peoples from around the world to deal with desperate
sufferings and poverty and misinformation and ignorance and
arrogance and dogma and intolerance--all of which seems to be
fertile ground for the tiny fraction of people in the world
that are afflicted with madness to cause harm to others--if I
can be so bold as to take a leap, I am assuming and hopeful
that the positive effect of all that--getting together in a
cooperative fashion with the international community to make
the world a better place--will also begin to increase our
recognition of the planet's sensitive natural resources and
sensitive ecosystems, so that the cooperation can go far beyond
the hearing room or a few research facilities to a better
understanding of mankind that we are on an oasis in the midst
of a rather large and barren universe.
And as the population increases and our resources decrease,
the ability to deal with many other situations will become
increasingly more difficult.
So I look forward to the testimony from all of you on the
importance that Sea Grant plays in that rather enormous puzzle.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of Hon. Wayne Gilchrest, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland
The National Sea Grant College Program, generally known as Sea
Grant, was established in 1966 to improve marine resource conservation,
management, and utilization. The program is patterned after the Land
Grant College Program, which was created in 1862. Sadly, it only
receives a tiny fraction of the funds received by land grant colleges.
Currently, there are 29 Sea Grant College programs that represent a
network of researchers, educators and marine advisory agents at over
300 academic institutions.
Sea Grant research must be relevant to the understanding,
assessment, development, utilization or conservation of ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes resources. Sea Grant education programs include the
development and training programs for marine scientists and technicians
as well as education in aquatic sciences for secondary school students
and teachers. Sea Grant marine advisory staff, the marine version of
agriculture extension agents, provide informal education for the
general public, technical advice and instruction in marine-related
topics, and disseminate research findings to user groups.
In addition to the core program of research, education and
outreach, Sea Grant has also has ongoing research programs in dealing
with oyster diseases and the human health effects of oyster borne
diseases, and on zebra mussels. I am particularly interested in hearing
about the progress made in the oyster disease research program.
Our colleague from American Samoa, Congressman Faleomavaega has
introduced H.R. 1071, the National Sea Grant College Program
Authorization Enhancement Act, and I want to compliment him for all of
his hard work on behalf of this legislation. In addition, the
subcommittee has provided a draft reauthorization proposal. I look
forward to the witnesses comments on these measures, and I appreciate
your coming today.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I would now like to yield to my good friend
from Guam, and colleague, Mr. Underwood.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
those very sobering words.
And as well, I want to express my relief that we are back
in Longworth. It is good to be back in Longworth.
Mr. Gilchrest. I really didn't think in those terms, that
I'm actually back in Longworth.
Mr. Underwood. That's right. We are back in Longworth.
I never thought I would say that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to
everyone. And I regret that circumstances have forced the
postponement of this hearing from October 18th until today.
And I realize that this was a significant inconvenience for
the invited witnesses, and I very much appreciate that you have
all been able to make yourselves available to attend on such
short notice, especially my friend and longtime colleague from
the University of Guam, Dr. Robert Richmond. And my thanks to
all of you.
And also, I would like to recognize, if you would allow me,
Mr. Chairman, the Lieutenant Governor of Guam; Madeleine
Bordallo is here, as well as Paul Bordallo.
It never fails to amaze me that the National Sea Grant
College Program has yet to catch the public's attention or the
attention of Congress, for that matter, in a way that is
comparable to the success of our Nation's Land Grant
institutions.
This fact is made even more surprising considering that
since 1966 the migration of people, industry, and commerce away
from the Nation's heartland to the Nation's coasts, which in a
sense have become the Nation's new heartland, has become even
more dramatic with each succeeding decade.
The need for a program like Sea Grant has never been
greater, yet we all still seem to be waiting for the demand to
coalesce.
As a former academic administrator, I appreciate the
benefits that can be realized through the partnerships and
Federal matching funds provided through the Sea Grant Program.
For these reasons and because of the obviously intrinsic
economic and cultural dependence on marine resources in Guam, I
certainly support the efforts of Dr. Bob Richmond and his
colleagues, who are working cooperatively with NOAA to develop
a Sea Grant program for the Western Pacific region. I will be
interested to hear how work has progressed on this proposal,
and I will be asking for a show of hands of support for this
proposal later on.
[Laughter.]
I will also be interested to hear the views of today's
witnesses, especially their perspectives on future funding
levels for Sea Grant.
In this respect, I certainly want to thank my friend from
American Samoa, our colleague Mr. Faleomavaega, for his
leadership in introducing legislation that would significantly
increase authorizations for Sea Grant appropriations to $100
million per year.
While certainly this figure would be a substantial
increase, it still appears reasonable, considering that
comparable Land Grant institutions will receive over $1 billion
in fiscal year 2002.
Of course, the events of September 11th will make it
extremely difficult to find any new funding in discretionary
accounts. Nevertheless, the Sea Grant program is worthy of
additional support, and it will be the responsibility of this
Committee to step up to that challenge.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Robert Underwood, a Delegate to Congress from
Guam
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to everyone. I regret
that circumstances forced the postponement of this hearing from October
18 until today. I realize that this was a significant inconvenience for
our invited witnesses. I very much appreciate that you have all been
able to make yourselves available to attend on such short notice,
especially my friend and colleague from Guam, Dr. Robert Richmond. My
thanks to you all.
It never fails to amaze me that the National Sea Grant College
Program has yet to catch the public's attention--or the attention of
Congress for that matter--in a way comparable to the success of our
Nation's land grant institutions. This fact is made even more
surprising considering that since 1966, the migration of people,
industry and commerce away from the Nation's heartland and to the
Nation's coasts has become ever more dramatic with each succeeding
decade. The need for a program like Sea Grant has never been greater,
yet we all still seem to be waiting for the demand to coalesce.
As a former academic administrator, I appreciate the benefits that
can be realized through the partnerships and Federal matching funds
provided through the Sea Grant Program. For these reasons, and because
of the obvious intrinsic economic and cultural dependence on marine
resources in Guam, I support the efforts of Dr. Robert Richmond and his
colleagues who are working cooperatively with NOAA to develop a Sea
Grant Program for the Western Pacific region. I will be interested to
hear how work has progressed on this proposal.
I will also be interested to hear the views of today's witnesses,
especially their perspectives on future funding levels for Sea Grant.
In this respect, I want to thank my friend from American Samoa, Mr.
Faleomavaega, for his leadership in introducing legislation that would
significantly increase authorizations for Sea Grant appropriations to
$100 million per year. While certainly this figure would be a
substantial increase, it still appears reasonable considering that
comparable land grant institutions will receive over $1 billion dollars
in Fiscal Year 2002!
Of course, the events of September 11 will make it extremely
difficult to find any new funding in discretionary accounts.
Nevertheless, the Sea Grant Program is worthy of additional support,
and it will be the responsibility of this committee to step up to that
challenge.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly would like to offer my personal welcome to our
distinguished Lieutenant Governor from the territory of Guam,
Madeleine Bordallo, and Senator Bordallo, who is also with us
here in our hearing this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not extend my
appreciation to you and our ranking member in our Subcommittee.
I would rather call this piece of legislation as your bill,
because this has not been something that was just done
overnight. This has been a period of consultations with you and
our ranking member, Mr. Underwood, for the past several months.
In my capacity formerly as ranking member of this
Subcommittee 2 years ago, I had come to the strong conclusion
that something has to be about the Sea Grant program. And I
want to thank you and our ranking member, Mr. Underwood, for
your support and especially your leadership in taking the
initiative, not only by calling the hearing, by calling the
first shot, extending this hopefully greater matter of
knowledge and understanding to our colleagues, why this program
is so important. And not just because we are from the islands.
I think that, given the fact that the coastal states here in
our own Nation--or even the Great Lakes, I would consider them
as part of our coastal programs.
But, Mr. Chairman, I definitely want to thank you, given
the fact that we have already had 50 cosponsors of this
legislation. And passing this sense of threshold, I suppose you
might say that hopefully there will be more of our colleagues
supporting this legislation, on both sides of the aisle.
And I certainly want to commend you, Mr. Chairman,
certainly as one of our most distinguished conservationists and
environmentalists serving this Committee.
Mr. Chairman, the idea of a Sea Grant program was
originally suggested by Mr. Athelstan Spilhaus. In was in a
1964 editorial that he wrote, and I quote: ``The establishment
of the Land Grant colleges was one of the best investments this
Nation has ever made. The same kind of imagination and
foresight should be applied to exploitation of the sea.''
Mr. Chairman, the National Sea Grant College Program has
always enjoyed a broad base of bipartisan support. The 105th
Congress passed reauthorization for the program without a
single dissenting vote in either chamber.
However, despite this broad support, current funding for
the program is only about 7 percent of the equivalent of
Federal funding for the Land Grant College Program. Land Grant
receives approximately $900 million in Federal funding per
year; Sea Grant receives approximately $62 million. Yet,
approximately 54 percent of our Nation's population lives along
our coasts.
I believe this is a fact that bears repeating: Nearly 54
percent of our Nation's population lives along the coasts, but
we devote only pennies to marine research.
In 1994, a National Research Council review pointed out
that Sea Grant has been virtually the only source of funding in
the U.S. for marine policy research. Yet, on average, there are
fewer than seven extension agents per coastal state. In many
cases, there is only one extension agent serving a major urban
area.
For example, in Los Angeles, there is only one extension
agent serving 14 million people. In New York City, there is
only one serving 12 million people.
Due to limited resources, Sea Grant funds at an average
less than $2 million per state program. Many geographic regions
are not represented, including the Western Pacific--for which
my colleague Mr. Underwood has eloquently elaborated upon and
on which both us definitely are going to be working toward,
too--which alone has a huge economic exclusive zone. Some
states, like Mississippi and Alabama, share funding while other
eligible states, like Pennsylvania and Vermont, have no
institutional Sea Grant programs.
To address the problem of inadequate funding, I
introduced--and as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I would
rather call it ``as you introduced''--H.R. 1071, a bill which
would increase authorization for funding of the National Sea
Grant College Program to $100 million per year.
Although this modest increase will not provide sufficient
research for what needs to be done, I believe it is a movement
in the right direction.
I am pleased to see that a draft reauthorization bill under
review also provides a significant increase in authorization.
In addition to the limited funding, questions have also
been raised about how the program could be better structured to
improve efficiency. I believe there are some adjustments that
we can make in this area, and I look forward to hearing the
testimonies of today's witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega, for those
interesting facts that we will pay close attention to as we go
through the reauthorization process.
Very often we can probably reauthorize some of these acts
via the telephone and the staff. But it is always beneficial--
and I hope you take this into your perspective while we are
here this morning--that it is that exchange of information and
the phenomenon that occurs when people talk to each other in
the same room, that every once in a while some little spark
will ignite some idea that will turn into a major opportunity.
So we are looking for sparks from each one of you this
morning as we go through the testimony.
[Laughter.]
This morning we have Dr. David Evans, assistant
administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Geraldine Knatz, Chairman, Sea
Grant Review Panel; Ms. Penelope Dalton, formerly with National
Marine Fisheries Service, now with the Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education as its vice president and
technical director; Dr. Robert Richmond, professor of marine
biology--who wins the prize for the longest distance traveled
to get here--the University of Guam--welcome; and Dr. Richard
DeVoe, president of the Sea Grant Association.
Welcome all this morning. We will begin with Dr. Evans.
STATEMENT OF DAVID EVANS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Evans. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. I am David Evans, assistant administrator of NOAA
for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
Thank you very much for inviting NOAA to speak on behalf of
the National Sea Grant College Program this morning, a
partnership between the Nation's universities and NOAA that
began in 1966.
And let me note that I have submitted written testimony and
ask that that be part of the record. I will just have a short
summary here.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Dr. Evans. The Sea Grant Program is made up of 32 grant
colleges, located in coastal and Great Lakes States and Puerto
Rico, that use the skills and resources of several hundred U.S.
universities and scientific institutions to conduct marine
research, education, and outreach activities.
I have been asked to provide NOAA's views on two pieces of
proposed legislation, H.R. 1071, the National Sea Grant College
Program Authorization Act, and a draft reauthorization bill
entitled National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of
2001.
Unfortunately, the administration has not completed its
formal review of either reauthorization bill right now. But in
the spirit of your comments a few minutes ago, we very much
look forward to working with you and with your staff as the
reauthorization process proceeds and working on both of those
bills in a way that is consistent with the administration's
budgetary constraints, which you have also noted, and the
policy goals that we have.
We also recognize the importance of the role that past
Congresses have played in enacting the Sea Grant act to begin
with and in subsequent reauthorizations. Furthermore, the
administration is pleased that Congress has recognized the
importance to the U.S. of sustainable coasts and continues to
have confidence in Sea Grant as a part of that vision.
I would like to highlight today some of the accomplishments
of the Sea Grant program and emphasize the critical role that
it plays in fostering Federal-state partnerships for marine and
coastal research and resource management.
Sea Grant is based on the concept of establishing a marine
version of Land Grant colleges, which played a key role in the
development of modern agriculture.
The Nation's experience with Land Grant colleges
demonstrated that research, education, and the ability to
transfer that new knowledge into public policy and economic
gains are rapidly becoming the key to sustainable development
and prosperity.
Similarly, the 32 Sea Grant college programs bring
research, outreach, and educational expertise to promote the
sustainable development of the Nation's marine and coastal
resources. Sea Grant is responsible for providing information
to coastal and marine users on relevant research results that
may have beneficial applications for many marine and coastal
enterprises.
For example, protective mesh for clams developed by Sea
Grant research in the early 1990's has resulted, in less than a
decade, in an increased yield in value today of about $40
million per year in the New England clam industry.
Sea Grant is constantly working to improve its
effectiveness. Innovations introduced by Sea Grant Director Ron
Baird, who is with me here today, include an increasing local
responsibility for decision-making; institutionalizing a system
of rigorous peer-review programs, with an emphasis on research
outcomes; streamlining the management infrastructure. These
reforms have substantially strengthened Sea Grant programs
nationwide.
A recent example of Sea Grant's improved ability to respond
is with a coordinated effort in a Long Island Sound Lobster
Initiative. Sea Grant programs in the Northeast, working with
States, other parts of NOAA, local users, and the Congress,
were able to quickly mount an assessment, monitoring, and
research program to address a pressing regional issue of
significant economic importance.
Another recent management reform is the introduction of
national strategic investments.
Mr. Gilchrest. If I could just interrupt for a quick
second?
Dr. Evans. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. We are not having the lights today.
Dr. Evans. Okay.
Mr. Gilchrest. You can--
Dr. Evans. Slow down a little?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Evans. Thank you.
You know, I have been too well-trained in this process.
[Laughter.]
You know, five pages, 5 minutes, keep going, don't breathe,
right?
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sea Grant programs in non-indigenous species, fish habitat,
marine biotechnology, oyster disease and mariculture are
examples of those kinds of national strategic investments that
have been made.
Next year, Sea Grant will establish a national effort to
engage local decision-makers in coastal areas on the topics of
community development, planning, and hazard mitigation.
Sea Grant's 1999 Hammer Award-winning program in seafood
safety training and the national marine management effort are
examples of other successful national programs.
Virtually every serious study of Sea Grant has noted its
effectiveness. In 1994, the National Research Council found
that Sea Grant had played a significant role in U.S. marine
science, education, and outreach. A November 2000 study,
entitled ``A Mandate to Engage Coastal Users,'' conducted by a
committee led by John Byrne of Oregon State University and the
Kellogg Commission, indicated that Sea Grant has been effective
in facilitating throughout the Nation sustainable development
of coastal resources by helping citizens make better-informed
and wiser decisions.
Sea Grant is a results-oriented partnership that is crucial
to NOAA's missions. Its role within NOAA is growing and
becoming more important to the agency. Sea Grant educators work
with NOAA's marine sanctuary staff to develop education
programs on issues such as marine protected areas.
Sea Grant conducts a major research effort focused on the
importance of fish habitat and productivity of U.S. marine
fisheries in support of the new habitat conservation provisions
in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Sea Grant
jointly fund a graduate fellowship program in population
dynamics and marine resource economics, areas of critical
shortages in the agency.
Sea Grant and NMFS recently joined with other partners to
conduct a state of the science symposium on critical issues
such as managing recreational fisheries, essential fish
habitat, fisheries in a changing climate.
Sea Grant and NOS, the National Ocean Service, a part of
NOAA, are working together on the innovative NEMO program that
provides geographic information system-based science
information on watersheds and nonpoint source pollution to
local policymakers.
Sea Grant conducts an extension program with NOAA's Great
Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) to get
scientific information produced by GLERL scientists into the
hands of local users.
NOAA's National Weather Service is teaming with Sea Grant
to help educate the public about the dangers of rip currents,
which account for 80 percent of the beach rescues annually.
Sea Grant is collaborating with NOAA's National Severe
Storms Lab to test new advanced weather technology to deliver
more accurate flood and flash flood warnings and to mitigate
damages from them.
The Lab developed technology, which Sea Grant is able to
apply through its extension network, and works with the State
of North Carolina to help apply that technology. As a result,
the State has dramatically improved its ability to anticipate
floods, provide aid in evacuation and disaster-planning
efforts.
Sea Grant's ability to work with weather and atmospheric
phenomena, in addition to its marine science efforts,
demonstrate its growing importance to the entire NOAA mission.
In short, I believe the Sea Grant program has played and
will continue to play an important role in promoting research,
education and outreach activities that are valuable to NOAA's
mission and to marine and coastal users around the Nation.
Increased development, population, and pollution in the
Nation's coastal areas are threatening our natural resources,
upon which so many individuals and businesses rely for their
economic well-being.
NOAA's National Sea Grant Program will continue to use its
unique ability to focus on sustainable development of the
Nation's coastal resources through an organization that is
national in scope, university-based, and committed to the
transfer of research results to coastal and marine user groups.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Thanks again for
the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Evans follows:]
Statement of David L. Evans, Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest, members of the Subcommittee and
staff. I am David Evans, Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). On behalf of Secretary of Commerce
Don Evans, I am pleased to speak to you today about the National Sea
Grant College Program (Sea Grant), a partnership between the Nation's
universities and NOAA that began in 1966 pursuant to the National Sea
Grant College and Program Act (P.L. 89-688). The Sea Grant program is
made up of thirty Sea Grant college programs located in coastal and
Great Lakes states and Puerto Rico that use the skills and resources of
several hundred U.S. universities and scientific institutions to
conduct marine research, education, and outreach activities.
Specifically, I have been asked to provide NOAA's views on two
pieces of legislation: H.R. 1071, the National Sea Grant College
Program Authorization Enhancement Act, and a draft reauthorization bill
entitled the National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2001.
H.R. 1071, introduced by Congressman Eni F. H. Faleomavaega and Rep.
Abercrombie, would increase the authorization levels for the Sea Grant
program to $100 million annually starting in Fiscal Year 2002. The
draft bill, in contrast, would increase authorization levels for Sea
Grant to $110 million in Fiscal Year 2004 and make other organizational
changes. The current Sea Grant Program Act (P.L. 105-160), which
expires in Fiscal Year 2003, authorizes $67.8 million for Sea Grant in
Fiscal Year 2002 and $68.8 million in Fiscal Year 2003. The
Administration has requested $62.4 million for Sea Grant in Fiscal Year
2002, an increase over the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriation for this
program.
The Administration has not yet undertaken a formal review of either
H.R. 1071 or the draft reauthorization bill. We do, however, look
forward to working with Congress on a reauthorization of the Sea Grant
program that is consistent with the Administration's budgetary and
policy goals. The Administration is interested in seeking reforms that
will further promote merit-based competition and improve the
effectiveness of the program.
The National Sea Grant College Program History and Organization
Today, I would like to highlight some of the history and
accomplishments of the Sea Grant Program and emphasize the critical
role that Sea Grant plays in fostering a federal-state partnership for
marine research and resource management. As I noted previously, the
National Sea Grant Program was created in 1966 and was based on the
concept of establishing a marine version of land grant colleges, which,
through a combination of research and outreach activities, have played
a key role in the development of modern agriculture. The Nation's
experience with land grant colleges demonstrated that research,
education and the ability to rapidly transfer new knowledge into public
policy and economic gains are the keys to sustainable development and
prosperity. Similarly, the thirty Sea Grant college programs bring
research, outreach and educational expertise to promote the sustainable
development of the Nation's marine and coastal resources. Sea Grant is
also responsible for providing information to coastal and marine users
on relevant research results that may have beneficial applications for
coastal and marine enterprises. One recent example, among many, makes
the point. A protective mesh for clams developed by Sea Grant research
in the early 1990's has resulted, in less than a decade, in an
increased yield valued today at almost $40 million per year to the New
England clam industry.
