Defining a National 'Oceanshot': Accelerating Ocean and Great Lakes Science and Technology (Hearing, 2021)
Summary
Record of the hearing "Defining a National 'Oceanshot': Accelerating Ocean and Great Lakes Science and Technology" before the Subcommittee on Environment of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, June 7, 2021, Serial No. 117-19, with Chairwoman Sherrill presiding. In an opening statement, Chairwoman Sherrill said the United States has the largest ocean property in the world and that 80 percent of New Jerseyans live in coastal areas. Witnesses were Craig McLean of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dr. Margaret Leinen of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Dr. Michael P. Crosby of Mote Marine Laboratory and Dr. Robert D. Ballard of the Ocean Exploration Trust. Appendix II holds a letter submitted by Representative Mikie Sherrill.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Defining a National 'Oceanshot': Accelerating Ocean and Great Lakes Science and Technology (Hearing, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/house-hearing-117th-congress-defining-a-national-oceanshot-acceleratin-0bd3ccf725/
, SHA-256 8905b49b525311b2ecf925f9f49ef9afd45a83d16c76996d1deb2998e931bc69.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEFINING A NATIONAL `OCEANSHOT':
ACCELERATING OCEAN AND GREAT LAKES
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 7, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-719PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE SESSIONS, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
DON BEYER, Virginia YOUNG KIM, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAY OBERNOLTE, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DAN KILDEE, Michigan VACANCY
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey, Chairwoman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma,
DAN KILDEE, Michigan Ranking Member
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
C O N T E N T S
June 7, 2021
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Stephanie I. Bice, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 11
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Mr. Craig McLean, Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research and Acting Chief Scientist, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. Margaret Leinen, Vice Chancellor, Marine Sciences, Director,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Dr. Michael P. Crosby, President & CEO, Mote Marine Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 44
Dr. Robert D. Ballard, President, Ocean Exploration Trust,
Explorer-at-Large, National Geographic Society
Oral Statement............................................... 62
Written Statement............................................ 64
Discussion....................................................... 76
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Craig McLean, Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research and Acting Chief Scientist, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce....................................................... 94
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Mikie Sherrill, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
Victor L. Vescovo, Owner, CEO, Caladan Oceanic LLC........... 102
DEFINING A NATIONAL `OCEANSHOT':
ACCELERATING OCEAN AND GREAT LAKES
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
----------
MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:04 a.m.,
via Zoom, Hon. Mikie Sherrill [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time. Pursuant to House Resolution 8, today the Committee
is meeting virtually. I want to announce a couple of reminders
to the Members about the conduct of this remote hearing. First,
Members should keep their video feed on as long as they are
present in the hearing. Members are responsible for their own
microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted, unless
you are speaking. Finally, if Members have documents they wish
to submit for the record, please e-mail them to the Committee
Clerk, whose e-mail address was circulated prior to the
hearing.
Good morning. Welcome to today's Environment Subcommittee
hearing on Defining a National `` `Oceanshot' '': Accelerating
Ocean and Great Lakes Science and Technology.'' It's World
Ocean Month, and, in keeping with the theme, we are holding
this hearing a day before World Ocean Day and Capitol Hill
Ocean Week. With the largest ocean property in the world, the
United States is undoubtedly an ocean nation. My home State of
New Jersey is a microcosm, with 80 percent of New Jerseyans
living in coastal areas. The coastal New Jersey economy employs
almost three million people annually, earning over $188
billion.
The oceans are not just important to our coastal
communities. They are important to our inland communities as
well, as they sustain all life on our planet. The oceans
regulate the Earth's weather and climate system, and sequester
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Oceans are a major part of
the solution to the climate crisis. They also supply over half
of the oxygen we breathe, provide a major source of protein for
billions of people, and produce life-saving pharmaceuticals.
Human health is inextricably tied to ocean health, but ocean
health is under siege. Climate change, ocean acidification,
plastics pollution, overfishing, and other human activities are
stressing our oceans. We need bold, ambitious, science-based
solutions to these growing challenges. At today's hearing we're
going to hear from experts on their perspectives on the science
that is needed most urgently, but also what our longer-term
vision should be.