After NOAA was created in 1970, the Sea Grant program was
transferred from the National Science Foundation to the new agency.
University partnerships such as Sea Grant allow NOAA to respond to new
problems without the costly maintenance of permanent Federal
infrastructure. Sea Grant is NOAA's principal point of engagement with
the university community on coastal and Great Lakes issues. NOAA's Sea
Grant is a true federal-state partnership in which states are required
to contribute matching funds on a 2:1 federal-state ratio before they
can leverage federal appropriations for their Sea Grant program. This
matching requirement allows NOAA's Sea Grant program to expand the
reach of its efforts considerably. In addition, other federal and state
agencies contribute funding to Sea Grant through cooperative
partnerships.
In 1979 the Sea Grant Intern Program, renamed the Dean John A.
Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship program in 1987, began. This program,
also know as the Sea Grant Fellow program, provided a select group of
graduate students with the opportunity to work for Congress or a
federal agency on marine issues for one year. The Sea Grant Fellow
program now has over 400 alumni, several of whom have gone on to serve
Congress, including this Subcommittee, in key staff position on both
sides of the aisle.
In Fiscal Year 1997, the new Sea Grant Director, Dr. Ronald Baird,
introduced a number of major management changes in Sea Grant that were
designed to improve performance, responsiveness, and programmatic
relevance. Dr. Baird's innovations included increasing local
responsibility for decision making, institutionalizing a system of
rigorous peer review of programs with an emphasis on research outcomes
and streamlining the management infrastructure. These reforms have
substantially strengthened the administration, responsiveness and
relevance to management issues of Sea Grant programs nationwide. A
recent example of Sea Grant's improved ability to respond with a multi-
coordinated effort is its creation, along with NOAA's Coastal Services
Center, of the HazNet web site at www.haznet.org. This site puts
coastal hazard information at the fingertips of coastal managers and
the public. It provides information about natural hazards and the
current planning and research efforts of Sea Grant programs nationwide,
NOAA, FEMA, and state and local community sources. The site provides
one-stop shopping for information on hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,
coastal erosion, earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes.
Another recent management reform is the introduction of national
strategic investments, which have allowed NOAA to engage universities
through nationwide focus on critical issues, yet maintain local and
regional implementation. Sea Grant's programs in non-indigenous
species, fish habitat, marine biotechnology, oyster disease, and
mariculture are examples. This year (fiscal year 2002) Sea Grant will
establish a national effort to engage local decision makers in coastal
areas on the topics of community development, land use planning, and
hazard mitigation. Sea Grant's 1999 Hammer Award-winning program in
seafood safety training and the national marina management effort are
examples of other successful national programs.
Several studies of Sea Grant have noted its effectiveness. In 1994,
the National Research Council found that Sea Grant has played a
significant role in U.S. marine science, education and outreach. This
study also pointed out some concerns and provided recommendations for
improving program effectiveness. In a November 2000 study, entitled ``A
Mandate to Engage Coastal Users,'' a committee led by John Byrne of
Oregon State University and the Kellogg Commission indicated Sea Grant
has been effective in facilitating the Nation's sustainable development
of coastal resources by helping citizens make better informed and wiser
decisions. Twenty-two of the thirty Sea Grant Programs have undergone
performance evaluations by teams of outside reviewers and Sea Grant
peers, and sixteen were graded ``excellent'' in achieving significant
results. A program was graded ``excellent'' if it produced significant
results, connected Sea Grant with users, and was not found to need
improvement in areas such as long-range planning and management.
Sea Grant educators work with NOAA's Marine Sanctuaries staff to
deliver educational programs on key issues such as marine protected
areas. Sea Grant conducts a major research effort focused on the
importance of fish habitat to the productivity of U.S. marine
fisheries, in support of the new habitat conservation provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS and Sea Grant jointly fund a graduate
fellowship program in population dynamics and marine resource
economics, areas of critical shortage in the agency. Sea Grant and NMFS
recently joined with other partners to conduct state-of-the-science
symposiums on critical issues such as ``Managing Recreational
Fisheries,'' ``Essential Fish Habitat,'' and ``Fisheries in a Changing
Climate.'' Sea Grant and NOS are working together on the innovative
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials program that provides
geographic information systems-based science information on watersheds
and nonpoint source pollution to local policy makers. Sea Grant
conducts with NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
(GLERL) an extension program to get scientific information produced by
GLERL scientists into the hands of users. NOAA's National Weather
Service is teaming up with Sea Grant to help educate the public about
the dangers of rip currents which account for 80 percent of beach
rescues annually. Sea Grant is collaborating with NOAA's National
Severe Storms Laboratory to test new advanced weather technology to
deliver more accurate flood and flash flood warnings and mitigate
damages.
NOAA must increasingly find creative ways to enhance its mission
capability, and Sea Grant provides a unique way to engage the Nation's
universities for this purpose.
In short, I believe that the Sea Grant program has played and will
continue to play a role in promoting research, education and outreach
activities to marine and coastal users around the Nation.
The National Sea Grant College Program Recent Accomplishments
The National Sea Grant Program has achieved considerable mission
success in its thirty-five year history, and I want to highlight some
examples of those accomplishments in the areas of marine aquaculture,
aquatic nuisance species, coastal hazard reduction, commercial
fisheries, education, marine biotechnology and seafood safety and
quality.
Aquaculture
Louisiana Sea Grant researchers have designed filters used to
improve water quality in recirculating aquaculture production systems,
leading in turn to the development of completely automated, low energy
use systems now found throughout the aquaculture industry. The latest
design is a filter for use in marine systems to be patented in 2001. A
Sea Grant-supported graduate student who worked in this area has now
started his own company and offers several filter designs commercially.
His company now generates more than $1 million in revenues per year and
is growing quickly.
As a result of Sea Grant's investment in aquaculture research and
extension efforts, hybrid striped bass pond culture has expanded in
just 10 years from a small demonstration project to an industry
producing 10 million pounds of fish valued at $25 million annually.
Aquatic Nuisance Species
The Great Lakes Sea Grant Network has made science-based
information about zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species
available at the web site www.sgnis.org. Developed by the Great Lakes
Sea Grant network, this site contains a comprehensive collection of
research publications and education materials produced by Sea Grant
programs across the Nation. Originally focused on zebra mussels, the
site also contains on other invaders including the Eurasian ruffe, the
round goby, the sea lamprey, and the spiny waterflea. New York Sea
Grant has also established a National Aquatic Nuisance Species
Clearinghouse at www.aquaticinvaders.org, which houses an international
library of research, public policy, and outreach education publications
pertaining to invasive marine and fresh-water aquatic nuisance species
in North America. These web sites are used by industrial and municipal
water users, shoreland property owners, boaters, resource management
agencies, students, teachers, outreach professionals, and researchers.
Coastal Hazard Reduction
Software developed by Sea Grant investigators allows builders to
``plug in'' specifications of their structure to assess the building's
risk from coastal storm winds and water; the software also makes
recommendations to mitigate identified risks. Structural engineers for
the new 8,600-unit Sun City development near Hilton Head, SC credit the
program with averting millions of dollars in potential losses as well
as helping to protect lives in this retirement community.
Sea Grant researchers in coastal hazard reduction have promoted new
construction techniques such as hurricane clips, cross-braced pile
construction, and changes in roof and window design that have saved
millions in repairs. Homes built in accordance with Sea Grant models
can save an estimated $220 annually in insurance premiums, or $15,000
over the 70-year life span of the average home.
California Sea Grant researchers have adapted two computer models
to allow scientists to use an existing wave-monitoring network to
estimate swell conditions at all coastal locations in Southern
California, even those without instruments. This is important because
instrumenting and processing data from a single site can cost tens of
thousands of dollars annually. The models developed in this project are
presently being used as part of the ``Orange County Storm and Tidal
Wave Study,'' which assists better planning of future coastal
structures through improved prediction of coastal erosion.
Ocean sewage outfalls are major sources of contaminants to coastal
ocean systems. Studies by the University of Southern California Sea
Grant have produced a wealth of information about the behavior of
effluents in the marine environment. Such information increases the
ability of sanitation authorities to develop environmentally-sound
policies for managing urban waste.
Commercial Fisheries
To revitalize the flagging oyster industry, Delaware and Maryland
Sea Grant Programs are working cooperatively to identify American
oysters with the most useful genetically distinct characteristics. The
researchers have taken oysters from throughout the species'' geographic
range, the Gulf of Maine to the Gulf of Mexico, and have bred seven new
lines that are now growing in the Chesapeake Bay. The next step will be
to evaluate these oysters and then send the superior lines to a living
repository established by the Molluscan Breeding Program at Hatfield
Marine Science Center in Newport, Oregon, for the benefit of
researchers across the nation.
To reduce finfish (cod, sole, and pollock) bycatch, Sea Grant
scientists have studied mesh size and the optimal placement of bycatch
reduction devices (BRDs) in trawl nets. After Washington Sea Grant
researchers proved that the use of large meshes could reduce bycatch in
the West Coast black cod and sole fisheries, regulators increased the
minimum mesh size in some trawl fisheries. These studies were extended
to include the North Pacific pollock fisheries, and preliminary
research results there have caused regulators to also increase the size
of meshes in that fishery.
To provide the fishing industry with a new method to fight diseases
that attack commercial stocks of oysters, clams and abalone, California
and Connecticut Sea Grant researchers have developed a technique for
adding an inheritable gene to a mollusk. Pangenix, Inc., now has a
license to modify this technique for commercial use.
A Washington Sea Grant outreach specialist is testing the effect of
highly visible, opaque netting in the upper portions of gillnets as a
visual deterrent to birds. His research has shown that visually
modifying salmon gillnets and adjusting fishing schedules can reduce
entanglements of seabirds. This work, coupled with a required observer
program performed by a Washington Sea Grant outreach specialist, has
been credited with preventing closure of the Puget Sound sockeye salmon
fishery, saving hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in lost
revenue to the region's economy.
The Alaska Sea Grant Program was instrumental in conceptualizing
and starting the vital program of teaching marine safety and survival
to over 4,000 fishermen in 65 Alaskan ports.
Education
In its first three decades, the National Sea Grant College Program
supported more than 12,000 undergraduate and graduate students in a
wide array of disciplines including oceanography, biotechnology,
seafood science, ocean engineering, coastal ecology and law. In
addition to providing academic and financial support, the cross-
disciplinary nature of Sea Grant prepared those students to assume
leadership roles in research and resource development.
Since 1979, 479 students have received an insider's look at the
national policy-making process by participating in the Knauss Policy
Fellowship program in Washington, D.C. About one-third of these
students stay within the D.C. area, working in government offices or in
the halls of Congress. The remaining two-thirds work in industry and
trade associations, in state government as managers, or in academia as
teachers and university researchers.
Operation Pathfinder, offered through regional Sea Grant programs,
is a two-week course aimed at increasing elementary and middle school
teachers'' knowledge of oceanography and other marine-related topics.
By 2000, the program had trained more than 700 teachers, who in turn
trained an additional 14,000 educational professionals in 30 states and
seven U.S. territories. Over a five-year teaching period, these nearly
15,000 teachers have the potential of reaching over 5.5 million K-12
students concerning the relevance of the world's oceans and coastlines
and man's impact on these environments.
The handbook ``Marine Science Careers: A Sea Grant Guide to Ocean
Opportunities'' introduces students to a wide range of marine career
fields and to people working in those fields. Intended for high school
students and guidance counselors, 25,000 copies of the 40-page guide
are now in circulation, 5,000 of which were sent free to high schools
in non-coastal states. The public can now obtain the entire booklet via
web site www.marinecareers.net.
Fourth and fifth graders, most of them from urban areas, are being
made into ``island explorers'' under a University of Southern
California Sea Grant program. So far, some 70 children have been
introduced to the fundamentals of marine science through activities in
the San Pedro Channel and on Catalina Island.
Marine Biotechnology
Sea Grant organized the first systematic research effort in the
United States to develop new drugs from marine organisms, resulting in
the discovery and description of more than 1,000 compounds that may be
vitally important. Some of these Sea Grant-discovered compounds are
being tested by both government agencies and commercial pharmaceutical
companies as possible treatments for AIDS, inflammatory diseases such
as arthritis, and prostate, lung and breast cancers.
Scientists at California Sea Grant have found that the shells and
skeletons of marine organisms have unique traits such as remarkable
strength and biocompatibility that could be used to design valuable,
new advanced materials. For example, coral skeleton, a mineralized
composite used in medical implants and construction materials, provides
a useful model for the design of new high performance composites with a
wide range of potential applications, from microelectronics to new
medical and catalytic devices. Currently, the researchers are working
with the DuPont Corporation and Amgen, Inc., to identify the biological
components and properties that they expect to use for shaping crystal
fibers of skeletal material into micro-thin bundles resembling the
high-performance, fiber optic cables needed for advanced communications
and computing devices.
``Extremophiles,'' organisms that exist in extreme temperature
zones such as underwater thermal vents or ice floes, are being studied
by Washington Sea Grant researchers. For instance, cold-loving
bacteria, collected during several ice-breaking expeditions in the
Greenland and Norwegian Seas, are being studied to increase the variety
of cold-tolerant enzymes available to industry. One of the largest
markets for these enzymes is for use in improving the effectiveness of
energy-saving cold-water detergents.
Using DNA sequences, Sea Grant researchers are developing rapid
field tests to identify harmful algal blooms, a growing environmental
problem in coastal waters worldwide. With accurate field-testing,
managers can respond more effectively to reduce health risks to both
humans and animals.
Seafood Safety and Quality
To aid the seafood industry in complying with new FDA regulations,
the National Sea Grant College Program spearheaded the formation of a
partnership known as the ``Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) Alliance.'' The goal of this alliance was to ensure the safety
and quality of seafood consumed in the United States by developing a
unified training and certification program to properly train thousands
of seafood inspectors, instructors, and workers. In cooperation with
the FDA, the Sea Grant network developed a three-day training program
that is used by both Sea Grant and the National Marine Fisheries
Service to train the trainers.
A cadre of 590 trainers conducted over 350 HACCP courses, teaching
11,000 professionals--90 percent domestic and 10 percent international,
with 75 percent representing commercial interests and 17 percent
regulatory interests. The Alliance's efforts influenced more than 5,000
seafood processing firms in the U.S. and 5,900 importers and their
international suppliers.
In 2000, New York Sea Grant surveyed the 5,000 seafood companies
who had participated in the domestic program. Seven hundred and forty-
four seafood businesses from 43 states and three territories responded
to the survey. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents said they would
not have been able to develop a plan to comply with new U.S. Food and
Drug Administration seafood processing safety regulations without the
in-depth training courses conducted nationwide under the auspices of
the National Sea Grant College Program and the HACCP Alliance. Over 90
percent felt that the Alliance training course provided them with the
information they needed to develop a HACCP plan, understand FDA's
guidance information, and comply with the FDA seafood HACCP regulation.
Eighty-eight percent of the responding firms indicated that employees
from the firm developed their own HACCP plan.
Sea Grant's efforts to help the U.S. seafood industry implement the
new FDA-mandated processing procedures were recognized with the receipt
of a federal Hammer Award for ``partnerships that make a significant
contribution in improving the way federal agencies accomplish their
responsibilities.''
Sea Grant programs are developing rapid and sensitive methods to
detect contaminated seafood. Mississippi-Alabama researchers have
developed fast and highly specific polymerase chain reaction techniques
for detecting several specific pathogens not only in shellfish, but
also in meat products, cooked sausage, and milk. In addition, Louisiana
Sea Grant researchers have developed a quick test for detecting a
bacterium found in food and the environment, which causes severe
disease in some humans and death in those with damaged immune systems.
Now that the more virulent strains of this bacterium can be easily
detected and monitored, consumers can confidently buy and consume safe,
wholesome shellfish.
Conclusion
Increased development, population and pollution in the Nation's
coastal areas are threatening the natural resources upon which so many
individuals and businesses rely on for their economic well being.
NOAA's National Sea Grant College Program focuses on sustainable
development of the Nation's coastal resources through an organization
that is national in scope, university based, and committed to the
transfer of research results to coastal and marine user groups.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today. I look forward to answering any question
you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Evans.
Dr. Knatz?
STATEMENT OF GERALDINE KNATZ, CHAIRMAN, SEA GRANT REVIEW PANEL
Ms. Knatz. Mr. Chairman, members the Committee, my name is
Geraldine Knatz, and I Chair the National Sea Grant Review
Panel, which is the congressionally mandated advisory body to
the Secretary of Commerce, the NOAA administrator, and the
director of the National Sea Grant College Program.
The National Sea Grant Review Panel has taken an active
role in the work of Sea Grant. They are a dedicated group of
leaders in marine and coastal issues from industry, academia,
and local government from around the country.
And I am very proud to say, they make up a major portion of
the audience behind me.
Speaking on their behalf, I thank you for the opportunity
to testify on this important legislation.
The panel strongly endorses the reauthorization of the
National Sea Grant College Program and strongly urges the
Committee to authorize the program at the higher $100 million
level. That should be the starting point for year one, with an
escalation of that dollar number over time.
We also support the inclusion of the Coastal Ocean Program
within the Sea Grant and believe this will solidify greater
cooperation between Sea Grant universities and other NOAA
coastal programs.
Why the bigger number? Because over a period of years, we
have seen erosion of the ability of Sea Grant programs to
provide for their core components; because there are large
coastal areas with no Sea Grant services, such as the South
Pacific and some areas of Alaska; because demand for services
is growing faster than the budget; and because Sea Grant has
identified nine critical strategic areas of focus for the
coming decade. You will hear about many of them this morning.
As a panel member, I have had the opportunity to visit many
programs. I have seen highly creative Sea Grant directors
leverage their Federal dollars to produce extraordinary results
as they have learned to do more with less. Yet opportunity to
support critical research in these nine thematic areas, along
with the transfer of that knowledge to the end-user, are
foregone at the time of increasing pressures on coastal
environments.
Sea Grant is the only NOAA program whose mission is to
transfer research results to the user through a dedicated
extension program.
Recently the review panel initiated an independent, in-
depth analysis of the program's extension services. The
results, which are found in this report, ``A Mandate to Engage
Coastal Users,'' were that Sea Grant has proven its ability to
take sound scientific research, present it as an honest broker
to the public and stakeholders for use in public decision-
making.
And another key finding, as you have already heard, is
there are many areas where there are too few extension and
educational specialists: one in Los Angeles, none in San
Francisco, none in the metropolitan northern New Jersey area.
It has been very gratifying to me personally to read in the
written testimony provided by the other speakers today that
almost everyone noted in their written testimony that the
volume of international trade through our Nation's ports will
double in the next 20 years. As managing director of one of the
Nation's largest ports, Long Beach, California, I represent a
segment of the maritime community that exerts significant
pressure on our coastal communities.
I am also responsible at Long Beach for getting ready to
handle that doubling of trade. And I thought you would be
interested in hearing what I have to do, to get ready for that.
First, I need to permanently destroy 800 acres of valuable
marine habitat through the process of dredging and landfilling
to build new container terminals. This is habitat, by the way,
that is an important nursery area for commercially important
species.
Since I only have habitat credits to build 100 acres of new
land, I have to create and additional 700 acres of fishery
habitat. I haven't the foggiest idea where or how I am going to
do that.
I have to eliminate the recreational boating activity in
our harbor because the water area they sail in, I am going to
turn into land.
And I have to get the Federal anchorage areas for ships
fueling and hazardous material handling moved further south out
of the way of my development in front of our city's beaches.
And I have to prepare my community for an additional 60,000
big diesel truck trips per day.
And I hope I am successful, because if I am not, the other
coastal areas already struggling with their own development
pressures are going to have to pick up my slack.