We are at an important juncture for ocean science. This
year marks the beginning of the U.N. Decade of Ocean Science
for Sustainable Development. This is an opportunity for the
United States to think outside the box, and to find a bold,
ambitious vision for advancing ocean science and technology
(S&T) to address major challenges such as climate change.
Simply put, we need a moonshot equivalent for the ocean. We
need an Oceanshot. As we discussed on this Subcommittee last
Congress, we have better maps of the Moon and Mars than we have
of our sea floor. Two major challenges we face, the chronic
underfunding of ocean science in the U.S. and around the world,
and that ocean science suffers from a lack of diversity. Ocean
science is the least diverse of all of our STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, with Black
students representing less than 2 percent of graduates. A March
2021 House Science Committee Majority Staff Report found that
less than 4 percent of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) scientists are Black, and only 1.3 percent are
Black women.
Investing in ocean science and innovations present
significant economic opportunities. In the U.S. the goods and
services provided by the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes,
called the Blue Economy, is valued at $373 billion. As this
administration and Congress look to build back better, we have
the opportunity to build back bluer. Opportunities for
expanding ocean science also mean opportunities for job
creation. So I want to welcome our expert panel of witnesses
today who will provide perspectives on critical ocean science
and technology from Federal, academic, non-profit, and
philanthropic sectors. I look forward to hearing their ideas
for how the U.S. should engage in transformative, bold ocean
research to help society.
We ultimately need a collective effort to build
partnerships, collaboration, and cooperation to achieve desired
science and conservation outcomes. The oceans know no
geopolitical boundaries, and connect us all over the world. The
U.S. should not only be the global leader in ocean science, but
we should build international partnerships and scientific
collaborations to increase our collective knowledge and global
health. Given that the ocean benefits us all, advancing ocean
science and technology can and should be a bipartisan issue,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to support
these issues in Congress.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Sherrill follows:]
Good morning and welcome to today's Environment
Subcommittee hearing on ``Defining a National `Oceanshot':
Accelerating Ocean and Great Lakes Science and Technology.'' It
is World Ocean Month, and in keeping with the theme, we are
holding this hearing a day before World Ocean Day and Capitol
Hill Ocean Week.
With the largest ocean property in the world, the United
States is undoubtedly an ocean nation. My home state of New
Jersey is a microcosm, with 80 percent of New Jerseyans living
in coastal areas. The coastal New Jersey economy employs almost
3 million people annually, earning over $188 billion.
The oceans are not just important to our coastal
communities; they are important to our inland communities as
well, as they sustain all life on our planet. The oceans
regulate the Earth's weather and climate system and sequester
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere: oceans are a major part of
the solution to the climate crisis. They also supply over half
of the oxygen we breathe, provide a major source of protein for
billions of people, and produce life-saving pharmaceuticals.
Human health is inextricably tied to ocean health.
But ocean health is under siege. Climate change, ocean
acidification, plastic pollution, overfishing, and other human
activities are stressing our oceans. We need bold, ambitious,
science-based solutions to these growing challenges. At today's
hearing, we are going to hear from experts on their
perspectives on the science that is needed most urgently, but
also what our longer-term vision should be.
We are at an important juncture for ocean science. This
year marks the beginning of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for
Sustainable Development. This is an opportunity for the United
States to think outside the box and define a bold, ambitious
vision for advancing ocean science and technology to address
major challenges such as climate change. Simply put, we need a
moonshot equivalent for the ocean; we need an ``oceanshot.'' As
we discussed on this Subcommittee last Congress, we have better
maps of the moon and Mars than we have of our seafloor.
Two major challenges we face is the chronic underfunding of
ocean science in the U.S. and around the world, and that ocean
science suffers from a lack of diversity. Ocean science is the
least diverse of all STEM fields, with Black students
representing less than two percent of graduates. A March 2021
House Science Committee Majority Staff report found that less
than four percent of NOAA scientists are Black, and only 1.3
percent are Black women.
Investing in ocean science and innovations presents
significant economic opportunities as well. In the U.S., the
goods and services provided by the ocean, coasts, and Great
Lakes, called the Blue Economy, is valued at $373 billion. As
this Administration and Congress look to Build Back Better, we
have the opportunity to Build Back Bluer. Opportunities for
expanding ocean science also mean opportunities for job
creation.
I want to welcome our expert panel of witnesses today, who
will provide perspectives on critical ocean science and
technology from the federal, academic, non-profit, and
philanthropic sectors. I look forward to hearing their ideas
for how the U.S. should engage in transformative, bold ocean
research to help society. We ultimately need a collective
effort to build partnerships, collaboration, and cooperation to
achieve desired science and conservation outcomes.
The oceans know no geopolitical boundaries and connect us
all over the world. The U.S. should not only be the global
leader in ocean science, but we should build international
partnerships and scientific collaborations to increase our
collective knowledge and global health.
Given that the ocean benefits us all, advancing ocean
science and technology can and should be a bipartisan issue,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to support
these issues in Congress.
Chairwoman Sherrill. So now I'd like to recognize Ranking
Member Bice for an opening statement.
Mrs. Bice. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill. I want to
thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee and
sharing their perspectives this morning. Public awareness
around ocean science is at a peak right now. Tomorrow is World
Oceans Day, this week Capitol Hill Ocean Week, June is National
Ocean Month, and this year we kick off the start of the U.N.
Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. This is
prime time for our Subcommittee to capitalize on the heightened
public attention our oceans and Great Lakes are receiving.
Representing the landlocked State of Oklahoma, I admit I
am not much of an expert when it comes to ocean science and
technology, but that's why I'm excited to be here today, to
learn from our captivating panelists. Given that the ocean
economy produces almost $300 billion in goods and services, and
employs more than three million people, it is impossible to
deny there is a national trickle down effect to areas that are
landlocked. While I personally don't have much experience with
ocean science, I do have firsthand experience with extreme
weather. I was fascinated to learn how the most moist air that
blows off the Gulf of Mexico is part of what makes Oklahoma
Tornado Alley.
As we hear our witnesses today discuss their ideas on what
should make a great oceanshot for our Nation to pursue, I
understand that any such effort could result in improved
weather forecasting, and understanding of tornado formation.
That is something that could save lives, money, and property in
Oklahoma, and other States that experience severe weather. Just
as the moon shot led to many new and unexpected technology
innovations, a well-coordinated oceanshot could spur
breakthroughs in technology that benefit more than just marine
science. The potential benefits could touch all aspects of
society, including the economy, national security, public
health, and more. Whether it's advanced sonar or automated
drones, the technologies being used for ocean exploration can,
in turn, offer benefits to industries like offshore oil
production and wind energy generation. Creating silos where
technology is only developed for one purpose within the
government is the definition of wasted taxpayer resources.
Furthermore, I'd like to discuss how the Federal
Government can be a better partner with private industry,
academia, nonprofits, and philanthropists to accelerate the
translation of basic science into applied research, and
ultimately a marketable product. Just like the Department of
Energy's basic research led to the fracking revolution by the
natural gas industry, I hope that the NOAA is striving to
conduct research that will benefit the United States economy
for decades to come. Lastly, I want to focus on how we can
market the pursuit of STEM education to the next generation of
scientists and explorers. We've heard in this Committee before
the challenges our Nation is facing at remaining competitive
and retaining talented young individuals in prominent science
roles, especially women and minorities, and from those rural
communities.
We know that any oceanshot we try to achieve cannot be
successful if we do not invest in the talent of tomorrow. We
need to first make this field appealing and attractive to the
brightest minds our country has to offer, and then have the
pieces in place to provide them a top tier education on this
subject. Ocean science is a wide-ranging topic touching on
everything from energy, critical minerals, living resources,
and ecosystems. I look forward to hearing how the ocean science
and technology enterprise can solve complex challenges and
strengthen our Nation and its communities. Thank you, Madam
Chair. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bice follows:]
Thank you for holding this hearing, Chairwoman Sherrill. I
want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the
subcommittee and sharing their perspectives.