The bottom line is, there is a rapidly expanding market for
the kinds of services Sea Grant can deliver and a need for Sea
Grant's services in the policy and environmental debate over
port development. But the program needs to be positioned both
fiscally and strategically to do this.
As and end-user, I have seen Sea Grant deliver. Sea Grant
has been at the forefront of the battle against invasive
species.
The California Sea Grant program produced this brochure on
our Federal and state ballast water management program. I make
sure that our pilots hand this brochure to the captain of every
vessel that comes into our harbor. It has simple instructions:
what to do, what not to do, don't ballast at night, it has
centerfold pinup of your favorite invasive species.
[Laughter.]
And although we have a stricter program in California, our
compliance rate is over 90 percent. If you ask the Coast Guard
what the compliance rate is with the Federal program in other
areas of the country, you will find in most it is about 30
percent.
This is classic Sea Grant: Take the science; hand it to the
user in a way that the user can understand it. It is also
classic Sea Grant in that this was a rapid response. The Coast
Guard published a notice in the Federal Register; California
quickly passed a law; and all of a sudden, there was a problem.
The Sea Grant university resources were mobilized, and we
immediately had a solution.
Sea Grant is a valuable asset. It is not a handout. It is a
merit-based program. There is a peer review of research and
outreach components. Couple that with the national review panel
that does a substantive review of every program every 4 years.
We actually grade the programs. We go out there. We look at
how they are strategically planning for the future. We look at
the significance of the research results. We look at how
effectively that research gets turned over to the end-user.
We use a business model. What is the return on investment
for the Federal dollar? And we expect results.
And that group behind me may look friendly, but I have to
tell you, they are really tough.
[Laughter.]
Your appropriation, Mr. Chairman, is an investment with
limited risk and great returns.
I am going to conclude my remarks by taking off my Sea
Grant hat, taking off my port hat, and I am left with my mommy
hat. I have two first-graders in public school, so the K-12
education is important to me.
Their elementary school curriculum is almost devoid of
science. It focuses all year on preparing them to take a test
that is going to determine how much money their school gets.
Good thing mom is a scientist, since I figure I am going to
have to teach them science myself.
Every Sea Grant program has to have a K-12 education
program. The panel looks for that when we go out for our
reviews. It is part of our evaluation.
I have seen kids from far-flung areas in Alaska get turned
on to marine science through Sea Grant and the educational
curriculums they have developed.
I have seen kids in Maryland that have had their first
opportunity to look through a microscope because of Sea Grant.
Without Sea Grant, who is going to turn on the next
generation of kids to marine science?
So for all of those kids out there who don't have a
scientist for a mommy, I ask that you think big for them. They
are our future. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Knatz follows:]
Statement of Dr. Geraldine Knatz, Sea Grant Review Panel
Mr. Chairman, my name is Geraldine Knatz and I am the Chair of the
National Sea Grant Review Panel, which is the Congressionally mandated
advisory body to the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Director of
the National Sea Grant College Program.
The National Sea Grant Panel has taken an active role in the work
of Sea Grant, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife & Oceans to discuss
the NOAA Sea Grant Program with you and the members of the
subcommittee. I thank you for the invitation to testify briefly on this
important legislation.
The Panel strongly endorses the reauthorization of the National Sea
Grant College Program and would strongly encourage the Committee to
authorize the program at the higher $100 million level of H.R.1071. We
also support the inclusion of the Coastal Ocean Research Program within
the Sea Grant Program as delineated in the discussion draft provided by
the Chairman. I believe this union of two important NOAA programs will
solidify greater cooperation and coordination between Sea Grant
universities and NOAA's other coastal programs.
My purpose here today is to try to make the case for the future
importance to the national interest of a strong Sea Grant Program, and
its suitability for increases in investment over the coming years. My
objective is to touch upon Sea Grant's unique capabilities that are
particularly well-suited to its important role in U.S. marine science
and the Nation's future capability to manage coastal resources.
This is a time of escalating environmental issues, limited
discretionary government spending, and expanding responsibilities at
all levels of government to effectively manage natural resources. It
will be incumbent on our institutions to support a national
infrastructure that most effectively ensures the nation's future
capacity to manage natural resources. Engagement with universities
affords NOAA essential flexibility, access to the ``clearing houses''
of new ideas and technologies, and development of the human resource
base necessary to maintain critical capacity. University partnerships
allow NOAA to be responsive to new problems. Sea Grant is, today,
NOAA's principal point of engagement with the university community on
coastal and Great Lakes issues.
In perhaps the most ideal and practical application of scientific
research to the nation's needs, NOAA Sea Grant works by staying in
close touch with grassroots needs through its network of marine
extension agents and specialists, then by addressing problems through
competitive, merit-reviewed university research, and by seeking
constant feedback from researchers and users. Recently, the National
Sea Grant Review Panel initiated a review of the Sea Grant Extension
Program that resulted in the report entitled ``A Mandate to Engage
Coastal Users.'' The review committee was chaired by Dr. John V. Byrne,
former NOAA Administrator and President Emeritus of Oregon State
University. I highly recommend this report to the Subcommittee's
attention. A key finding was that Sea Grant Extension has proven its
ability to take the information resulting from sound scientific
research and present it as an honest broker to the public and
stakeholders for use in making public and personal decisions.
In 1997, the Sea Grant Review Panel initiated a rigorous and
continuous program of performance-based evaluations of Sea Grant
programs. This followed from a recommendation made by the Ocean Studies
Board of the National Research Council in their 1994 report, ``Review
of the National Sea Grant College Program.'' A board of visitors,
consisting of Panel members and outside experts and using established
criteria and benchmarks to measure performance, conducts an in-depth
review of accomplishments and impacts of each Sea Grant program. We are
just completing our first four-year cycle of reviews of all 30
programs, and I am pleased to report that the level of performance in
Sea Grant is very high across the Nation.
Observations from these in-depth reviews have identified a number
of areas where NOAA Sea Grant is providing leadership:
a) in marine biotechnology to develop new materials, better
seafood products, environmental remediation, and new pharmaceuticals
(antibiotics and other new medicines) from the sea;
b) in seafood safety to educate workers to the highest standards
of food safety and, thus, to ensure that consumers have a high quality
supply of seafood, and that seafood businesses can be more competitive;
c) in coastal climate and hazards research to assist coastal
residents in preparing for hurricanes, storm surges and tsunamis,
coastal erosion and subsidence, and sea level rise, with potential
savings in the billions of dollars;
d) in the numerous recent problems of disease in fish and marine
life along the coasts and estuaries;
e) in exotic and nonindigenous species research to understand and
mitigate invasions of species such as the zebra mussel in the Great
Lakes, which represent a billion-dollar threat to water supplies and
ecosystem quality;
f) in the preservation of the habitats of fish and various marine
species; and
g) in sustainable coastal development to provide science-based
information to businesses and local governments to foster
environmentally-sound economic growth.
Sea Grant provides substantial leverage to the federal investment.
Today, for every $1 million in federal funds invested, an additional
$600 thousand is contributed by non-federal partners. Additional
financial leverage is achieved through cooperative partnerships with
federal and state agencies. Sea Grant has long been known for its
economic contributions and very positive return on investment. For
instance, Sea Grant spearheaded the formation of an alliance of federal
agencies, industry, and universities to aid the seafood industry in
meeting the training needs called for by new FDA regulations. This
seafood alliance reached more than 5,000 U.S. processing plants, and
6,000 importers and international suppliers with training on new
seafood handling and processing techniques. It has been estimated that
the program prevented 20,000 to 60,000 seafood related illnesses a
year, thereby saving as much as $115 million annually.
NOAA Sea Grant's highly effective infrastructure involves
partnerships with this nation's finest universities. The long-standing
network of relationships among local, state, regional and national
constituencies is unique and a virtually irreplaceable resource to
NOAA. To summarize, Sea Grant is an efficient, results-oriented, well-
managed federal-state partnership that gets things done that need doing
in the context of NOAA's mission. We would argue that Sea Grant is
exemplary in satisfying the first criterion of a good public
investment, namely institutional effectiveness.
I would like to address for this Committee whether the societal
needs for the services Sea Grant provides are growing, whether they are
critical to the national interest, and whether they are already
duplicated in the federal infrastructure. I would argue that the
Congress'' rationale for the first Sea Grant Act makes a much more
compelling story today and for the foreseeable future; that Sea Grant
contributes significantly to the national interest and is not
duplicated elsewhere is equally compelling.
Our argument rests largely on the extreme pressure on the
coastlines of the United States from increased population growth and
development. Today, over half of the population of the U.S. lives in
coastal (including the Great Lakes) counties. The rate and scale of
that growth are unprecedented but not yet well appreciated by the
general public. As coastal development pressures increase and coastal
population rises, the impacts on the environment will become more
severe. A few examples make the point.
a) Recent census figures indicate that the U.S. has added about 33
million people since 1990, equal to the current population of
California. Fully, one half of that addition was accounted for by just
seven coastal states. Seventeen of the 20 most populous states, in
2000, are coastal states.
b) Studies at the University of Illinois indicate that by 2025,
the nation's top 20 oceanic and Great Lakes coastal metropolitan
regions are likely to increase their population by 32 million people,
their urban footprints or sprawl to expand by 45% or 9,000 sq. miles.
c) By 2020, ocean borne trade is expected to at least double and
inland traffic increase by 30 %. It is estimated that the marine
transportation system contributes more than $700 billion to GDP.
d) Eighty-five percent of U.S. tourist revenues are in coastal
states, 6.4 trillion tons of sand are moved each year for beaches,
wastewater effluents to U.S. receiving waters are in excess of two
trillion gallons/day, and the U.S. imports over $14 billion of seafood
annually.
e) A recent study by the National Research Council indicates non-
point source pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus now represents the
largest pollution problem facing U.S. coastal waters. That pollution is
linked to a host of other problems including dead zones, anoxia, fish
kills and noxious algal blooms.
f) Serious erosion damage is occurring along more than 70% of all
U.S. coastlines, apparently due to rising sea level, increased storm
activity, and other causes.
I could site many other examples. The take home message is that the
economic, environmental and social demands on our coastal regions are
immense and are growing rapidly as the population increases. The need
for practical, timely solutions to problems, resolution of conflicting
uses, and help in general will grow as threats increase in scale and
complexity. It will be imperative that our institutions of governance
at the national, state and local levels be engaged in this process.
The implications for NOAA and the nation are that there will
continue to be an enormous demand for environmental knowledge and
understanding as well as environmental literacy and public awareness.
There will also be a premium on environmental protection, best
management practices, education, communication, and the social
dimensions of multiple use conflict resolution. It will also call for
the rapid synthesis and dissemination of science-based information for
societal benefit. Finally, effective solutions will require a more
dispersed, participative regulatory climate with increased local and
regional stakeholder input to public policy and greater engagement and
coordination among federal, state and local entities with coastal
jurisdictions.
Currently, Sea Grant is the only federal institution whose mission,
as mandated by Congress, is to specifically focus on the sustainable
development of the Nation's coastal resources accomplished through an
organization national in scope, university-based, and committed to the
creation and transfer of science-based knowledge to user
constituencies. Sea Grant is the only program in NOAA whose mission is
the transfer of ocean and coastal knowledge to the user through a
dedicated nationwide extension program. It is these inherent attributes
in terms of organizational strength, mission and output of services
that make Sea Grant's contributions fully consistent with the
unprecedented demands on the country's coastal resources. In a business
sense, there is a rapidly expanding market for those things Sea Grant
does best.
Sea Grant's combined strengths are unique and cannot easily be
duplicated in other areas of NOAA or the federal infrastructure as a
whole. In addition to Sea Grant's powerful enabling infrastructure with
its track record of success, network of long-standing constituent
relationships and congruence of output to growing national needs, we
must be aware of the unique value added to investments in Sea Grant
that derive from the collective strengths of that infrastructure. The
more important are listed below:
a) The stability of partnerships between NOAA and Sea Grant
Colleges and institutions allows the agency to address long-term
programmatic goals and develop constituent relationships and local
leadership nationwide.
b) Having local management in place ensures NOAA's investment
flows to the highest local priorities, bringing the most appropriate
university resources to bear on these problems. Presence of a highly
effective extension and outreach infrastructure enables rapid transfer
of objective information to users, timely identification of emerging
issues, and a forum to engage local constituencies in policy and
priority setting.
c) NOAA Sea Grant is a major national educational resource for
developing marine scientists, engineers, coastal and resource managers,
and professionals in related fields. Having supported tens of thousands
of undergraduate and graduate students over its history, ``graduation''
has become one of the most effective mechanisms for technology
transfer. Sea Grant's internship and fellowship programs prepare
students for leadership roles in research and resource stewardship.
Marine education programs for K-12 teachers and students are developing
science literacy and assuring that the educational pipeline in critical
skill areas keeps flowing.
d) The NOAA Sea Grant program can and does reach, literally,
millions of people through its communication, education and extension
networks. In a world where public awareness and knowledge of the
environment will be increasingly critical to public policy, NOAA Sea
Grant capabilities play an important role for the agency in
transferring objective information to a diverse, nationwide audience.
e) By reason of its national network structure, Sea Grant is able
to bring the collective assets of a large organization to bear on
issues or problems, yet retain the responsiveness of a much smaller
organization. Sea Grant affords NOAA the flexibility to rapidly
redeploy resources to respond to new problems and new technologies.
This can be done without large capital outlays in personnel and
equipment.
f) Unlike federal agencies that primarily support basic research
or highly application-directed R&D around a few central mission
objectives, NOAA Sea Grant engages university resources in problem
solutions and practical outcomes. This it does on a broad front, using
the leverage of multi-partnerships, multi-disciplines and comprehensive
geographic coverage that characterize today's resource issues.
g) In addition to NOAA Sea Grant's ability to plan nationally and
implement locally, the program evaluates its research portfolio both in
terms of the quality of the science and the relevance of that science
to local, regional and national issues. The result is a research
portfolio devoted to management critical, place based or geographically
specific science where priorities are set with significant user input.
This is a critical but often under-appreciated dimension of Sea Grant's
contribution. Generating science-based information from specific
geographic regions throughout America on an ongoing basis will be
absolutely critical to the country's capacity to adequately manage
coastal resources.
The sum total of the arguments advanced here is that Sea Grant
produces a great return on the investment of public funds, has a
combination of strengths and mission that make it not only effective
but also unique in NOAA and the Federal Government. Its contemporary
management structure, its intense focus on national issues in regions
of great economic and environmental import, and its proven ability to
engage our finest universities in those issues make this program a
prime candidate for an expanded role in this country's coastal agenda.
Future federal investment in U.S. environmental science and
sustainability are inevitable consequences of growth. Unlike, for
instance, existing political coalitions for agriculture or human
health, a national coastal policy and a politically coherent coastal
constituency have only recently begun to emerge. Nonetheless, the
issues of coastal constituents will increasingly demand our attention.
Arguments advanced here support Sea Grant's strong fundamentals in
terms of relevance, cost effectiveness, productivity and the high
quality of its programs, and Sea Grant's important role in any future
national coastal agenda. The aforementioned NRC and Byrne Committee
reports observe that, given the importance of the coasts to the
country's well-being plus the complexity and urgency of producing
adequate science for management decision making, Sea Grant's ability to
address the myriad opportunities where it could make a difference is
significantly hindered by financial resources. There is a host of areas
where additional investments in Sea Grant could have a long-term,
positive effect on U.S. marine science, education, and coastal
management practices. Listed below are some of the most promising.
a) Sea Grant's Science Portfolio: Sea Grant now spends for
scientific research, on average, a little over $1 million annually in
federal funds for each of 30 programs nationwide. That equates to
relatively few (ca 16) modest sized (<$100K) research grants per year
per program. While Sea Grant has been very successful in engaging
university researchers and leveraging through partnerships, less than 1
in 5 proposals is funded. In a recent aquaculture competition,
proposals totaled almost 50 times the available funds. Sea Grant has
recently identified 9 critical strategic areas of focus for the coming
decade. Yet, many opportunities to support timely, management critical
science in these areas are foregone at a time of increasing pressures
on coastal environments. In addition, over the last two decades, the
cost of college and university operations has increased significantly
faster than inflation in the general economy as measured by consumer
prices (154% vs. 118%), seriously affecting the purchasing power of
university-based research. Environmental science is in many ways
analogous to medical science in complexity, dimensionality, and impact
on human welfare. By comparison, Sea Grant's total appropriation is
about 12% of NIH's smallest institute (Environmental Health Science).
b) Sea Grant's Outreach Capability: Engagement of the public at
all levels is increasingly important to enlightened public policy, and
Sea Grant has an extensive and effective network in place. On average,
however, Sea Grant supports wholly or in part only about seven
extension and education specialists per local program. Sea Grant has
few agents serving rapidly growing urban areas. For instance, there is
only one agent for Los Angeles, none in San Francisco, and none in
metropolitan northern New Jersey. By comparison, although over half the
population and a large fraction of GDP are coastally located, Sea Grant
appropriations are only 3% of equivalent funding for the Department of
Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Program.
c) Regional Research: Many of the most difficult coastal problems
are multi-state or regional in nature, yet the federal research
infrastructure in marine science is not well-organized to plan and
execute regional research nationwide on an ongoing basis. Sea Grant, by
reason of its stable regional infrastructure, relationships with state,
federal, local and university constituencies, and familiarity with
regional issues is well-suited to plan and manage regional research
programs. Examples of Sea Grant responding to regional problems include
efforts targeting Chesapeake Bay eutrophication (``loading'' of
nitrogen compounds), Pfiesteria bloom fish kills, Steller sea lion
mortality, and zebra mussel control and mitigation. Yet, today, only
about 5% of Sea Grant's budget is devoted to regional or multi-program
research.
d) Expanded Geographic Coverage: Currently, significant geographic
areas in Sea Grant's Congressionally mandated regional responsibilities
are not currently served because of funding limitations. These include
several states as well as American Samoa, Guam, and other parts of the
Western Pacific region which have an enormous Exclusive Economic Zone.
In addition, several coastal states now share programs with adjacent
states.
e) National Research and Outreach Programs: Sea Grant currently
spends about 20% of its federal budget on highly focused initiatives
directed toward pressing national problems. Examples include exotic
species, shellfish disease, fish habitat, and marine biotechnology. Sea
Grant plays a leadership role nationally in all of these areas.
However, these areas represent a small fraction of the problem areas
that coastal constituencies are facing, and the investment here is
modest in relation to the magnitude of the problem. The federal
investment in Sea Grant's well-regarded exotic species program
nationwide is $3 million annually while for a national extension/
education program for coastal decision makers, the sum is $1.5 million.
The opportunities for federal interagency partnerships through this
mechanism have barely been scratched.
f) Climate and Natural Hazards: Coastal population growth has
greatly increased the public's risk from extreme events. Recent changes
in global climate and its variability such as El Nino events are
indicative of significant climate effects on coastal environments,
ranging from coastal erosion to atmospheric deposition to the
recruitment of marine fishes. Only recently has the Sea Grant network
begun to engage NOAA's climate/weather capabilities, yet many pressing
coastal problems such as wetlands loss are driven in part by climate/
weather factors. Such issues promise to expand considerably, yet,
today, Sea Grant has limited resources to address them.
In closing, we believe Sea Grant is vital to the mission of NOAA
and its unique strengths argue for its greater role in U.S. ocean
science and coastal resource management. It is these inherent strengths
and increasing demand for the services Sea Grant provides that make
authorizing Sea Grant at a higher level of federal investment so
important. It is a program that works and its products are valued by
those it serves. We look forward to working with you on the
legislation.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Maybe we can have a Sea Grant fellow in each public school
district.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Knatz. That would be great.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. We will put that in the reauthorization.
[Laughter.]
I think we got a spark.
Ms. Penny Dalton?
STATEMENT OF PENELOPE DALTON, VICE PRESIDENT AND TECHNICAL
DIRECTOR, CONSORTIUM FOR OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
Ms. Dalton. Good morning.
Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning.
Ms. Dalton. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify on the National Sea Grant Program. I am Penny Dalton,
vice president and technical director of the Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education.
CORE is the Washington, D.C.-based association of U.S.
oceanographic research institutions, universities, laboratory,
and aquaria.