Public awareness around ocean science is at a peak right
now. Tomorrow is World Oceans Day, this week is Capitol Hill
Ocean Week, June is National Ocean month, and this year we
kickoff the start of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for
Sustainable Development. The time seems prime for our
subcommittee to capitalize off the current heightened public
attention our oceans and Great Lakes are receiving.
Representing the landlocked state of Oklahoma, I admit I'm
not much of an expert when it comes to ocean science and
technology, but that's why I'm excited to be here today to
learn from our fascinating panelists. Given that the ocean
economy produces almost $300 billion in goods and services, and
employs more than 3 million people, it's impossible to deny
there is a national trickledown effect to areas that are
landlocked.
While I personally don't have much experience with ocean
science, I do have firsthand experience with extreme weather. I
was fascinated to learn how the moist air that blows off the
Gulf of Mexico is part of what makes Oklahoma tornado alley. As
we hear our witnesses today discuss their ideas on what could
make a great `Oceanshot' for our nation to pursue, I understand
that any such effort could result in improved weather
forecasting and understanding of tornado formation. That is
something that could save lives, money, and property in
Oklahoma and other states that experience severe weather.
Just as the `Moonshot' led to many new and unexpected
technology innovations, a well-coordinated ``Oceanshot'' could
spur breakthroughs in technology that benefit more than just
marine science. The potential benefits could touch all aspects
of society such as the economy, national security, public
health, and more. Whether its advanced sonar or automated
drones, the technologies being used for ocean exploration can
in turn offer benefits to industries like offshore oil
production and wind energy generation. Creating silos where
technology is only developed for one purpose within the
government is the definition of wasting taxpayer resources.
Furthermore, I'd like to discuss how the federal government
can be a better partner with private industry, academia, non-
profits, and philanthropists to accelerate the translation of
basic science into applied research and ultimately a marketable
product. Just like the Department of Energy's basic research
led to the fracking revolution by the natural gas industry, I
hope that NOAA is striving to conduct research that will
benefit the United States' economy for decades to come.
Lastly, I want to focus on how we can market the pursuit of
STEM education to the next generation of scientists and
explorers. We've heard in this committee before the challenges
our nation is facing at remaining competitive and retaining
talented young individuals in prominent science roles,
especially women and minorities, and those from rural
communities. We know that any `Oceanshot' we try to achieve
cannot be successful if we do not invest in the talent of
tomorrow. We need to first make this field appealing and
attractive to the brightest minds our country has to offer and
then have the pieces in place to provide them a top tier
education on the topic.
Ocean science is a wide-ranging topic touching on
everything from energy, critical minerals, living resources,
and ecosystems. I look forward to hearing how the ocean science
and technology enterprise can solve complex challenges and
strengthen our Nation and its communities.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And we are happy to have
the Full Committee Chairwoman, Ms. Johnson, with us today. The
Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman for an opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, for
holding this important hearing on the future of ocean research
in the United States. It is an exciting time to be discussing
the ocean, given it is both World Ocean Month and Capitol Hill
Ocean Week. I also want to welcome our expert panel of
witnesses and thank them for sharing their perspectives with us
today. Representing a landlocked city--that is until about a
month ago. It's been raining a month here. I hope we'll still
have landlock when it's over. It has not decreased my
appreciation for the importance of the world's oceans. A lot of
attention is rightfully given to the impacts of extreme
weather, sea level rise, and subsidence on coast communities,
but the oceans also impact those of us who do not live near
oceans.
It is important to realize that the weather we experience
is greatly influenced by our oceans. Warmer oceans cause
stronger hurricanes. They also can contribute to extreme
precipitation events. This can be led to damaging floods, like
the ones both in Texas and across the Midwest in recent years.
Having a better understanding of our weather forecasts,
regardless of where we live, we also know that the oceans have
mitigated even worse impacts of climate change by absorbing
much of the excess heat and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But this buffering effect has impacted ocean ecosystems.
Absorption of carbon dioxide emissions by our oceans has led to
more acidic environments that can harm marine organisms. This
Committee was instrumental in the passage of two bipartisan
ocean acidification bills out of the House last month. These
bills will help coastal communities and economies address the
impacts of ocean acidification.
There are many topics within the field of ocean science,
but I expect ocean exploration will be a key part of our
national oceanshot initiative. On this front, we are working on
a bill to advance our national ocean exploration priorities.
This bill will also support efforts to build a more inclusive
and diverse ocean exploration enterprise. It is my hope that it
will also be an enabler for increasing diversity in ocean
sciences more broadly. It is clear there is a lot of potential
for the U.S. to become the global leader in ocean science and
technology. I look forward to today's discussion on what our
country's future oceanshot should be, and how this Committee
can help the United States live up to our leadership potential
in this area. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, for holding this important
hearing on the future of ocean research in the United States.
It is an exciting time to be discussing the ocean given it is
both World Ocean Month and Capitol Hill Ocean Week! I also want
to welcome our expert panel of witnesses and thank them for
sharing their perspectives with us today.
Representing a landlocked city like Dallas has not
decreased my appreciation for the importance of the world's
oceans. A lot of attention is rightfully given to the impacts
of extreme weather, sea level rise, and subsidence on coastal
communities. But the oceans also impact those of us who do not
live on the coasts.
It is important to realize that the weather we experience
is greatly influenced by our oceans. Warmer oceans cause
stronger hurricanes. They can also contribute to extreme
precipitation events. This can lead to damaging floods, like
the ones both in Texas and across the Midwest in recent years.
Having a better understanding of our oceans, through
observations, will improve weather forecasts regardless of
where we live.
We also know that the oceans have mitigated even worse
impacts of climate change by absorbing much of the excess heat
and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But this buffering effect
has impacted ocean ecosystems. Absorption of carbon dioxide
emissions by our oceans has led to more acidic environments
that can harm marine organisms. This Committee was instrumental
in the passage of two bipartisan ocean acidification bills out
of the House last month. These bills will help coastal
communities and economies address the impacts of ocean
acidification.
There are many topics within the field of ocean science,
but I expect ocean exploration will be a key part of a national
``oceanshot'' initiative. On this front, we are working on a
bill to advance our national ocean exploration priorities. This
bill will also support efforts to build a more inclusive and
diverse ocean exploration enterprise. It is my hope that it
will also be an enabler for increasing diversity in ocean
sciences more broadly.
It is clear there is a lot of potential for the U.S. to
become the global leader in ocean science and technology. I
look forward to today's discussion on what our country's future
``oceanshot'' should be, and how this Committee can help the
United States live up to our leadership potential in this area.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Madam Chair. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point. At this
time, I'd like to introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Craig McLean. Mr. McLean is the
Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
and Acting Chief Scientist at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration within the U.S. Department of
Commerce. Mr. McLean is responsible for overseeing, directing,
and implementing NOAA's research enterprise, including a
network of research laboratories and NOAA programs in ocean and
atmospheric fields. Mr. McLean serves as the U.S.
representative to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Mission.
He also serves on the Executive Planning Committee of the U.N.
Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. He
previously served in other leadership roles in NOAA, and was
founding director of the Office of Ocean Exploration and
Research, and served for nearly 25 years in NOAA's Commission
Corps as Captain.
Our next witness is Dr. Margaret Leinen. Dr. Leinen is the
Director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Vice
Chancellor for Marine Sciences, and Dean of the School of
Marine Science at the University of California, San Diego. Dr.
Leinen is an award-winning oceanographer, and leader in ocean
science, global climate, and environmental issues. Previously
she served as Vice Provost for Marine and Environmental
Initiative, and Executive Director of Harbor Branch
Oceanographic Institute. She also served as Assistant Director
for Geosciences and Coordinator of Environmental Research and
Education at NSF (National Science Foundation). She's a member
of the Executive Planning Group of the UN's Decade of Ocean
Science for Sustainable Development and a fellow of numerous
scientific societies.