Our 67 members represent the Nation's leaders in ocean
research and education. Many of our CORE institutions house Sea
Grant programs as integral and essential parts of their overall
curricula and activities.
Over the past 35 years, the Sea Grant network has built
widespread support throughout the oceanographic community.
The program's success is built on five key points.
First and foremost, the heart of the Sea Grant is its
scientific research. From the time the National Sea Grant
Program Act was enacted in 1966, the ocean community recognized
that the program had to be scientifically credible if it was to
be successful. The community also recognized the dire need for
a university-based ocean and coastal research program that was
equivalent to the National Land Grant institutions.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Stratton
Commission, Sea Grant was moved to the fledgling National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970. Since then, it
has allowed NOAA to develop a marine knowledge base with
benefits to both environment and economy.
During my tenure at NOAA, I relied on Sea Grant expertise
in a few of the many resource crises that I faced--things that
ranged from Steller sea lions in Alaska to the lobster die-off
in Long Island Sound.
The second key element of the Sea Grant program is
education. Sea Grant education builds on its science base to
develop a scientifically literate cadre of oceanographers,
biologists, chemists, ecologists, and geologists who can
understand changes in our coastal and ocean environment. And
better yet, they can explain them.
Further, the program is making sure that today's K-12
students have the skills they need to prepare for a career in
the ocean sciences.
Putting my CORE hat back on, for example, the Sea Grant
institutions are critical to the success of our National Ocean
Sciences Bowl that CORE sponsors annually for high school
students.
For more than three decades, Sea Grant has framed
educational opportunities and outreach for marine science and
policymakers in this Nation.
From a personal education perspective, Sea Grant has
changed my life. In 1985 I received a Sea Grant fellowship to
work for the Senate Commerce Committee. The experience opened a
whole arena of marine policymaking to me. I hope that you will
continue to give other new scientists that exciting
opportunity.
Analogous to the Land Grant colleges, the third key element
of the National Sea Grant College Program is its extension
program. We often hear complaints that scientists take forever
to translate their research results into information that can
be used in the real world. The Sea Grant extension program
provides a mechanism for informing the public about key marine
and coastal issues and how best to address them with current
scientific understanding.
The flexibility of the extension program allows for rapid
response to emerging issues. Several years ago during the
Pfiesteria scare, the Sea Grant extension program was on the
scene, providing marine communities with the data they need to
understand and tackle the program.
Sea Grant has become an expert at finding better ways to do
things, from building houses that withstand hurricanes to
designing nets to protect sea turtles.
The fourth key element is Sea Grant's proven ability to
leverage the funds it receives to give the taxpayers the best
value for our Federal dollars.
Last year the National Sea Grant College Program received
appropriations of $62 million for its base program and $10
million for projects around the Nation. These funds were
matched with $33 million from nonfederal program partners,
exceeding the legal requirement for a $1 match for every 2
Federal dollars Sea Grant receives.
I cannot think of a better measure of Sea Grant's success
than the commitment by its partners at the state and local
level to go above and beyond the matching requirement.
Responding to the success, CORE urges that Sea Grant be
funded at at least the $75 million base level in fiscal year
2003. In addition, we support the proposal for $15 million in
competitive grants in zebra mussel, oyster disease, and harmful
algal bloom research.
CORE requests that Congress seriously consider the proposal
in H.R. 1071 to fund Sea Grant at $100 million per year. It is
clear that this investment will help us to better meet the
demand our Nation is placing on ocean and coastal resources, a
demand we all know is growing.
A lot of people have talked about the comparison to the
Land Grant colleges. The American Association for the
Advancement of Science estimated that the Land Grant colleges
received $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2001. Sea Grant receives
roughly 5.6 percent of that total. If Sea Grant funding is
increased to the $100 million level, it will still be only one-
tenth the size of the current Land Grant College Program.
A modest investment in boosting Sea Grant funding could
result in large returns for all taxpayers, from the heartland
to our coasts.
The fifth and final key element is that Sea Grant is a
network with a capacity to build partnerships among
universities, government agencies and the private sector. No
single government agency or department will ever have the
ability to address every ocean and coastal problem. This is
especially true in coastal areas where we have a Gordian knot
of Federal, state and local organizations with different
statutory obligations. By making partnership a cornerstone of
Sea Grant, its founders recognized the need for and built a
program that solves problems in coastal communities by bringing
people together.
By developing a national network composed of regionally
relevant programs, Sea Grant provides a capability that can
contribute to sound ocean and coastal policies at all
geographic scales.
Now we must maintain and look for new ways to make use of
that Sea Grant network.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. CORE looks
forward to working with you, and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]
Statement of Penelope Dalton, Vice President, Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education
Good afternoon, Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Underwood,
members and staff. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify
on the National Sea Grant College Program. I am Ms. Penelope Dalton,
Vice President of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and
Education (CORE). CORE is the Washington, DC-based association of U.S.
oceanographic research institutions, universities, laboratories and
aquaria. Our 67 members represent the nucleus of this Nation's ocean
research and education institutions.
CORE is experiencing many leadership changes these days as a result
of a flurry of ocean activity. Many of you know that our current CORE
President, Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., has been nominated
to be the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I am confident that
Admiral Lautenbacher will do a superb job at NOAA and our community is
fortunate that the President selected a man of his stature and talent
for this important job. Admiral Lautenbacher's predecessor, and CORE
President Emeritus, Admiral James D. Watkins is now heading up the
President's Commission on Ocean Policy. These two appointments strongly
suggest to me that coastal and ocean policies are now gaining the
stature and priority they deserve. I should point out that while these
appointments are gratifying to CORE members, we will be sending
President Bush a bill for a headhunter as we begin our search for our
next CORE president.
Today's hearing is to address the National Sea Grant College
Program reauthorization and my testimony is going to focus on five key
areas:
1. Science
2. Education
3. Extension
4. Leverage
5. Partnership
First and foremost, science and research are at the heart of Sea
Grant College program. Sea Grant was originally in the National Science
Foundation in the late 1960's because it was recognized by many in the
ocean community that the program had to be scientifically credible to
be successful. The community also recognized the dire need for a
university-based research program for our ocean and coasts that was to
be the equivalent of our land grant institutions. With the passage of
the National Sea Grant College and Program Act in 1966, the program got
underway and in 1968, Sea Grant officially awarded its first grants.
With the Stratton Commission, Sea Grant was moved to the fledgling
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and has played an
instrumental role in helping NOAA to expand our Nation's knowledge base
in our coastal and ocean areas with benefits to both environment and
economy.
Everything that Sea Grant did then and does today does starts with
sound science. I cannot overemphasize how important this is in terms of
the concept of the Sea Grant ``house.'' The solid foundation of the Sea
Grant ``house'' is science and it provides the rationale for all other
aspects of the Sea Grant program.
The second section of the Sea Grant ``house'' is education.
Education logically follows from good science and involves taking the
scientific results gained from hypothesis-driven experimentation and
making the results available to all sectors of our nation so that they
can apply knowledge gained in a beneficial way to any sector of our
national economic activity. Education involves building a
scientifically literate cadre of oceanographers, biologists, chemists,
ecologists and geologists who have the skill to understand and
comprehend changes in our coastal and ocean environment. It also
involves making sure that today's K-12 students have the skills they
need to prepare for a career in the ocean sciences. The students in
today's Sea Grant colleges will be the future leaders in marine policy
for our nation, and Sea Grant has provided an intellectual pipeline for
our nation's future, a future that will obviously be more dependent
upon our coastal economies and environment. Having the brightest
scientific minds will enable us to better understand our options and
limitations and Sea Grant is producing the intellectual capital needed
to meet those demands. Education is in essence the frame of the Sea
Grant ``house'' and for over 30 years Sea Grant has provided
educational opportunities and outreach for those interested in seeking
the best answers for our nation in marine science and policy.
The third part of Sea Grant that is analogous to the Land Grant
colleges is the extension program. The Sea Grant extension program is
the key to taking results out of the laboratory and applying them in
the real world. Many of us are aware that in the health sciences, there
is a severe time delay between getting needed information out of the
lab and into the hands of health care professionals in a timely manner.
The Sea Grant extension program is the instrument by which research
becomes a tangible result for the taxpayer in timely fashion. Through
the extension program, Sea Grant has informed the public about key
marine and coastal issues and how best to address them with current
scientific understanding. The flexibility of the extension program
allows for rapid response to emerging issues. Several years ago there
was a Pfiesteria scare that many of us in this room are very familiar
with. Sea Grant and its extension program was on the scene providing
marine communities with the data that they needed to understand and
tackle the problem. The Sea Grant extension program is in many regards
our nation's first responder to marine and coastal emergencies.
The fourth element that is key to Sea Grant is leverage. In fiscal
year 2001, the National Sea Grant College program used $62 million in
NOAA appropriated funds as well as $10 million in passthrough funds for
projects around the nation. Sea Grant is required by law to secure $1
in non-federal funds for every $2 dollars of federal funds
appropriated. In fiscal year 2001, Sea Grant obtained $33 million from
non-federal matching funds by program partners. Thus, Sea Grant non-
federal partners have demonstrated that they believe Sea Grant is
working better than intended because they put in more money than they
were required to match. I cannot think of a better performance measure
of Sea Grant's success that the commitment by these non-federal
partners, which are mostly state governments, to go above and beyond
their commitment in a world where budgets are tight. Because the states
and other non-federal partners have demonstrated by their financial
commitment that they deem Sea Grant worthy of more dollars, I believe
it is time for us to reconsider the right level of federal funding for
Sea Grant. It is the CORE position that Sea Grant should be funded at
least at the $75 million dollar base level in fiscal year 2003 and we
believe the additional $15 million for competitive grants in zebra
mussel, oyster disease, and harmful algal bloom research are worthy of
support. We also ask that Congress seriously consider Mr.
Faleomavaega's proposal in H.R. 1071 to fund Sea Grant at $100 million
per year. It is clear that this investment will help us to better meet
the demand our Nation is placing on coastal and ocean resources a
demand, I might add, that we all know is growing exponentially.
The fifth and final key to the Sea Grant program is that it brings
together science, education, extension and leverage in partnership with
many universities, agencies, industries and other organizations. The
days of one federal agency or department or one level of our federalist
system of government addressing every problem in ocean and coastal
policy are over. This is especially true in our coastal areas where
there is a Gordian knot of federal, state, and local organizations with
different statutory obligations. Sea Grant is fortunate that the
visionaries who founded the program over 30 years ago recognized the
need for a program with the capacity to incorporate all the various
players at all the different levels. By making partnership a
cornerstone of Sea Grant, these visionaries recognized that we could
solve problems in our coastal communities only by working together. Sea
Grant responsiveness to problems and opportunities identified by
coastal residents and businesses as well as local, regional, state and
federal agencies works because of the partnership ethos in the program.
By making partnerships central to its approach to remedying ocean and
coastal problems Sea Grant has built bridges across boundaries that
many did not believe possible. This is a remarkable feat.
There is just one final thought I'd like to leave you with today to
make a point of comparison. The Land Grant College program, currently
administered by the Department of Agriculture, has a line item called
the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES). For fiscal year 2001, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) has estimated that the Land Grant
colleges and their associated extension service will receive over $1.1
billion in appropriated funds in the CSREES line item. Sea Grant, the
analogous program for our coasts and oceans, which is where most of our
population lives or is moving, received by comparison $62 million or
roughly 5.6 percent of the total for Agricultural research and
extension. By increasing Sea Grant funding to the $100 million level,
it will still only be one-tenth the size of the Land Grant program,
assuming the program does not grow. I think a modest investment in
boosting the Sea Grant level of funding will result in large returns
for all taxpayers from the heartland to our coasts.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
working with you on these issues and would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
We will have some questions on summer flounder later.
[Laughter.]
We have a vote and I would like to hear the remaining two
members testify. So what I would like to do is just recess for
about 15 minutes.
I would encourage everyone to take advantage of that break
to socialize.
[Laughter.]
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing will come to order.
Thank you all for your patience.
I don't think we will be interrupted again before we
finish.
Dr. Richmond, thank you again for the distance that you
traveled to get here. You may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RICHMOND, PROFESSOR OF MARINE BIOLOGY,
MARINE LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF GUAM
Mr. Richmond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very
pleased to be here.
My name is Dr. Robert Richmond. I am a professor of marine
biology at the University of Guam Marine Laboratory and the
past director of that research facility. And in that capacity,
I served as the director of a Sea Grant program that we once
had in Guam.
I would like to thank the Chair and the members of the
panel for the opportunity to testify here today and to
recognize Congressman Underwood for his efforts on behalf of
the region. Today I will be speaking not only for myself, and
submitting written testimony of my own, but also from several
key individuals.
In that light, I would like to say that the testimony I am
providing is at a regional level and, in that vein, recognize
Delegate Faleomavaega and the American Samoa delegation,
primarily Lelei Peau, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force all-
islands group that has helped move this initiative forward.
I have submitted written testimony on behalf of four other
individuals:
Mr. Patrick Tellei is the president of Palau Community
College and was duly selected by the six institutions of higher
education, namely American Samoa Community College, College of
the Marshall Islands, College of Micronesia-FSM, Northern
Marianas College, Palau Community College, and the University
of Guam. Mr. Tellei was chosen as the Chair to represent all
six of the institutions in an effort to pull together a
regional Sea Grant consortium.
I also have written testimony submitted from Mr. Noah
Idechong, who is a member of the Palau National Congress. He is
the Chair of a group called MAREPAC, the Marine Resources
Pacific Consortium. And he was chosen among nine islands in the
Pacific to represent the marine resource managers. He is also
notable; he received a Pew fellowship in marine conservation,
the Goldman Prize for Environmental Achievement, and he is also
noteworthy for being featured in Time magazine in the year 2000
special issue on Earth week as one of eight heroes of the
Earth.
Dr. Steven Amesbury is the director of the UG Marine
Laboratory and was selected by the six institutions of higher
education to be the administrative director of the proposed
consortium.
And also from Gerald Davis, a regional fisheries officer
who serves on the governing board of MAREPAC.
In addition, what I submitted is a rationale for the
program, which was included in the packages and a communique
that was put together by the executive officers of the six
institutions of higher education, requesting consideration for
a regional Sea Grant consortium.
On their behalf and on my own behalf, I would like to speak
strongly in support of the Sea Grant reauthorization bill and
also the enhancement act that was being presented for
discussion.
As part of that, included in your package is a color map of
the region that I am talking about. It is a fairly far-flung
region and often difficult for people outside of the area to
know what we're talking about. But it is an area that is
composed of six major island groups; as I mentioned, American
Samoa, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, Guam, Palau, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
Within this group, it is an area of ocean greater in size
than that of the continental United States. It contains the
greatest level of marine biodiversity of any areas within the
U.S. and associated with the U.S.
It is 99.9 percent water. It is interesting to note that
all of these institutions have Land Grant status, and up to
this date, there is still not Sea Grant status for an area this
large.
This is one of the requests of the group, is to take a look
at the options and the opportunities, to look at the incredible
interest from the region, the tremendous expertise in terms of
traditional resource management that exists out there. We are
looking at an area that has total cultural and economic
dependence on the ocean.
For example, I can point out one dive site in Palau alone,
known as the Blue Corner. Anybody who dives knows it. It is a
very famous spot. That one dive site generates over $2.8
million a year every year to the people of Palau just on diving
alone.
We have seen in the last 5 years tremendous changes in the
quality of the reefs in the region. Part of it is due to global
climate change. We saw about 30 percent of Palau's corals
disappear in a 2-month period. It is an area that is ripe for
additional research, capacity building, community outreach and
education.
And I would like to point out that it is not only an area
that could benefit tremendously from the kinds of services that
can be provided by Sea Grant but also has a lot to offer in
return in terms of unsurpassed expertise in the marine
management field. We are looking at islands that have marine
managers that can draw on a system that has been in place for
at least a 1,000 years. If you compare that to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, it has been around for a lot shorter time. We can
see that the traditional systems of the Pacific have actually
been more effective in resource management. Unfortunately, many
of these have never had to deal with things like
organophosphate pesticides and jet skis, and hence, we really
need a marriage between Western science and knowledge and
traditional knowledge, to be able to make this work out there.
We strongly support--and every one of the bits of testimony
that I brought from the other individuals from the region
strongly support the Sea Grant mission, the goals of objectives
in the program, and simply asks that this group as well as the
administrators within NOAA and Sea Grant provide some guidance
and assistance in moving the region forward in obtaining Sea
Grant status.
We realize that it is a long-term process and that there
are steps to go through, but all of these institutions are
committed to working together to try to make this happen.
In the words of Noah Idechong, the Chair of MAREPAC, who
has provided tremendous leadership to the region over the
years, he pointed out that money doesn't solve problems, people
do. In this case, money is a very important tool to be able to
provide institutional support, to be able to provide research
information, to provide educational outreach. But funding alone
is not going to make the difference if the funds are not put
into a place where they can have the most effect. And in this
case, it clearly seems to be within the regional institutions,
taking advantage of the knowledge that exists within these
islands and the expertise that is there and to further develop
it for the future.
So on behalf of this group and behalf of myself, I would
simply like to thank the panel for the opportunity to be here
to express the deep interest in being able to become part of
the Sea Grant partnership and to thank the panel and to be
available for any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Richmond follows:]
Statement of Robert H. Richmond, Ph.D., Professor of Marine Biology,
University of Guam
I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before your
Subcommittee on H.R. 1071. the National Sea Grant College Program
Authorization Enhancement Act, and the accompanying discussion draft
entitled the National Sea Grant Program Act Amendments of 2001. 1 am a
Professor of Marine Biology at the University of Guam Marine
Laboratory, a past Director of this research institute, a council
member of the International Society for Reef Studies. an Affiliate
Graduate Faculty member in the University of Hawaii Zoology Department,
a Research Affiliate of the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, and a
member of the Science and Policy Advisory Committee of the newly opened
Palau International Coral Reef Center. I also serve as the scientific
advisor to the All Islands Group of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and
was the director of the University of Guam Sea Grant Program from 1988-
91. I have worked with regional marine resource managers, educational
institutions, community-based organizations and stakeholders in the
Insular Pacific for over 20 years to collect and disseminate accurate
and adequate information upon which appropriate management decisions
can be made.
I fully support the goals and objectives of the National Sea Grant
College Program as important to the future of ocean resources. I have
had the opportunity to review numerous proposals for the various Sea
Grant College programs, and have been impressed with the contributions
made using Sea Grant support. Effective partnerships between
institutions of higher education and the private sector have been
constructive, and some of the extension activities have helped educate
the public and provide needed outreach services. I live and work in a
region that is over 99% ocean and less than 1 % land. yet has been
unable to draw much in the way of benefits from Sea Grant. In the past,
this could be partially attributed to limited institutional
capabilities within the region. but those days are over. The six
regional institutions of higher education, American Samoa Community
College. the College of the Marshall Islands, the College of
Micronesia-FSM, Northern Marianas College, Palau Community College and
the University of Guam have grown and developed over the past decade,
have added highly trained faculty and researchers, built new facilities
and are developing critically-needed marine curricula. Sea Grant has
the potential to provide an essential framework to further develop the
capacity of the islands to address critical marine resource management
programs, but any such effort has to allow priorities to be set from
within.
I fully support an increase in base funding for the Sea Grant
program as an investment in the future of U.S. marine resources.
However, as we are all aware, money alone, if not properly allocated,
achieves little in terms of deliverables. Funds provided by the
Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs were responsible
for the development of the Marine Resources Pacific Consortium
(MAREPAC), which has served as a model for participatory program
development. Much has been achieved using limited but shared financial,
human and institutional resources. Sea Grant could be a valuable
partner in this effort at ensuring future generations have marine
resources to use and benefit from. while striving to meet some
immediately pressing needs. The members and governing board of MAREPAC
have identified attaining Sea Grant Regional Consortium status for the
six colleges as an important step in addressing marine resource
management sustainability. I can attest to the fact the ability for
success exists if the opportunity is offered. I join my colleagues in
respectfully requesting the assistance and guidance of this
Subcommittee in helping a region that has much to offer in terms of
marine resources, biodiversity, traditional management skills and
unsurpassed expertise. The future generations of the Pacific Islands
need action now, and your consideration of the Sea Grant re-
authorization and enhancement acts comes at a critical time. I
specifically ask that this Subcommittee consider a set-aside for the
Pacific Islands Regional Sea Grant Consortium no less than 20% of what
has been identified for Zebra Mussels, or Oysters or invasive algae.
The region with the richest coral reefs under U.S. jurisdiction, the
highest levels of biodiversity and with the potential for providing
future pharmaceuticals of medical benefit should receive a higher
degree of interest from Sea Grant than has been previously expressed.
I thank you for this opportunity and would be happy to provide
additional information and documentation as requested.
______
[Attachments to Dr. Richmond's statement follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Richmond.
Mr. DeVoe?
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DEVOE, PRESIDENT, SEA GRANT ASSOCIATION
Mr. DeVoe. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee and
staff, good morning. It is an honor and a pleasure for me to be
with you this morning. And it is with great appreciation that
the Sea Grant Association acknowledges your long history of
support for the National Sea Grant College Program.
I have submitted written testimony, and I am just going to
summarize a few of the points that I provided in that.
The Sea Grant Association represents the combined
capabilities of over 200 universities and research institutions
nationwide that participate in the National Sea Grant College
Program. The Sea Grant Association enables these institutions
to coordinate their activities, prioritize action at the
regional and national levels, and to offer a unified voice on
critical coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes issues.
Just as our Nation's Land Grant institutions have
revolutionized agricultural, so too are the Sea Grant colleges
steering our Nation toward a productive and sustainable use of
our coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes resources.
Sea Grant is science serving America's coasts, or, I like
to say, science for society's sake. It is a model Federal
program that continues to make a significant and positive
difference by ensuring through rigorous scientific inquiry,
directed educational outreach, technology transfer, and a focus
on economic development and resource conservation, that the
Nation's invaluable coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources
will continue to provide quality-of-life benefits for present
and future generations.
More importantly, and I think you heard some of this today,
Sea Grant touches the lives of what I would call real people,
people from all walks of life and from all parts of the
country.
The National Sea Grant College Program was last
reauthorized 3 years ago, after extensive review and with
unanimous support of both houses of Congress through the Sea
Grant Reauthorization Act of 1998. The Sea Grant Association
strongly endorses the intent of both the Subcommittee's
discussion draft and H.R. 1071 to substantially increase the
authorization levels for Sea Grant above current levels.
An increased investment in Sea Grant is an investment in
America's economic future. Attempts to balance our booming
coastal economy with its associated impacts on the coastal,
marine, and Great Lakes environment have raised the stakes for
effective government action.
Note, for example, that America's coastlines span more than
95,000 miles and its territorial sea covers 3.4 million square
miles. Over half of the Nation's population of 280 million live
in coastal counties that comprise less than one-fifth of the
total land area of the United States.
The economy of the Nation's coastal counties accounts for
at least 30 percent of the domestic gross national product.
Nearly 14,000 housing units are being built each week in these
counties. Coastal tourism and recreation account for 85 percent
of all U.S. tourism revenues.
The oceans, in one way or another, account for one out of
every six jobs.
Tax revenues in coastal areas are among the fastest growing
revenue sources for state and local governments. And by 2010,
U.S. foreign trade in goods is expected to double to $5
trillion, with oceangoing cargo increasing by 30 percent.
In fact, the collective economic impact of the coastal
economy far exceeds U.S. agriculture, yet Federal investments
in Sea Grant colleges and universities, as it has been
mentioned today before, are significantly less than Federal
investments in the USDA's Land Grant college and university
system, the program on which Sea Grant was modeled.
A significant increase in Sea Grant's authorization levels
will enable it to strategically enhance its investment in
research, education, extension, and outreach programs that
promote sustainable fisheries; encourage the development of
responsible aquaculture; preserve, enhance, and restore
coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources; support quality
community development in urban, suburban, and rural coastal
areas; mitigate coastal hazards; create value through marine
biotechnology; and expand public literacy.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Sea Grant
Association has a vision for the National Sea Grant College
Program; that is to become NOAA's primary university-based
research, education, and technical assistance program for
coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources.
As such, the Sea Grant Association offers the following
comments and suggestions on the Committee discussion draft,
H.R. 1071, and Sea Grant in general.
First, Sea Grant Association respectfully recommends that
the proposed authorization levels for Sea Grant in fiscal year
2004 and beyond be significantly increased and strongly
endorses the intent of both the Subcommittee's discussion draft
and H.R. 1071 to substantially increase the authorization
levels for Sea Grant.
While extremely successful, the ability of Sea Grant to
continue to meet the expectations of Congress has been limited.
The growth of the National Sea Grant College Program has not
matched the extraordinary growth in coastal population,
development, and the demand for Sea Grant information and
services. In fact, the Sea Grant budget has not kept pace with
inflation over the last two decades, much less expanded to meet
the wealth of new challenges and opportunities that face our
country.
The buying power of Sea Grant's current appropriation it 20
percent less than the buying power of its 1980 appropriation.
In fact, staff size of the 30 Sea Grant programs has declined
by 25 percent from fiscal year 1986 to fiscal year 1999. You
have heard the results of some of that, in terms of some areas
of the coastline not receiving coverage, and the island states.
We receive many more quality ideas and proposals than we
can support at this time. And there are significant stretches
of the U.S. coastline that receive little or no attention from
our Sea Grant extension network.
A second point is that the Sea Grant Association
respectfully recommends that the Sea Grant reauthorization
legislation include an escalating scale for authorization
levels, as is the case with the current Sea Grant authorization
and with that proposed in Section 212(a)(3) of the discussion
draft. Adoption of this recommendation will allow the Sea Grant
program to grow proportionally to increases in the cost of
living and, more importantly, to be able to respond to an ever-
increasing demand for Sea Grant services and products.
Third, the Sea Grant Association believes that the National
Sea Grant College Program should be given the responsibility to
manage the coastal ocean research program as identified in the
discussion draft. The Sea Grant Association believes that Sea
Grant can provide the necessary leadership and management in an
increasingly complex programmatic arena and do so in an
efficient and cost-effective manner. Placement of a coastal
ocean research program within Sea Grant would represent an
initial step to integrating NOAA's university-based coastal,
marine, research, and outreach programs.
And finally, the Sea Grant Association respectfully
requests that the coastal ocean research program, if included
in the reauthorization, be exempt from both the matching funds
provision placed on core Sea Grant Federal funds and the
payment on the receipt of Sea Grant funds by Federal
scientists.
Sea Grant by its very nature works in partnership with a
variety of agencies and organizations. Exempting the coastal
ocean research program from these Sea Grant requirements would
allow the national Sea Grant office to develop and leverage
research and outreach initiatives both within NOAA and with
such agencies as the National Science Foundation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal funding
institutions that do not require matching funds and/or do allow
participation by Federal scientists.
In conclusion, we ask that the National Sea Grant College
Program be provided with the full resources it needs to build
on its record of success and promise. A reauthorization that
matches both the immediate and long-term needs of all who live,
work, and play along the Nation's coastlines and one that
represents the initial step in achieving the Sea Grant
Association vision.
We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
members and staff of the Committee, on Sea Grant
reauthorization. Thank you again for the opportunity to be
here, and I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeVoe follows:]
Statement of M. Richard Devoe, President, Sea Grant Association
It is an honor and pleasure for me to be with you this morning, and
it is with great appreciation that we acknowledge your long history of
support for the National Sea Grant College Program.
The Sea Grant Association (SGA) represents the combined
capabilities of over 200 academic and research institutions nationwide
that participate in the National Sea Grant College Program. The SGA
enables these institutions to coordinate their activities, to
prioritize action at the regional and national levels, and to offer a
unified voice on critical coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes issues. Just
as our nation's Land Grant institutions have revolutionized
agriculture, so too are the Sea Grant Colleges steering our nation
toward the productive and sustainable use of our coastal, marine, and
oceanic resources, through integrated programs of scientific research,
education and training, and technical assistance.
The National Sea Grant College Program was last reauthorized three
years ago, after extensive review and with the unanimous support of
both Houses of Congress, through the Sea Grant College Program
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-160). The SGA strongly endorses
the intent of both the Subcommittee's discussion draft and H.R. 1071 to
substantially increase the authorization levels for Sea Grant.
We respectfully suggest, however, that the amounts proposed may not
be sufficient to address the myriad needs and opportunities that our
coastal and ocean resources present. Some coastal areas under U.S.
jurisdiction currently have limited or no Sea Grant Program coverage,
while existing coastal and Great Lakes Sea Grant Programs receive many
more high quality and relevant projects than they can fund.
Additionally, there are significant stretches of the U.S. coastline
that receive little or no attention from our Sea Grant Extension
network of agents and specialists.
An increased investment in Sea Grant is an investment in America's
economic future. Attempts to balance our booming coastal economy with
its associated impacts on the coastal and marine environment have
raised the stakes for effective government action. By 2010, U.S.
foreign trade in goods is expected to double to $5 trillion, with
ocean-going cargo increasing by 30 percent. Coastal tourism and
recreation account for 85 percent of all U.S. tourism revenues. The
oceans, in one way or another, account for one out of every six jobs.
Tax revenues in coastal areas are among the fastest growing revenue
sources for state and local governments. In fact, the collective
economic impact of the coastal economy far exceeds U.S. agriculture,
and yet federal investments in Sea Grant colleges and universities are
much smaller than investments in the Land Grant college and university
system funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for agriculture and
land-based natural resource activities, the program on which Sea Grant
was modeled.
The growth of the National Sea Grant College Program is not
commensurate with the extraordinary growth in coastal population and
development. In fact, the Sea Grant budget has not kept pace with
inflation over the last two decades, much less expanded to meet the
wealth of new challenges and opportunities that face our country. Sea
Grant's appropriations are over 20 percent below the buying power of
its 1980 appropriation. From fiscal year 1986 to fiscal year 1999, Sea
Grant's program-wide staff size declined 25 percent.
These trends prompted the National Research Council to comment in
its 1994 review ``that (Sea Grant) needs additional funding to fulfill
its potential... A steady increase in funding is necessary if the
program's potential contributions to the nation's economic and
environmental health are to be realized.''
Sea Grant represents a terrific federal value. Sea Grant Programs
are required to match $1 in non-federal funds for every $2 of federal
investment. Actually, revenues spent on Sea Grant activities nationwide
from all sources totaled $113.79 million for fiscal year 2001; the
appropriation that year was $62.25 million. This highly leveraged
investment in Sea Grant is crucial to ensure appropriate federal,
state, local, university, and private-sector efforts to support and
enhance our burgeoning coastal economy while conserving and protecting
the coastal and marine resource base upon which it depends.
A significant increase in Sea Grant's authorization will enable it
to strategically invest in research and outreach programs that:
Promote sustainable fisheries. Fishery landings have reached the
maximum capacity of our oceans and coastal waters to produce fish. Sea
Grant can collaborate even more with the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the private sector to develop new approaches to fisheries
management to conserve existing fish stocks and rebuild depleted
fisheries. Sea Grant is uniquely situated to promote collaborations on
subjects critical to decisions being made by fisheries managers on
topics such as stock assessment, habitat and ecosystem health,
environmental contamination, area management strategies, fish biology
and behavior, climate change, management institutions, and conflict
resolution. In addition, research and extension personnel can provide
fisheries managers with the socioeconomic data and analyses necessary
to manage fisheries using techniques that will allow for adequate
economic returns, protect fish stock size, harvest at sustainable
yields, and minimize the impacts on fishermen.
Encourage the development of responsible aquaculture. The United
States faces a seafood deficit amounting to $7 billion annually; it
imports more than 60 percent of the fish and shellfish it consumes.
Marine aquaculture has the potential to provide up to 25 percent of all
seafood consumed by its citizens within the next 20 years, and provides
the ``seed'' for rebuilding some fishery stocks. An example is the
growth of the global shrimp farming industry. According to a recent
USDA report, U.S. shrimp imports were valued at $3.8 billion in 2000.
The value of imported shrimp, Atlantic salmon, and tilapia totaled $4.6
billion. To put this in perspective, imports of these three
aquacultured products in 2000 were worth as much as the combined
exports of the U.S. broiler and hog industries. In addition,
aquaculture of marine aquarium fishes represents a multimillion-dollar
(and growing) market that can relieve fishing pressure on wild stocks,
especially in coral reef habitats. Onshore, near-shore and offshore
marine aquaculture offers vast potential for reducing the demand on
wild fisheries. Sea Grant is particularly committed to enhancing this
budding industry's development in a socially and environmentally sound
manner.
Preserve, enhance, and restore coastal, marine, and Great Lakes
resources. Growth along the nation's coasts has exacerbated coastal
pollution and associated problems such as harmful algal blooms, ``dead
zones,'' nuisance species invasions, coral reef die-offs, and related
effects. Sea Grant can determine the impacts of natural and man-made
change on coastal, marine, and Great Lakes ecosystems, and develop
innovative approaches to protect these habitats from further
degradation and reverse the changes that have occurred. Sea Grant will
emphasize the role of the land in determining the quality of coastal
waters and will provide coastal managers with the scientific and
technological tools they need to address regional and local problems.
Support quality community development in coastal areas. Coastal
communities depend on healthy ecosystems and economies for their
survival. Research to better understand the inter-connectivity between
the economy and the environment, and outreach to expand the scientific
understanding of community planners, business leaders, and citizens,
need to be greatly expanded. Among Sea Grant's assets are ready access
to the university social science community (not available elsewhere in
NOAA), an existing state and local infrastructure to deliver programs
at the community level, and existing or emerging programs in such areas
as waterfront renewal, brownfield redevelopment, tourism development,
transportation planning, ports development, community non-point source
pollution abatement, and planning and zoning, which all are catalysts
for growth. Sea Grant's emerging Coastal Community Development Program
will focus on helping communities that are experiencing a decline of
their resource-dependent industries and/or are facing complex
requirements associated with environmental regulation to develop
robust, sustainable economies.
Mitigate coastal hazards. Over the past 20 years, 44 weather-
related disasters with overall damage costs exceeding $1 billion each
struck the United States. Thirty-eight of these occurred during the
1988-1999 period with total damage costs exceeding $170 billion.
Insurance companies paid out more than $91.8 billion in losses from
weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s, close to four times the
weather-related claims settled during the 1980s. Even so, some $2
trillion in insured property currently lies within 30 kilometers of the
Atlantic coast alone, exposed to the threat of hazard damage.
Nationwide, coastal erosion is responsible for approximately $500
million per year in property loss to coastal property owners, including
damage to structures and loss of land. To mitigate coastal erosion, the
federal government spends an average of $150 million every year on
beach nourishment and other shoreline erosion control measures. Despite
these efforts, over the next 60 years, erosion may claim one out of
four houses within 500 feet of the U.S. shoreline. Sea Grant efforts
can and will enhance preparedness and reduce losses of human life,
property, and environmental resources from coastal natural hazards.
Create value through marine biotechnology. As one of the fastest-
changing areas of modern science, biotechnology has revolutionized
research and the economy. The recent completion of the human genome
project has created a wealth of scientific and commercial opportunity.
Though not yet well developed, the potential applications of marine
biological technologies promise oceans of opportunity. An increased
investment in this area is critical to enable marine researchers to
apply today's rapid advances in molecular biology to the marine
environment. Marine plants, animals, and microorganisms produce a
myriad of unique biochemicals not found on land, and marine natural
products derived from them have demonstrated potential to treat
diseases such as cancer and inflammatory disorders. Even so, most drugs
currently on the market have been derived from land-based organisms.
There is a vast potential for developing new drugs from the sea. At the
same time, these technologies offer equally important opportunities in
the environmental arena. Molecular biology has provided environmental
managers, seafood processors, and the aquaculture industry with an
accessible toolbox that enables them to make better decisions on
critical resource and economic issues. The next generation of
technology for monitoring of biological processes and remediation of
pollutants will be based on the application of these new biological
technologies. Sea Grant has led the Federal effort to target
biotechnology research to seek solutions to pressing problems, to
develop novel applications, and ultimately to realize the immense
economic potential of this emerging field.
Expand public literacy. Virtually every serious study of national
goals for the new millennium underscores the critical importance of
education to national prosperity. The challenges facing this country
require instilling environmental values, behaviors, and literacy in the
decision-making public while developing a highly skilled,
technologically capable workforce. Sea Grant efforts have and will
continue to contribute to improving marine and aquatic science literacy
by enhancing education among formal K-12, undergraduate and graduate
students, and informal sessions with both children and adults.
Increased value in marine and aquatic science education by the American
public is critical to national security, economic development, and the
overall quality of life for everyone.
The purpose of the National Sea Grant College Program can be
summarized in a single phrase: Science Serving America's Coast.
Sea Grant science provides the technical understanding and
underpinning of all it does. Research supported by Sea Grant is based
on competition, undergoes rigorous peer-review, and is geared to
address the many marine and coastal challenges and opportunities that
face our varied constituencies. The federal investment in Sea Grant
enables a nationally coordinated network embedded in the best research
universities to apply unparalleled intellectual capital to address
these problems and opportunities. Cost-effectiveness is enhanced by
access to university management infrastructure.
Sea Grant serves the nation in many ways. Sea Grant's unmatched
access to local constituencies through its extension and outreach
programs ensures that federal investment is targeted at relevant issues
for the benefit of NOAA and other federal agencies, state and local
governments, coastal environmental managers, local fishermen, other
marine resource users, and the general public. This contact also
provides an important conduit for recommendations back to Sea Grant and
NOAA for needed research and improved policies and services. Sea
Grant's non-regulatory and science-based focus has established the
program as an honest broker among a wide range of constituencies. In
addition, marine education programs supported by federal funds reach
from kindergarten to marine-related business people to elder hostels.
The matched federal investment also fills the enormous demand for
expertise to tackle rapid growth, change, and pressure on coastal
resources.
Sea Grant is a national program addressing national needs. It is a
partnership of and depends on partnerships among government, academia,
business, industry, scientists, and private citizens to help Americans
understand and wisely use our precious coastal waters and Great Lakes
for enjoyment and long-term economic growth. This network unites 30
State Sea Grant Programs, over 200 universities, and millions of
people. Sea Grant is an agent for scientific discovery, technology
transfer, economic growth, resource conservation, and public education.
Study after study has shown that Sea Grant returns to the taxpayers
many times its annual budget in goods and services. It is government as
our citizens want it--visible, tangible, relevant, efficient, and
effective.
And Sea Grant focuses its attention on a myriad of needs and
pressures that face the nation's coasts. America's coastal and ocean
resources encompass an immense area with more than 95,000 miles of
coastline and more than 3.4 million square miles of ocean within the
U.S. territorial sea. Over half the nation's 280 million people live in
coastal counties that comprise less than one-fifth of the total land
area of the United States. The economy of these coastal counties is
critical to the economic well being of the entire nation, providing a
wide array of goods and services that account for at least 30% of the
gross national product of the United States. Growth in population and
economic activity in coastal counties is continuing with nearly 14,000
housing units being built every week, resulting in a 25% growth in
coastal counties since 1970. From 1996 to 2015, our nation's coastal
population is projected to increase from 141 million to 166 million.
Sea Grant's unique combination of research, training, outreach, and
education have made it a national leader in such areas as seafood
technology, aquaculture, invasive aquatic species, coastal habitat
enhancement, coastal economic development, and coastal hazards
mitigation. For example--
Scientists with the Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory
at Rutgers University were the first to produce tetraploid Pacific
oysters in 1993, with support from Sea Grant and others, that resulted
in a number of patents in the United States, European Union, Australia,
and elsewhere. (Tetraploid oysters are used as broodstock to produce
100% triploid oysters, noted for their sterility, fast growth, and
superior meat quality.) Continuing research being conducted jointly
with industry partners is focused on the development of disease
resistant strains of American oysters, using the tetraploid
technologies developed for the Pacific oyster. The implications of this
research to the aquaculture industry and the restoration of the oyster
resource in the mid-Atlantic are extremely compelling.
Sea Grant studies of sewage effluent plumes have led to
revisions in pollution control, cleanup, and water treatment that will
save Orange County, CA taxpayers $50 million over a thirty-year period.
Lessons learned from these studies can be applied to other large sewage
plants around the country.