Our third witness is Dr. Michael P. Crosby. Dr. Crosby is
the President and CEO (chief executive officer) of the Mote
Marine Laboratory and Aquarium, an independent research
institution that has been a leader in marine research for 60
years. He has more than 30 years of multidisciplinary research,
teaching, and science management, and leadership experience.
And our final witness is Dr. Robert D. Ballard. Dr.
Ballard is the President of the Ocean Exploration Trust and
Explorer-at-Large with the National Geographic Society. He is
best known for his discoveries of hydrothermal vents, the
sunken RMS (Royal Mail Ship) Titanic, and numerous shipwrecks.
He's been a pioneer in the development of advanced exploration
technology. Dr. Ballard was awarded with the National Endowment
for the Humanities Medal by President George W. Bush in 2003,
and is also a retired Navy officer.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have five
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing. When you all have
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel, and
we'll start with Mr. McLean. Mr. McLean?
TESTIMONY OF MR. CRAIG McLEAN,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
AND ACTING CHIEF SCIENTIST,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. McLean. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Sherrill, and
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Bice, Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
speak here today as the Acting Chief Scientist of NOAA, and in
my permanent position as Assistant Administrator for Ocean and
Atmospheric Research. I'm also the representative for the
United States at the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission, which created the Decade of Ocean Science. Dr.
Leinen and I, plus four other Americans, were among only 20
individuals selected globally who have guided the development
of this Decade of Ocean Science. I extend my commitment and
greetings to our two other panelists, Dr. Ballard, who's a very
close partner of ours in the inspiration and innovation of
ocean exploration, and Dr. Crosby, who also has had quite a
history, including NOAA.
The writings of Rachel Carson and Jacques Cousteau gave
warning and inspiration about the importance of our ocean
environment. Those warnings produced environmental legislation
to clean the air, the water, the ocean, and our environment and
our economy has both prospered since. Today America's Blue
Economy is worth nearly $373 billion in GDP (gross domestic
product), as the Chairwoman reminded us. But today's warnings
again appear to include plastics pollution, pirate fishing, and
those of the climate crisis, ecosystem tipping points, ocean
acidification, coral death, harmful algal blooms, sea level
rise, and others. In response, the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission created the U.N. Decade of Ocean
Science for Sustainable Development.
There has been a dearth of national and international
investment in ocean science that I fear has generated
consequences. We do not allow ourselves to think big enough.
How is it that since 1960 the deepest diving vehicles in the
United States have come from private individuals, James Cameron
and Victor Vescovo? The oceans are not just a romantic
curiosity. The oceans regulate climate, generate oxygen we
breathe, and they control our weather. If you're in the
agriculture sector of the heartland of America, your seasonal
weather outlook is determined by what is happening in the
Indian Ocean, half a world away. If you like your 7-day weather
forecast, thank an oceanographer.
The gaps we need to fill are more ocean observations in
measurements with ships, aircraft, surface and undersea
autonomous platforms, Argo floats, gliders, drifters, and then
also the operational satellites. More scientific funding is
necessary in order to enable the understanding of these
observations. Both of these fuel and build better models that
have to be developed and run on larger computers. And we do
need a well-trained, innovative, transdisciplinary, diverse
workforce. You will see all of these issues and items addressed
in NOAA's Fiscal Year 2022 budget request to strength NOAA, and
the Nation's dedicated ocean science agency.
We should define our U.S. national oceanshot for the ocean
decade by integrating these and other capabilities across the
entire Federal sector to simply, and boldly, make the ocean
transparent. To know and understand the physical, the
biological, chemical, geological, and even archaeological terms
of the oceans. No more mysteries. Certain knowledge. Making the
ocean transparent would require, No. 1, mapping, exploring, and
characterizing the ocean. Not just the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ) of the U.S., but the whole global ocean. Only 19 percent
of the global ocean, and less than half of our own EEZ have
been mapped. The United States should lead the discovery of the
world ocean. No. 2, completely define the ocean's life and
ecosystem. Plants, animals, bacteria, to the whales. Genetic
material in the water, salt and fresh, can reveal the inventory
of species and their interactions by simply sampling the water.