Molecular approaches developed through Sea Grant-funded
research at UCLA have provided new and rapid means of quantifying
bacterial pollution in coastal waters. These novel molecular protocols
allow the quantity of specific bacteria in a sample to be determined
quickly and accurately. This is a valuable rapid-method tool for
monitoring bacterial pollution of coastal waters.
Sea Grant has been instrumental in the development and
construction of wetlands on all four coasts. Wetland loss mitigation
strategies have both created and restored valuable wetlands, while
allowing coastal development valued in excess of $100 million. For
example, the largest wetland restoration and enhancement project in the
United States was conducted in New Jersey and Delaware, involving more
than 17,000 acres of salt marsh.
The high volume of crab wastes generated by crab
processing plants in the mid-Atlantic and southeastern U.S. is of
considerable concern. Most landfills will no longer take this dense
tonnage because crab chum releases ammonia and nitrates that can seep
through soil, potentially polluting shallow aquifers, streams and
creeks. Researchers working with support from the National Sea Grant
Marine Biotechnology Initiative and Maryland Sea Grant have developed
industrial scale processes for remediation of crab waste. While
composting of crab waste is feasible, greater profits can be realized
from purified chemical products such as chitosan, a derivative of
chitin that has numerous high value industrial uses. Using novel enzyme
technologies, studies were conducted to discover how the structure of
chitosan could be controllably altered to allow manufacturers to tailor
its properties for a variety of uses. These efforts have led to patents
and ChitinWorks, a new independent company focused on producing
chitosan from crab waste, in Cambridge, Maryland.
A Texas Sea Grant extension specialist is developing a
training program for the retail grocery industry aimed at significantly
reducing the amount of seafood shrinkage (losses due to spoilage,
contamination, mishandling, etc.), which costs the industry billions of
dollars annually. The projected cost-savings of the program for the
grocery industry could reach over a billion dollars a year.
More than 12,000 graduate and undergraduate students has
been supported through Sea Grant research efforts. Sea Grant-supported
students represent a major component of the nation's skilled workforce
in government, academia, and the private sector. As senior level
personnel leave the federal government, and given the critical shortage
of skilled workers in agencies such as NOAA to replace them, Sea Grant
support for student education and training is more important now than
ever.
COAST: Operation Pathfinder, a Sea Grant-supported marine
science program for teachers, has provided training to over 700
teachers from the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Pacific
affiliates. These teachers have trained, through in-service workshops,
an additional 14,000 teachers, who collectively have the potential of
reaching over 5.5 million K-12 students about the relevance of the
nation's oceans and coastal resources.
Thus, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Sea Grant
Association offers the following comments and suggestions on the
Committee discussion draft, H.R. 1071, and Sea Grant in general:
The SGA respectfully recommends that the proposed authorization
level for fiscal year 2004 be increased, and that Sections 212(a)(1)
and 212(a)(2) of the discussion draft include an escalating scale for
authorization levels as is the case with the current Sea Grant
authorization and with those proposed in Section 212(a)(3). While
extremely successful, the ability of Sea Grant to live up to Congress's
original expectations has been limited, as described in the 1994
National Research Council (NRC) review of the Program which concluded
that ``Sea Grant combines research, outreach, and education activities
to approach these issues of importance to society and provides a great
potential resource to its parent agency, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).'' However, the NRC goes on to say
that ``(t)he great potential of the program has not been achieved,
however, because of fiscal limitations '' Adoption of these
recommendations will allow the Sea Grant Program to grow proportionally
to increases in the cost of living and, more importantly, to an ever-
increasing demand for Sea Grant services and products.
The SGA believes that the National Sea Grant College Program is
more than capable to manage the Coastal Ocean Research Program as
suggested in Section 212(a)(3) of the Committee's discussion draft. The
Sea Grant Association believes that Sea Grant can and should become
NOAA's primary university-based research, education and technical
assistance program for coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources.
Placement of the Coastal Ocean Research Program within Sea Grant
represents an initial step to consolidate NOAA's university-based
research and outreach programs. The SGA concurs that Sea Grant can
provide the necessary leadership and management in an increasingly
complex programmatic arena and do so in an efficient and cost-effective
manner.
The SGA respectfully requests that the Coastal Ocean Research
Program, if included in the reauthorization of the National Sea Grant
College Program, be exempt from both the matching funds provision
placed on all other Sea Grant federal funds and the ban on the receipt
of Sea Grant funds by federal scientists. Sea Grant by its very nature
works in partnership with a variety of agencies and organizations.
Exempting the Coastal Ocean Research Program from these Sea Grant
requirements would allow the National Sea Grant Office to develop and
leverage research and outreach initiatives both within NOAA and with
such agencies as the National Science Foundation, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal funding institutions
that do not require matching funds and do allow participation by
federal scientists.
The Sea Grant Association respectfully requests that the Committee
consider combining all NOAA university-based coastal, marine, and Great
Lakes research and outreach programs, where appropriate, under one
Assistant Administrator, and designate Sea Grant as the lead agency. A
consolidated program and improved access to the Administrator will
allow NOAA to better tap Sea Grant's unique grassroots contacts, its
university brain trust, and its close working relationships with the
scientific community and Congress.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Sea
Grant is not just another government program. It is Science Serving
America's Coast, a program that makes a significant and positive
difference in the lives of citizens who depend on our shorelines and
oceans. Sea Grant makes a difference by ensuring that--through rigorous
scientific inquiry, directed educational outreach, technology transfer,
and a focus on sustainability--the nation's invaluable coastal, marine,
and Great Lakes resources will continue to provide benefits for future
generations.
We ask that you provide the National Sea Grant College Program with
the full resources it needs to build on this record of success and
promise--a reauthorization that matches both the immediate and long-
term needs of all who live, work, and play along the nation's
coastlines.
The SGA looks forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
members and staff of the committee on Sea Grant reauthorization. Thank
you again for the opportunity to testify before you this morning, and I
will be glad to address any questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. DeVoe.
Dr. Evans, Dr. Richmond recommended a Sea Grant consortium,
which would take in those islands in the Pacific--Guam,
American Samoa, and so on--in an area that was basically larger
than the continental U.S., which Mr. Underwood showed me on a
map.
Could you comment on that recommendation? Is that something
you have thought about before in NOAA? Is it something that
would be worth the commitment in time, money, and personnel?
Mr. Richmond. The simple answer to your question--actually,
all of those questions--is yes.
We have been working on this with Dr. Richmond and others
from the region for probably slightly in excess of 2 years now,
I believe. The former NOAA administrator at a coral reef task
force meeting and meeting with the governor of Guam had
discussions on this subject, brought the message back to NOAA
headquarters and to Sea Grant headquarters.
And I think we have had an ongoing discussion, including
providing some grant money to help fund the development of
programs in the region.
We all believe that the region could benefit by being a Sea
Grant consortium. We believe that there are benefits to flow
both ways, if you will, both toward the marine community--
Mr. Gilchrest. Is this something that we need to put into
the authorization?
Are you close to actually implementing this type of
consortium?
Dr. Evans. I think that, you know, our experience in
developing other Sea Grant programs is that it takes a number
of years to work on. I believe you or one of the other members
cited Pennsylvania and Vermont; we have active programs to
develop Sea Grant programs in those areas.
It tends to take a period of time. Oftentimes it begins
with extension work. Program proposals are developed.
I guess my sense is that we have a process that does work
and has worked in the past and is currently working to bring
states' and regions' programs into the national program. And my
own inclination is that that program will work in this case.
We have an ongoing dialogue with the folks in the region
right now. In fact, we are currently sort of sitting here,
waiting for the next funding proposal that will help move this
process along. And we are prepared to offer some support,
financial support, personnel-type support, of folks throughout
the organization.
So my inclination is to say that a legislative fix for that
is probably not required, that we have adequate mechanisms
already.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Richmond, do you think it is close to
happening? Do we need a legislative fix? Is the process working
in an orderly, prompt fashion?
Mr. Richmond. Certainly, I would like to recognize Dr.
Evans personally for having been involved in these discussions
for the last 2 years. And thanks to him and the previous
undersecretary, Dr. James Baker, we have seen some progress. We
actually have a $200,000 grant that has been enabling us to do
the first step, which was to bring the six institutions of
higher education together in the Marshall Islands last May.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that is a NOAA grant?
Mr. Richmond. That was a NOAA grant, directly under the
work that Dr. Evans and I were able to work together.
The biggest concern has been raised--and since I am in the
House of Representatives, I suppose I should be diplomatic--
that there--
Mr. Gilchrest. Please, the more blunt and frank--
[Laughter.]
--and to the point you can be, the more helpful you will
be.
Mr. Richmond. Okay.
Mr. Gilchrest. The more diplomatic, things will just float
along and not ever happen.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Richmond. Okay. It's a deal.
There is no question that there has been some very firm
resistance to this idea for awhile.
Mr. Gilchrest. Firm resistance from?
Mr. Richmond. From certain administrators within the Sea
Grant program. I don't think that it is necessary to go into
all the details at this time. I will look to our delegate--
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I think we should.
Tell us who.
Mr. Richmond. Bottom line, it has been that the director
and the executive director of Sea Grant, certainly from our
perspective, have been trying to block the effort of getting an
independent Sea Grant program for the Pacific Islands.
Dr. D. James Baker, when he was the director of NOAA and
the undersecretary, met with a number of the regional
representatives over a period of years, including Lelei Peau--
Mr. Gilchrest. You are talking about making a distinct
program for the islands in the Pacific, as opposed to an
extension of the existing Sea Grant?
Mr. Richmond. As opposed to a program underneath the
University of Hawaii Sea Grant--
Mr. Gilchrest. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Richmond. It simply hasn't worked. I have been out in
Guam for 16 years. I have worked with these islands on a
regular basis. I can say there have been some very good
successes. And it has been unfortunate, but I think there have
been some failures as well.
A lot of it has been that the decision-making process has
been removed from the islands. Decisions have been based in
Washington and Hawaii, thousands of miles away.
For those of you who aren't familiar, it is a 7-hour plane
flight from Hawaii to Guam. We are over the dateline. Just to
give you the logistics, there are only 12 hours when the
workweek on Guam overlaps with the workweek in Hawaii, due to
the dateline change and the 4-hour time difference.
So here we have people in Washington and Hawaii making firm
decisions for the islands, and one of the things I have learned
in 16 years of working in the islands is that I am effective at
the technical level, but the bottom line is the decision-making
process has to be made within the islands themselves.
The Marine Resources Pacific Consortium, which started this
out, is a group of regional resource managers funded by the
Department of the Interior Office of Insular Affairs. And what
it has done is put the decision-making process into the hands
of the islanders themselves.
The governing board is made up of two members of the
institutions of higher education--that is Patrick Tellei from
the Palau Community College and Yassai Yamada from the College
of Micronesia-FSM; two marine resource management agencies; and
then two nongovernment organizations, one from Palau and one
from American Samoa.
And what we found, I have been relegated to simply being
the principal investigator, which is the appropriate position
for me. My major responsibility is to make sure we have
accountability and that we are doing everything by the rules.
But all decision-making is made by a regional board that is
made up of 60 percent ethnic Pacific Islanders; it is four
ethnic Pacific Islanders and two ``Caucasians,'' haoles,
whatever term you want to use.
Mr. Gilchrest. What was that? Caucasian and what?
Mr. Richmond. Haole.
Mr. Gilchrest. Haoles.
Mr. Richmond. That is the Hawaiian term.
Mr. Gilchrest. Paleface.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Richmond. That'll work.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. I am trying to get out in the sun a little
more.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Richmond. That model has been extremely effective. And
that is not saying that there haven't been some mistakes made.
But the good news has been that, as a region, the resource
managers know what needs to be done. The people within the
communities are so close to the marine resources that they know
what their needs are.
And since each of these islands has a different tenure
system and a different cultural system, it is absolutely
impossible for people outside of the islands and outside of the
region to make decisions on what their priorities are. And that
is our biggest concern, is that priorities need to come from
within the islands, not from without.
And I will speak specifically to the extension project: Not
one of the institutions has identified an extension proposal as
being the highest priority. They are concerned about building
the institutions to develop a marine sciences curriculum to be
able to train their own students. They are concerned about
books in their libraries. They are concerned about equipment to
be able to teach their own people how to deal with these
pressing issues.
Yet every time we come back to the executive director of
Sea Grant with the proposals that are now being developed--the
meeting we had last May was the first step. Step number two is
a regional grant writing workshop, which should be held in Guam
later this month, to develop a full-on proposal with the
regional priorities, local priorities, and the identity of what
the needs are in terms of equipment, supplies, and funding for
individual positions.
And that is where I think the disconnect has been; the tail
is wagging the dog.
We have cultures--for example, the extension agents in the
region under the Hawaii system were all off-islanders, they
were all Caucasians and haoles, with one exception.
One exception was there was a Pingelapese individual who
was the extension agent when that program was funded from
Hawaii for Pohnpei. Maybe it sounds like too detailed, but
because this individual from Pingelap, he doesn't speak the
language of the traditional chiefs in Pohnpei, and that is a
huge problem at the extension level.
Extension has to be done at the local level where there is
a respect for the local traditional system, being able to work
with the chiefs. My role has been to train local individuals
who do speak the right language and do understand the cultural
nuances. They are the ones that are effective. I can't be
effective in that role even though I have been there for 16
years; actually, over 20 years in the region.
So each of us has assets we can bring to the table, and
that is where we look to Sea Grant as having tremendous assets
and expertise.
And I do need to clarify that often this has been portrayed
as a problem between the University of Guam and the University
of Hawaii, and that is simply not true. I am actually an
adjunct graduate faculty member in the University of Hawaii, a
research affiliate at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology,
and we look to the University of Hawaii en toto as a tremendous
regional resource. We are tapping into their library for
document delivery to these remote islands.
But this is the way it has been portrayed, and it is not
the truth. The bottom line is that we have islands that have
developed a tremendous capacity over the last 20 years. And it
is just like someone being a 35-year-old with a family and kids
saying, ``Gee, Dad, can I have the keys to the car?'' and
hearing, ``No, you're not ready yet.''
The question is, when will the islands be ready? From my
point of view, the islands have been ready for quite a while.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to be able to do that to my
children--
[Laughter.]
--even though they are all away from home now.
I think what we will do, I will move on. In fact, I think
we will have several rounds of questions, but to keep it in
somewhat of an orderly fashion, we might turn the lights on.
But the red light doesn't mean your questions are over. We will
continue to circulate, because I am sure there are many other
questions that we have.
But anyway, Dr. Richmond, I think it would be beneficial
for us to continue to communicate. There are a lot of other
things in Sea Grant that we want to pursue and implement and
ensure, for example, Los Angeles has more than one, and some
East Coast States have six, seven, eight, even nine, implement
some of the concerns that they have.
But this is a fascinating proposal that I would like to
continue to discuss during the rest of this hearing and
certainly beyond to see what type of either in-house solution
or legislative fix above the increased authorization to ensure
that there is sufficient Sea Grant agents out there connecting
with the appropriate end-users to make a difference.
Mr. Richmond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. I yield now to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you also
for the opportunity to raise some specific issues as have been
raised by Dr. Richmond and others.
And I don't want to make too much of a point of it, because
I think most of the key issues have been raised in this
context, other than to say that you represent Guam or any part
of the Western Pacific, and as you have indicated, the map
there indicates that a substantial part of ocean--I believe in
Mr. DeVoe's testimony, he had mentioned that there was some 3.4
million square miles of EEZ. I think there is that amount in
the region that we are talking about by itself, absent a
concern of the coastal U.S.
And we always talk a lot about attention to the Pacific
Rim. And everywhere I go, whether it is in defense issues or
strategic issues or economic issue, and certainly there is an
intersection here between economic and environmental issues,
and the kind of work that Sea Grant is doing, there is always a
large part of discussion about the Pacific Rim.
Well, technically speaking, the islands that we are talking
about are not part of the Pacific Rim. They are actually the
Pacific Basin; the rim is the surrounding part.
The Pacific Rim is like the doughnut and the Pacific Basin
is like the hole. And sometimes if you don't have the hole, you
don't have much of a doughnut. And sometimes you don't pay that
much attention to the hole. And I think, in many respects, that
is what we are confronting as we struggle with this.
I used to supervise Dr. Richmond as an academic vice
president at the University of Guam, so he and I go back a long
way. And one of the very first initiatives that actually we
undertook, as a new academic vice president, he showed up in my
office and said, ``Can you give me some money so we can start
working on a Sea Grant proposal?'' That was a number of years
ago.
And I guess we never thought that we would intersect in
this way today, under your guidance, Mr. Gilchrest. We are very
happy to reach this particular point.
I appreciate that there are a number of issues attendant to
developmental questions about the progress of moving toward a
full-fledged Sea Grant program. I am not unmindful of those. I
think it is very clear that there are some issues attending to
that, but I think the base commitment has to be there. And it
has taken us awhile to get to that base commitment.
And I trust I don't have to ask for a show of hands today
for that commitment, because I think it is there. And I think
it was mentioned in all the testimonies, in one way or another,
that we to move toward this direction.
Just generally, in terms of the legislation we are looking
at today, which is to increase funding for the Sea Grant
program, perhaps Dr. Evans can answer the question of, how can
we move toward increased funding for the Sea Grant program when
the administration hasn't even requested that the authorized
amounts be spent for the upcoming fiscal year?
Dr. Evans. Well, actually, I think the funding the Sea
Grant program is sort of an interesting point of conversation.
There has been, as you are well-aware, a long and checkered
history of administration requests spanning a number of
administrations, funding for Sea Grant.
I think we all, collectively, both on the administration
side and on the congressional side, should take some pride in
the accomplishments of the last few years.
In fact, in the last two congressional budget submissions
from the President, the former President and the current
President, requests for Sea Grant have been at or above the
amounts of money that Congress had appropriated for Sea Grant
in the previous year's appropriation. That is a precedent that
had not been in place for probably 10 years prior to that.
The Sea Grant program inside my part of NOAA, inside my
part of the organization, has actually had a more rapid rate of
growth for its overall funding than the other component pieces
of NOAA research, the laboratory program, for example, or some
of our other grant programs.
So in an environment where there a lot of competing and
worthy priorities, I think Sea Grant has actually done rather
well, over the last couple of years in particular.
I think the burden that we have all struggled with over the
past, of having Congress appropriate more money and then the
President requesting significantly less is behind us. I believe
that the establishment of Sea Grant as a credible program
inside our research portfolio is well in hand. I think that the
program growth that the program has shown has exceeded those of
other research areas inside NOAA. And I am pretty confident
that we are going to continue down that path in the future.
So rather than dealing with whether or not the amounts that
the President has been able to request in balancing all of his
priorities actually makes it to the authorized level, I think
we really need to take a look at the progress that we have
made.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. We can come back
as people have questions.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly want to thank Dr. Evans for his eloquent
statement. I can't believe for $62 million we deal with
agricultural, aquatic nuisance species, coastal hazard
reduction, commercial fisheries, education, marine
biotechnology, seafood safety. For $62 million, that is a
tremendous amount of things that Sea Grant has been doing for
all these years.
What is the annual budget of NOAA, anyway, Dr. Evans? What
is the total budget that comes to NOAA every year?
Dr. Evans. Approximately $3 billion in the current request.
Mr. Faleomavaega. $3 billion?
Dr. Evans. That is right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And what percentage of that goes to Sea
Grant? $62 million out of $3 billion, right?
Dr. Evans. It sounds like 5 percent.
Mr. Faleomavaega. One-tenth of 1 percent perhaps? Something
like that?
I really, really am looking through your testimony. I like
it. But, you know, when you mention aquaculture, do you mean
marine aquaculture or--
Dr. Evans. Yes, marine aquaculture.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. Because we just had a royal battle
between the Department of Commerce and the Department of the
Interior when we talk about fisheries. When a fish goes to a
certain distance, it becomes a commercial issue, so, therefore,
the Department of Commerce has jurisdiction. But if it goes to
a certain distance, it goes through the fisheries and
conservation of the Department of the Interior.
And then they come out and say, well, we have to conserve
it. I mean, we have a real interesting situation.
And talk about coral, the same situation.
Here's where I am coming from: Why are we having to import
$9 billion worth of fish from foreign countries? And it seems
to me that Sea Grant, if aquaculture could be one area that
could create jobs, there is economic growth for our country.
This is where I am coming from. I can talk about
conservation also, but the bottom line is that other countries
are way, way ahead of us, as far as marine aquaculture
development is concerned.
Am I wrong in this assumption?
Dr. Evans. No, I don't think you are wrong at all, sir. I
think that other countries produce quite a lot more than we do.
Sea Grant really has led the way in building a broader
aquaculture program that now extends beyond Sea Grant. We have
other funds inside of NOAA research for supporting aquaculture.
We have worked with the Department of Commerce to develop a
policy position on fostering marine aquaculture throughout the
country.
I think we actually have some successes to point to that
mostly have come out of the Sea Grant-led program. In the
current year, for example, moving to another part of the
Department of Commerce, the ATP program at NIST, actually
awarded some $21 million for advanced development projects in
aquaculture that have derived from the research activities that
have been led by Sea Grant and other parts of our research
activities.
So the total amount of money that is being spent on
aquaculture isn't necessarily confined just to the resources
that are in Sea Grant. I think we have recognized, especially
in the last couple of years and following on some conversations
that you and I have had in the past, in fact, the importance of
aquaculture and the importance of promoting aquaculture.
One of the capabilities that Sea Grant brings to this, and
that we have tried to encourage, is the development of what we
call environmentally responsible aquaculture. Many of the
countries that you cite, in terms of the large volume of fish
produced in an aquaculture environment, have suffered very
serious environmental consequences from the pursuit of their
aquaculture programs.
And one of the things that we are able to do through the
Sea Grant research efforts is to develop technologies,
methodologies, that allow us to grow our aquaculture industry,
help supply this need for seafood domestically, and do it in a
way that maintains the integrity of our coastal resources.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Evans, you don't need to convince me
about the importance of Sea Grant.
With the seven major areas that you have cited in your
statement, I trust that you would be one of our strongest
advocates within the administration for increased funding out
of the $3 billion that NOAA gets every year?
Dr. Evans. I think that the programs that Sea Grant is
engaged in are very, very important, and they are programs that
I have responsibility for, so I am strong advocate for Sea
Grant, funding, programs, and policies inside the
administration, inside NOAA and inside the administration.
Mr. Faleomavaega. One of the issues I wanted to also
discuss, you know, American Samoa is not in the Western
Pacific. It is in the South Pacific.
And with due respect to Dr. Richmond and this consortium--
and I am now going through this--I believe Mr. Lelei Peau was
involved with the coral reefs conservation, but not
particularly with the Sea Grant program. And I don't want to
get into this as just a Western Pacific hearing process, but I
want to get the collective as a whole what the Sea Grant
program can do for our country as a whole. Given the special
needs of those of us who are from the islands, we can
understand that.
But more particularly to Dr. Knatz, we have over 100
universities--200 universities throughout the country--how did
we end up with only 30 universities being given this special
status of a Sea Grant institutional authority. Is this
discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce or is it
through your panel? What is the process for being among the 29
or 30 universities throughout the country being selected, like
the University of Hawaii?
Ms. Knatz. Well, the legislation does detail a process. And
actually, the legislation tasks the review panel with the
responsibility of advising the Secretary of Commerce and NOAA
administration on the designation of new Sea Grant College
Programs. So over a period of years, these applications have
come in and a process has gone through that involves various
steps and ultimately these programs were given full Sea Grant
college status.
I can comment specifically on the application that came in
from the University of Guam. That is a good example. An
application came in to the Secretary of Commerce, and the NOAA
administrator at that time asked the panel to provide advice on
designation of a new Sea Grant college.
The panel set up a special Committee. It was chaired by Dr.
John Toll from Maryland. I was actually the vice chair of that
Committee. We had some outside members of that Committee review
the application from the University of Guam, and we sent a
report back to the NOAA administrator.
And that report basically said that the Sea Grant Review
Panel was very supportive of a program in that area, that we
saw a great need for a program out there, but we felt at that
time the application was a little incomplete because it was
unclear about the governance structure for the program. It came
from the University of Guam, and we wanted to make sure that
all of the islands were somehow brought into the governance of
the program.
So we gave that advice back to the Secretary of Commerce,
actually through the NOAA administration.
And so that is a function of the panel. And then the
designation then occurs, I guess--
Mr. Faleomavaega. Am I to understand that the University of
Hawaii was the regional institution that would have provided
the needs for the colleges of the different island countries
and territories?
Ms. Knatz. Well, I know that as part, in the Hawaii
program, because I have been out to visit that program, they
have tried to do some things in the islands. There were some
things done in the past. And I think that we recognized the
fact that it is hard for Hawaii to service that entire area and
have enough resources to do that.
They can participate in Sea Grant activities in that area
as well.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My question was, in the past, the
University of Hawaii was the regional institutional of Sea
Grant granting authority for the island territories; am I
correct on this? In the past and still is?
Ms. Knatz. Dr. Baird informed me that they didn't have a
formal responsibility to cover that area, but they made the
effort to go out and do some things.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So now the University of Guam wants to be
a regional institution similar to the University to Hawaii. In
other words, the 31st university within the system to be given
that same equal status.
Ms. Knatz. Right. Right, that was their application.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. There is absolutely nothing wrong
with that.
Ms. Knatz. No, there is nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. Now, my problem--
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Faleomavaega, we will come back.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Pallone?
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I wanted to ask a question of
either Mr. DeVoe or Dr. Evans, I guess.
I am very supportive of the National Sea Grant College
Program Act, and I used to be part of Sea Grant at one time. I
used to be an extension specialist within the New Jersey Sea
Grant Program.
But I wanted to ask about allocation because in my home
state of New Jersey, I am constantly getting complaints about
the fact that we are not getting enough money. And they look at
statistics, like 18 percent of New Jersey's land is coastal,
and we rank fifth in the Nation in that respect.
And of course there is our economy. The coastal activity is
very important to our economy. Fishing industries are valued at
over $2 billion. Related to that is about $45 billion.
And coastal tourism is obviously very important.
But if you look at this chart in terms of all programs or
programs in coastal states, we are almost at the bottom. If I
could at California, which is $4 million; Massachusetts, $2.5.
New Jersey is about the same size as Massachusetts, both
geographically and population-wise, and we have more coastal
area than Massachusetts, and we only get $780,000.
So I am just wondering what can be done to change that. I
have some ideas about maybe why it is happening.
In New Jersey we may be somewhat unique in that we have a
consortium. In other words, we don't have, say, Rutgers as the
Sea Grant college or Princeton as a Sea Grant college. We have
a consortium that basically administers the program. And all
the colleges and universities are part of that consortium. And
I get the impression that maybe that's the reason why we are
suffering.
In other words, a lot of the research money is going to
particular Sea Grant colleges, and maybe because we have this
consortium status and we don't have the research money going
directly to the state university, for example, that that is one
of the reasons that we are suffering.
I think the consortium idea is a very good idea because it
gets around the idea that just one university or one college
gets all the money for Sea Grant research. And so it works well
in New Jersey because all the colleges and universities feel
very much a part of it.
The other thing is, I don't know how you allocate extension
versus research. I was in the extension program, and I think
extension is very good, because you are right out there in the
field with the people, with the marine users. And it bothers me
that it seems that extension also is sort of suffering from
this.
I wasn't here earlier, but I think somebody talked about
base funding, maybe there would be some minimum amount to every
state for both research and extension.
But I just would if the two of you would comment on this. I
don't understand why New Jersey is so low, and whether in fact
it may be linked to the things that I mentioned.
Mr. DeVoe. I will begin, I guess, if that is all right.
I think this is an issue that we are all familiar with. As
well as being president of the Sea Grant Association, I also am
the executive director of the South Carolina Sea Grant
Consortium, so I am a consortium.
We have 33 independent public universities and colleges in
South Carolina. And our State Legislature decided, in order to
provide equal opportunity for those institutions, to create
this consortium framework to allow competition to occur among
those institutions. I think it has worked quite well.
I can answer you question a little bit from my perspective
in South Carolina. The South Carolina Sea Grant Program started
up in 1972. For its first eight or 10 years, it was relatively
level funded. In the 1970's, there was rapid growth in the
program, where some programs did better than other programs.
So I think one of the things we are seeing today is, where
the 30 programs lie now is a function somewhat of history, in
terms of where they came from early on. And it does have a lot
to do with the amount of appropriations that are available for
the program as a whole over time.
I feel, from my perspective, that South Carolina is also
underfunded. I think I can speak for some of my other
colleagues that they feel that their programs are underfunded.
We are dealing with very critical issues, and not only issue
but opportunities.
And I think of this phrase that I have heard many times, a
rising tide floats all boats. And I think if the opportunity is
there to provide increased resources for the core Sea Grant
program, then all of our programs that are all hurting, that
are all having staff affected by not having the funds keeping
up with demand and also inflation, I think we will all benefit
from that.
Mr. Pallone. I know the time is up, but just this concern
that I have that extension gets the short shrift? And also, do
you feel that by having a consortium that somehow because you
are not putting these grants necessarily at a major university,
that that is a factor?
Mr. DeVoe. Your latter point, I don't think so.
What is really interesting and unique about Sea Grant is
that it is 30 programs and they are run according to the needs,
demands, and culture of those states. I think a lot of that
decision-making process occurs at that level.
But overall, I do think that, again, if you look at my
extension program, I am down two people from what I had five to
6 years ago. So I don't think that the New Jersey situation is
unique.
Mr. Pallone. Dr. Evans?
Dr. Evans. May just add one comment on that, with respect
to the extension question?
Half of the money that goes to the program is required to
be spent on research. But beyond that, the decision on the
break between how much goes into the research programs,
education programs, and extension, it is really decided by the
program itself. It is not decided by the national program
office.
Mr. Pallone. Okay.
Dr. Evans. So somehow or another, that mix is a local
decision. And how that decision is made and what comes of that
decision, in fact, goes into the evaluation of the programs
when they are all evaluated nationally.
Mr. Pallone. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Dr. Knatz, I think your recommendation for the
reauthorization was $100 million. Part of the purpose for that
was to increase the number of people in the Sea Grant program,
and I think you said there were too few extension agents that
would help you with things like essential fish habitat,
subaquatic vegetation, dredging issues, expanding ports, and so
on.
Now, based on Mr. Pallone's question of the sort of
distribution of where Sea Grant puts its program, its research
programs and its extension programs, do you have any
recommendation as to what California might do to sort of bring
in more Sea Grant people to California, more than just one in
the Port of Los Angeles? What can we do and what can California
do?
Ms. Knatz. I think like other programs, California, even
though it is the largest funded Sea Grant program, has also
suffered from the fact that their buying power is less than
what it was. Their extension program is really stretched along
that coastline.
So I think a good chunk of this money needs to go to the
programs as core funding, so they can use it for some of the
basic services that they provide, including increasing the
number of extension agents.
Mr. Gilchrest. As part of a panel, have you put in to your
report any specific recommendations? It is sort of like you are
asking us for more money; we are asking you to ask for more
money; we keep going back and forth like that.
Did you make any specific recommendations to NOAA for them
to ask in this reauthorization process for more dollars
specific to Sea Grant and then specific to these extension
agents?
Ms. Knatz. Well, it is part of the panel policy--I think it
has been for some time--that we wanted to double the Federal
appropriations for Sea Grant. And I think the NOAA
administration has heard that loud and clear from the panel for
a number of years.
Mr. Gilchrest. So when the panel has recommended doubling
the appropriation or the authorization--
Ms. Knatz. Right, the authorization.
Mr. Gilchrest. Has there been specific recommendations to
NOAA about actual formulation of policy for using those funds
earmarked specifically for Sea Grant researchers here or Sea
Grant extension agents? Or would you rather leave that up to
the purview of the state?
Ms. Knatz. No, in actuality, the review panel working with
the Sea Grant Association has formed a Committee that we call
the allocation Committee. And that Committee was looking at
some of these issues that have already been raised here--the
small states with the high populations; if we got a larger part
of money, how would it be divided up among the programs in
order to address the issues. And that Committee's work is
ongoing.
So we have not at this time given NOAA a specific
recommendation for the $100 million, ``We want so much for and
so much for that''--not at this time.
Mr. Gilchrest. First of all, you would like another, at
least, extension agent that you could have access to in Los
Angeles?
Ms. Knatz. Yes. I think my testimony made the comment that
in the whole Los Angeles metropolitan area, there is only one
now, which is not that much really. But there is none in San
Francisco; the bay area has no extension agent.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would you make any recommendation to us to
see--can you work with NOAA or the state to increase that
number? Is there anything you would suggest that we do to help
increase that number?
Ms. Knatz. Well, I think, you know, just the increase in
overall budget. If you increase the core funding going to the
programs, they will be able to provide for more extension
agents. I would go to the California director and talk about
what areas really need coverage the most and let's put the new
money into putting somebody there. So I would work with him on
that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would you agree with that, Mr. DeVoe? You
said you lost two Sea Grant people over the course of the last
year or so. Would you like to see them come back? Can you
operate fine they way you are? Would you agree with Dr. Knatz
about how to get those other extension agents back?
Mr. DeVoe. I would agree with Dr. Knatz, yes. Again, the
nature of the Sea Grant program is that it is this partnership
between the Federal Government and the states and our
stakeholders, our constituents.
Each of our programs receive a lot of input from our
stakeholders, what I call real people, as I mentioned before.
Those are the folks who really help us decide the kinds of
things we do.
And then based on that input, we decide how to allocate the
resources we get to address those programs or opportunities
that our stakeholders have identified.
So I think, again, the rising tide floats all boats thing
applies here, where if there were more resources available,
that they could be available to the state core programs. And
through the core programs' process of identifying issues and
opportunities, they can allocate those resources among
research, among extension, education, that sort of thing.
Mr. Gilchrest. I hear you saying that it might even be
better from your perspective for the Sea Grant program to just
have a larger, maybe up to $100 million authorization, and
hopefully you can convince the appropriators, but you would
rather not see us designate a specific formula for research and
agents or a specific number of extension agents, but just
increase the dollars.
Mr. DeVoe. Yes, sir, I would agree with that.
And if I could mention, we are not just asking for an
increased authorization for appropriations because we are good
people--although that's part of it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. We were assuming that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeVoe. But we have worked together, the panel, the
national Sea Grant office, the state Sea Grant programs, and
the staff, on putting together a series of thematic one-pagers,
we call them. And these identify nine programmatic areas that
we worked on to identify what we would do with increased
authorization and hopefully increased appropriations level.
So we have a plan, and we know what we want to do.
In terms of the implementation and the details, that is
what I am referring to, those things can be dealt with
principally through how the state Sea Grant programs want to
implement their plan.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. And we will take a look at that.
Mr. DeVoe. Good.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just for the record, I would also like to introduce into
the record a communique from the PAIRS organization, which
basically is a statement about the regional collaboration on
this ongoing effort to establish a Sea Grant in the Western
pacific.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Underwood. And also, just for clarification, sometimes
we use regional terms kind of loosely, and sometimes people say
South Pacific when they really mean Western Pacific.
And actually, there is only one South Pacific entity, and
that is Mr. Faleomavaega. The rest of the other island entities
are in the North Pacific, because we are north of the equator.
And sometimes we just loosely refer to it as the Western
Pacific.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Northwest.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. All right, Northwest, the great Northwest.
[Laughter.]
I want to ask a question on evaluation. I know Dr. Evans
and Dr. Knatz have both referred to the issue of evaluation and
that in evaluating the existing Sea Grant programs, I think 22
have been evaluated and 16 have received excellent ratings.
Dr. Knatz, is that correct?
Ms. Knatz. I don't recall. I gave some numbers, and that 30
programs have now been evaluated by the panel and 16 of those
received an excellent rating.
Mr. Underwood. Okay.
Ms. Knatz. Out of 30.
Mr. Underwood. Sixteen out of 30.
And I assume that part of the evaluation process is the
fact that they are behaving in a collaborative way with their
stakeholders and that in fact working toward consortia type of
arrangements and that is a central feature of these. Am I
correct in assuming that?
Ms. Knatz. Yes.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. For the ones that didn't make the
excellent rating, what kind of recommendations do we have? And
are some of those items related to that specific issue of
collaboration with regional entities or consortia-type
arrangements? Or did they have any other kind of problems that
you could make general statements about which would be helpful
to the Committee, in terms of drafting legislation?
Ms. Knatz. Each of the programs that was evaluated got a
separate letter with a list of specific recommendations. I can
generalize about a few of them, but they were really tailored
for each program.
For some of the programs, for example, we asked them to
expand the number of stakeholders on their advisory Committee,
because as part of the planning process for dealing with the
issues in that state, we expect the programs to interact with
the community, with the stakeholders, with local government. In
many of our reviews, we have asked that that issue be
addressed.
We have also asked that some of the programs develop more
thorough strategic plans. We expect them to be looking out
toward the future--what are the issues in the marine and
coastal policies that they are going to have to deal with--and
position themselves so they can do that kind of work.
So a number of the programs got recommendations along that
line.
We always also encourage the programs to develop regional
collaborations, and many of the programs have done that. And I
can't recall any specific recommendations on any of the
programs I was involved with in that regard, but we split up. I
haven't done all 30. I have done a smaller group of them, and
we kind of share the workload among the panel members.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. Dr. Evans, do you have any
recommendations regarding the results of these evaluations that
would be useful to the Committee?
Dr. Evans. I think that they have prepared a document that
gives a summary of the--let me just ask Dr. Knatz.
You have just completed an evaluation of the first round of
program evaluation processes. Is there a document that is
available on that yet?
Ms. Knatz. Yes, there is a document on our evaluation
process that the panel is going to act on at our meeting later
on today. So we do continually go back and look at the
evaluation process and fine tune it and do that.
We also prepare an annual report, kind of a state of Sea
Grant. And we are just getting ready to develop our annual
report for this year. This goes to the Secretary of Commerce.
And that annual report will provide kind of a summary of
what the evaluations were and other panel activities. But,
frankly, I can't think of anything from that report that would
be appropriate for legislation. Most of those things are things
that the panel can revise in our own procedures ourselves.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I guess what I am trying to get at is
that if in fact consortia-type arrangements are a central
feature or a problem in terms of the programs undergoing
evaluation, then that could be reemphasized in the
authorization. And I am just trying to search out whether there
are particular problems or commonalties in your evaluation that
would inform the Committee so that could be addressed. Or are
they so idiosyncratic or are they just poorly managed programs?
I mean, there are a whole number of issues that conceivably be
part of the equation.
I just want to get a sense because the consortia issue, I
think Mr. DeVoe proclaimed that he was a consortia in his
testimony, and that seems to be a central feature here, and I
just wanted to get a sense whether there was some programmatic
element or some emphasis needed to be given there.
Dr. Evans. Let me comment on the evaluation process. The
evaluation process was put in place in the last authorization
for the Sea Grant program. And the process that Dr. Knatz was
talking about is the way that the panel has recommended, and
the national office has tried to implement that evaluation
process.
I am personally anxious to see the report. I know that they
have done it, and I have seen some drafts of their evaluation
of how well that process worked. This is something that really
was new for the Sea Grant program, to provide a kind of
comprehensive national evaluation of the programs like this.
In the reports that I have seen, in the individual program
evaluations that I have seen, and in the study that they have
done of their own process, nothing leaps out.
Mr. Underwood. Okay.
Dr. Evans. I haven't seen one single fact that is common to
lots of programs and where we need to have sort of a national
fix. These have been individual program reviews against a
standard set of criteria, and some programs are stronger in
some areas and weaker in others.
And I think the panels have done a good job of trying to
identify them on a program-by-program basis.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. Just a quick question, if I could, Ms.
Dalton, Mr. DeVoe. Obviously, there is great support for
increasing the overall amount spent for Sea Grant. Is there any
support for the notion of increasing the matching share? Or do
we like it the way it is now?
Ms. Dalton. Increasing the percentage? I think we would
support it at the level that it is now and possibly making
additional competitive grant funding without a match.
Mr. Underwood. Okay. Very good.
Mr. DeVoe. I support that statement.
Mr. Underwood. Very good. Succinct.
[Laughter.]
That's what I like.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to offer this suggestion to Dr. Evans. I am a
generalist; I don't get into micromanaging the situation.
But this is my offered proposal for authorization: First 4
years, $100 million; then the 3 years after that, $200 million
per year; and then the remaining 3 years, $300 million per
year.
It still comes out substantially much less than what the
Land Grant institutions get per year, so I think that is a very
reasonable numbering, don't you think, Dr. Evans?
[Laughter.]
Dr. Evans. I think that the Sea Grant College Program would
have no difficulty spending that kind of money if it were made
available to them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. Well, with such a tremendous amount of
resources in the seven major areas that the current Sea Grant
program is now weighing, with 54 percent of our Nation's
population living in coastal states dealing with environmental
issues, commercial issues, things that will allow the American
people to make an honest living--it so wide.
And I can understand why Land Grant was such an important
institution because our country was basically an agrarian,
agricultural nation. And those members who represented the
rural areas, in their ingenuity and genius, came out with the
Land Grant system to assist those institutions, which I support
very much.
But I think, now that this is the beginning of the 21st
century, we have to look now at that situation very seriously,
about the fact that what we do with ocean or the marine
environment and the resources available where our country or
our citizens could also benefit.
So I am throwing that out for a starter, to see what we can
come up with. There may be recommendations also from Mr. DeVoe
and Ms. Dalton and Dr. Knatz. I am just throwing this out for
digestion, okay?
On the question of subjectiveness of evaluations, I am a
little troubled by this. Am I to understand that there is no
statutory mandates or guidelines or criteria that a university
can then--let me ask you this: What does a university get once
it is selected by the Secretary of the Interior to be a
regional Sea Grant institution, like the University of Hawaii?
Among the 30 universities, what do they get initially as Sea
Grant institutions?
Dr. Evans. There is no specific formula. They receive that
designation and they can submit proposals as part of the annual
process, but there is no specific formula. There is no
entitlement, as it were.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I see. So among the 30 institutions, they
have to compete themselves for whatever grants that are
available of the $10 million pittance that we are dealing with
that they have to divide among themselves; am I correct on
this?
Dr. Evans. The funding for the individual programs is
really based on, I would say, largely on the evolution of the
programs, when they came into the program, their traditional
amounts of funding, the amounts of the funding that they had in
the previous year--they tend to be operated like many
government programs, with sort of incremental funding
applications. There are competitive funds that programs can
request.
But the basic funding the programs is that which has been
established through the tradition, when they came in. There is
sort of a long history that predates me in the program by a
significant amount.
One of the things that has been added in the recent time,
however, as a part of the competitive process, is that their
increments--that is, the amount of money that goes into the
base program--is influenced by how well they do as a part of
this evaluation process.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So as a contrast, the 30 university
regional institutions that are part of our Sea Grant program,
how does that compare to the 4-year colleges that are granted
Land Grant status? We are talking about hundreds of Land Grant
colleges that do participate; am I correct on this?
Dr. Evans. I actually don't know.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to ask if we could put that
in the record.
Dr. Evans. Sure thing.
Mr. Faleomavaega. This is my next question, if it is all
right with the Chairman. I know my time is about ready to be
up.
It is a natural why Land Grant is given over a $1 billion,
because we are talking about hundreds of universities and 4-
year colleges that participate in the program.
One of the things that probably you are not aware of--this
is something that single-handedly the late Congressman Phil
Burton literally unilaterally by legislation--and I will never
tell how he did it--two-year colleges to become Land Grant
institutions, when for 100 years before that, you had to be a
4-year institution in order to qualify to become a Land Grant-
status institution. Are you aware of that?
This is how the community colleges in the islands became
Land Grant institutions, because of this one man, Phil Burton
from California, that did this.
Now, in contrast--and I think perhaps this is one reason--
we are somewhat restrictive in giving only 30 universities to
be given these programs. Is it because of the small funding? Or
is it perhaps, if we get more funding, we can get more
universities and colleges also to participate similar to the
Land Grant institutions?
Dr. Evans. The 30 programs that we refer to really are 30
programs, but there are, I believe, over 200 colleges and
universities that participate in the Sea Grant program. The 30
institutional arrangements that we have provide for local
administration of those programs.
So that, for example, the proposal that we are working on
now for the Pacific Islands would involve a number of
institutions, but there would only be one program there that
would be collectively managed among them.
And whether done as a consortium or whether done with a
single lead program in a state to which other institutions can
then apply, there are about 200 that are involved now.
Mr. Faleomavaega. That one program comes under the
University of Hawaii; am I correct?
Dr. Evans. There is a program at the University of Hawaii.
Mr. Faleomavaega. For the Pacific region?
I am sorry. My time is up. I will get back to you.
Dr. Evans. Not formally. I don't think that the University
of Hawaii has been designated or granted authority to be the
umbrella program for the Pacific. I don't think that is the
case now or it ever really has been the case.
They are a state program, and in the course of doing their
work, they have done work throughout the Pacific. But that is
different than having a lead program in a particular state to
which other state institutions would then apply as part of a
consortium.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
I will come back again.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is all right, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Dr. Evans, I understand there is going to be an oyster
research summit next fall, dealing with Chesapeake Bay oysters.
And I would just like to recommend that the summit either be
held in Chestertown, Maryland--
[Laughter.]
Actually that is where Dr. Toll lives, the president of
Washington College, which is a sort of a hook into bringing it
to Chestertown, besides the fact I live 10 miles north of
there.
[Laughter.]
Or it could be held in Annapolis. But just those two
suggestions.
Could you, though, on that topic, give us some type of idea
about what your priorities are for oyster research?
Dr. Evans. The oyster research program, as you know, has
been going on for about 10 years, and I think the program has
already spent about $17 million, I think.
I think that work has proceeded in the past on a number of
problems dealing with disease, several different kinds of
disease; dealing with genetic problems and trying to develop
strains which are resistant to disease and which will be
productive. There has actually been some pretty significant
progress made on that front in recent times, with the
development of triploid oysters, dealing with better meat
production, and avoiding some of the difficulties that one can
encounter with genetic mixing of introduced stocks.
The purpose of the meeting, as I understand it, it is
supposed to happen in the spring--
Mr. Gilchrest. This coming spring.
Dr. Evans. The information I was provided was that this
summit is supposed to occur this spring.
Mr. Gilchrest. I can make some great recommendations for--
Dr. Evans. For spring locations as well?
Mr. Gilchrest. --certain locations, restaurants.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Evans. Okay.
I think the program would probably welcome that kind of
advice at this point.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess what I am asking is, as research
goes forward, and there has been a great deal of money spent on
it, and I know there has been a growing understanding about
disease and resistant oysters and so on, is the research basic,
general research as you continue this process as to how an
oyster can survive? Is the research oriented toward developing
an oyster that can be harvested for human consumption? Or is
research more oriented toward how you develop an oyster that
can survive disease and be a part of the filtering action of
the whole physics of the system in the Chesapeake Bay? Is there
any of that being discussed?
Dr. Evans. I think that actually all of those issues are on
the table. There is work that has been done in looking at the
disease, the natural occurrence of the disease, the causes of
it. There is work, as I indicated, on the aquaculture side and
developing resistant stocks and how they would be distributed.
I think there is general ecosystem work that has taken place,
recognizing the importance of oysters and filter feeders for
maintaining the health of the bay overall.
All the aspects of that program have been addressed.
My understanding that the reason for having the summit,
actually--
Mr. Gilchrest. And the summit is with whom? All the other
parties that are involved in the process of oyster restoration?
Dr. Evans. That is right.
Mr. Gilchrest. That would be the universities of Maryland,
Virginia, Department of Natural Resources, the private sector?
Dr. Evans. Yes. My guess, and I haven't talked in detail to
the program people who are planning it, is that there will be a
rather wide call for the summit. It really is to take stock
after 10 years of work and pretty substantial investment of
what we have learned, what are the appropriate next steps, sort
of a priority-setting and regrouping at this point.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Dr. Evans. I think the scientists feel that they have made
some real progress and it is time to kind of consolidate that
progress and set a course for the continued work.
Mr. Gilchrest. That can all happen in Chestertown.
[Laughter.]
Just another quick question. Ms. Dalton, part of your
testimony gave five important areas of Sea Grant. One of those
important areas that has sort of been a theme throughout the
testimony we have heard this morning is education, using a Sea
Grant fellow, the Sea Grant program, to get the information to
people on the ground that will make good use of it, hopefully
the end-users.
As agricultural extension agents, they come from
universities that have really become a part of the fiber of the
whole community of agriculture and they have made significant
progress with improving farming practices. That is often
referred to as the seed corn of the next generation.
Emerson had a similar quote: a thousand forests from one
acorn.
Would you make any suggestions or recommendations for the
part of the Sea Grant program that deals with the extension
agents that have been referred to here this morning that are so
valuable that can not only get into the communities of the end-
users--in some cases, recreational fishermen, commercial
fisherman, the ports that dot our coastline--and certainly into
the public schools, where Dr. Knatz made a comment that rings
true here in Maryland as well: prepare the students for the
test so the school gets more money and bypass the unique
ingenuity of a school teacher to bring that diversity into the
classroom.
What can you tell us this morning about that Sea Grant
agent and what value they are and how you might improve upon
it?
Ms. Dalton. I guess we would probably view the extension
agents and the education program as two separate components.
One of the things that we are beginning to talk to the
national Sea Grant program about, from a CORE perspective, is
the National Science Foundation is trying to put together
centers of excellence in elementary education, and they have a
proposal out on the street. One of the things that we love to
see is for other Federal agencies to go ahead and join in that
effort and really be able to develop a national program.
Right now, the National Science Foundation has about $1.5
million available that would fund a national center and then
two regional centers. There is interest in the community for
probably at least six or seven of those centers around the
country.
And it is very possible that Sea Grant could play a key
role in helping those regional centers go forward.
In terms of extension agents and working with fishermen,
one of the things that we are very interested in, in my former
incarnation, is developing closer cooperation between the
National Marine Fisheries Service and Sea Grant in how they
provide outreach and public education. Not that one of them
replaces the other, but they work in a complementary fashion.
National Marine Fisheries Service badly needed to improve
its outreach. And we were interested in working more closely
with Sea Grant to not replace them or not compete with them but
so that what you got is a better understanding the outside
community of what was going on, the need for Federal
regulations, and also improvement in the effectiveness of those
regulations.
Mr. Gilchrest. I only have 15 seconds, fellows.
NMFS will sometimes, depending on the coastal area, have an
observer on a boat to collect data. Would there be any value in
including the Sea Grant agent as part of that process to
collect data?
Ms. Dalton. I don't think you want to drag Sea Grant into
the regulatory arena.
Right now, they are honest brokers. They have an enormously
valuable role to play in helping--
Mr. Gilchrest. Almost separate from the regulatory part,
but just raw data, just how many fish are out there.
Ms. Dalton. They do work and go on fishing vessels and help
collect the data. They also, in the situation of sea turtles in
the Southeast, it was Sea Grant extension agents and
researchers that developed all of the initial turtle excluder
devises that actually worked.
So they already do play that role, and it is an integral
part of the Sea Grant program.
Mr. Gilchrest. That's great.
Mr. Underwood, Mr. Faleomavaega, follow-up questions?
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Yes, thank you.
Not to beat this seahorse to death--
[Laughter.]
I know, Dr. Evans, as you were trying to characterize the
Hawaii program, the program at the University of Hawaii, that
it was necessarily a Pacific region program, but it was a state
program that took on I guess the elements of a Pacific program.
That is a fair assessment of what you said earlier, is it not?
Dr. Evans. Yes, it is.
Mr. Underwood. Okay.
Dr. Richmond, could you just describe to the Committee what
was the nature of the decision-making process, as you
understood, and the level of interaction and authority or
participation, including the University of Guam, of the
community colleges in the Micronesian region, in terms of their
participation and the decisions that were made at the Sea Grant
program at the UH?
Mr. Richmond. Generally, we had some input but were
excluded from the decision-making process.
As a matter of fact, I just had a discussion with Dr.
Steven Amesbury, who is the present director of the marine lab,
who proceeded me also on the rotation, and he was actually
asked to step out of the room when the decision-making was
going on.
In retrospect, he began to wonder if that was even legal
under U.S. law because it is a Federal program.
But when I was the director of the Sea Grant program, it
was very much the same thing: You can come to the meeting, you
can have some input, but when the decisions were made, please
leave the room.
I think this gets to the bigger issue, again, of a very
sensitive development of this consortium of island
institutions, to make sure that every institution gets to
select what they want and set their own priorities.
And Delegate Faleomavaega is absolutely correct. In Lelei
Peau's situation, he is the chair of the all-islands group.
That group has really set a good precedent of recognizing
equality among institutions, equality among islands, that
nobody is a position to tell another island what their
priorities are, but rather to work as a group and that there is
power in numbers.
And as Mr. DeVoe has said, high tide floats all boats. The
understanding here is that the islands do better together as a
region. Instead of competing with one another, we are working
together.
And that has really been the way in which this has
developed. From looking at one program at the University of
Guam, quite frankly, I had recommended against it, saying, why
would you have a Sea Grant program from one small university
with a very limited group of people? But in 1999, in the
Federal Register in January, there became this new regional
consortium opportunity, and that is when we jumped on it.
It was to recognize that here was an opportunity for all
six institutions to be equal partners. The way the governance
plan has come together is each institution is represented. It
was Salu Hunkin at the time, the president of American Samoa
Community College, an invitation simply said, ``Do you want to
participate?'' And the answer was yes. The same invitation went
out to all the regional colleges, and it was their decision to
participate.
And at the meeting we just had, all institutions were
represented, and that is really the concern I have, is that I
don't want another repeat of the University of Guam becoming to
the other institutions what we felt this system had been to us.
So what we have tried to do is put in checks and balances
where everybody is equally represented, and the strength of the
region is in, as Dr. Baird had pointed out, to remove
redundancy in administration. You don't want to waste a lot of
money on administration when in fact you can put it into
programs and projects.
And that has been the goal from the start, is recognition
of each individual institution's autonomy, but to work together
to save money on administrative oversight, but to make sure
everybody can participate meaningfully in their own decision-
making process.
Mr. Underwood. I know there has been a lot of attention
given to making comparisons to the Land Grant institutions. Of
course Land Grant institutions have at least 100 years history
on Sea Grant institutions, so it is very difficult to try to
make up that kind of time.
And of course, part of it is historically the Land Grant
institutions were responding to what we always thought was the
heartland of America. And now that we are all living by the
coasts, now the sense of heartland has shifted somewhat.
Does anyone any kind of comments as to how we can just get
the country to understand this in a more comparable framework?
You've got 15 seconds.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Evans. I will take a quick crack at it.
I think actually Sea Grant does a pretty good job or has
been doing a pretty good job at getting that message out. Part
of the extension and education program that they put together
in many of the programs really puts a lot of effort on raising
people's awareness of the importance of the coast. A lot of the
statistics that were cited at this hearing today about coastal
development, coastal population, the importance of coastal
economy, the effect of ports, I think is becoming more and more
widely appreciated.
And so I think that it is not so much a matter of battle; I
think it is a matter of education. And I think that our
collective awareness is really growing toward the importance of
the coasts.
You see coastal programs growing in a variety of ways
inside NOAA, Sea Grant among them. But I think the emphasis has
begun to--I think the recognition is coming.
Mr. Underwood. Well, then if that is really the venue, if
education is really the venue for this, then certainly I think
the attention given to extension agents and the outreach given
at that level is very critical.
Dr. Evans. I agree.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Faleomavaega, follow-up questions?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am still fuzzy on my previous question in understanding
exactly the process and the procedure and how a university
becomes a Sea Grant institution.
Mr. Gilchrest. We could go to lunch and clear that up,
probably.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. We could go to Chestertown and do that,
Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to offer this as another
possible area for legislation that is now pending as part of
our authorization legislation to define it better. Because I am
wondering that maybe the process becomes somewhat subjective.
If I were the president of the University of Guam, I would
be the first person to say that as an institution in the middle
of the Pacific, with all the marine resources and potential for
doing fantastic things dealing with the oceans, I would think
that as an institution, the Department of Commerce or the
Secretary of Commerce should look at favorably an institution
that automatically is right there for possible resources and
study and doing whatever is necessary to bring that institution
into the fold.
I am still bothered by the fact, why only 30 institutions?
And the criteria seems almost impossible, in my hearing.
When the University of Guam submitted its application, it still
did not meet that criteria. And I want to know, what is the
criteria? And if the criteria is such that it is above and
beyond anybody's ability to meet that requirement, then maybe
we ought to do it legislatively.
Can you comment on that, Dr. Evans?
Dr. Evans. In the Federal Register notice that Dr. Richmond
referred to, I think there were--I can't remember the number--
but I think there were five very specific criteria that were
identified for consortia to acquire Sea Grant status. And the
proposals, to be responsive, have to address each of those
issues, and there were very specific ways of evaluating those
issues.
I honestly don't know them off the top of my head, but I
would be happy to make that information available to you for
your consideration as to whether they are appropriate or not.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Submit them for the record, please.
Dr. Evans. We will be happy to submit that for the record,
so that it is part of these proceedings.
But there are very specific criteria that need to be met by
any group that wants to become part of the Sea Grant program.
And those were the criteria that were used by the panel in
their evaluations, and they refer to them very specifically in
their letter back to the Secretary, in terms of evaluating that
Guam proposal in particular.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I want to say to Dr. Richmond, I know
the gentleman from Hawaii is not here, and I am not trying to
defend the University of Hawaii, whatever administrative
problems and experiences that you may have had with them,
especially also the administrators of other colleges, but with
all due respect, I do not want America Samoa to be part of the
consortium for the simple reason of the proximity and the
distance.
The University of Hawaii has worked very closely with our
institution for a good number of years, and I intend to make
that to known to Mr. Peau. And the current president, the new
president that we now have at the college, is just recently
working Mr. Peau on a proposed grant for the Sea Grant program.
But I just Dr. Richmond to know that I don't know who
signed this consortium here. It is not Dr. Salu Hunkin's
signature. It is some person; I don't know who it is that
signed off on this.
But I definitely am going to make that known to the current
president.
But I want to say that another aspect of the Sea Grant
program, Dr. Evans, I am going to be delivering a paper at the
end of this month at an ornamental industries conference in
Florida.
Mr. Chairman, this is a $6 billion industry--$6 billion
industry--where, here again, Sea Grant could be a very, very
valuable resource, not only for study, for research. We have
clams that sell right now for about $60 to $90 a pop, simply
because of its beauty. It is blue, and you cannot find it in
Hawaii, but it is in Samoa.
And there are many other resources. The ornamental industry
is such a tremendous potential for those of us who come from
the islands.
And I suspect it is probably true even maybe for Maryland.
Let's go Chestertown.
[Laughter.]
Maybe we might do an ornamental farm there for something.
But I just wanted to share with you that I think there is
such a tremendous potential.
Just as it is the reality of the current Sea Grant program,
I will submit humbly, Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied, not
only with the funding, but with the tremendous amount of areas
that the Sea Grant provides for, I think we are doing a
tremendous injustice not only to the American people but even
to the young people of America to see that this program ought
to be sitting right along our friend's from the Land Grant
institution, to see where we can carry this.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of
the panel. And thank you for your leadership in calling this
hearing. I look forward to working with you and our
distinguished ranking member to see if we can get a better
authorization bill.
And I am sure Dr. Evans will just be happy to support,
especially the funding aspects of it.
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
I am not sure if some of those clams consider themselves
ornamental.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, we also eat them, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. As long as there are enough left in the deep
blue sea.
[Laughter.]
I think there were some sparks here today of insight and
ingenuity that we will take advantage of and work with you as
we continue the process. I think just about everybody here said
``a rising tide floats all boats.'' And I will just add one
other analogy to Dr. Knatz, I am sure you consider dredging
will help float more boats.
[Laughter.]
That has been an issue back here in Maryland and I hope we
find some common ground.
Thank you all very much for traveling, especially you, Dr.
Richmond. And I hope you enjoy your stay here on the East Coast
for the time that you are here.
And we will continue to stay in touch with you as we go
through the process.
Thank you all very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-