We need to do this, and we need not even see the creature.
These OMIX (ocean mixing processes)technologies, once fully
developed, would give us the pace of discovery needed to
baseline our understanding of change from a warming climate.
No. 3, accelerate the use of our rich data holdings. Big
Data, artificial intelligence, machine learning, exa-scale
computing, all will enable further ocean discovery from within
our existing and future holdings. Lastly, No. 4, the global
Decade of Ocean of Science should be led decisively by the
United States with a bold innovation, imagination, and actions
approach. This will be a STEM recruitment and opportunity to
inspire every young American, whether in the heartland or on
the coast. Ocean science is exciting. Let's sell it. We can
equally stimulate young people to put on blue jumpsuits and
dream of space and oceans. Even put them in a mask and snorkel,
let them taste the salt, and see the environment where real
alien life forms have been found, and where proven medical
cures of the foundations from our life here on Earth have come
from. This ocean decade will constitute a once in a career, if
not once in a lifetime, opportunity. The need for global focus
on oceans is upon us. Let the United States regain its
leadership, and may the ocean decade reveal secrets that today
we cannot even imagine. Thank you very much for this
opportunity to speak with you, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McLean follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. Next we'll go to
Dr. Leinen.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARGARET LEINEN,
VICE CHANCELLOR, MARINE SCIENCES,
DIRECTOR, SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY
Dr. Leinen. Thank you, Chair Sherrill, Chair Johnson,
Ranking Member Bice, and Subcommittee Members. Thanks for the
opportunity to testify during this hearing on defining a
national oceanshot. You have all heard over the last few years
about the key role that the ocean plays in our economy, and
Representatives Sherrill, Johnson, and Bice all highlighted
that in their statements. The ocean is responsible for
contributing to our food security, to the largest economic
sector in the U.S., travel and tourism, to our national
security, and, of course, global trade is marine trade. And
these are just the largest roles.
Science and technology are powerful drivers of these
roles, and you've asked us to think about how a national
oceanshot could accelerate ocean S&T, and contribute even more.
Captain McLean has emphasized thinking boldly about a
transparent ocean, and has identified some of the ideas that he
believes will contribute to that transparency, mapping the sea
floor and the biology of the ocean. I would emphasize that the
reason it is so important to have a transparent ocean is to
achieve predictability regarding impacts on the ocean, and the
ocean's impact on us.
The biggest gap in our understanding of ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes science is our lack of ability to predict the
consequences of the major changes that are affecting these
essential aquatic environments. For example, while we know
impacts of harmful algal blooms on coastal ecosystems and
tourisms, we don't know what triggers them, and cannot predict
them. We need to change that. We need to be able to predict the
impact of changes in the ocean, like acidification, warming,
deoxygenation. We need to be able to predict those impacts on
our seafood resources, whether they're from natural harvests or
aquaculture. We need to be able to predict the impacts of
natural hazards, hurricanes, tsunamis, sea level rise, to a far
greater degree than we can now.
Our lack of predictability is costing us money every year,
money lost to flooding and erosion, money lost to beach
closures, money lost to impacts of acidification on
shellfisheries. In my State, California, just north of my
university campus, California transportation authorities are
debating about which of two multibillion dollar plans will have
to be adopted to move Amtrak lines that are currently within a
few feet of a rapidly eroding coastal bluff that's being
affected by both sea level rise and changing precipitation.
Lives are at stake as well. In the same area, three sunbathers
were killed 2 years ago when a portion of a bluff failed.
Achieving levels of predictability that can save money and
lives certainly requires that we maintain and improve our
existing ocean observing systems in the same way that we do our
weather observing systems. Our current level of understanding,
and thus predictability, requires these baseline observations.
But for the future, we also need to begin observing the biology
of the ocean with the same scale and frequency that we observe
at circulation and physics. It requires that we take up new
challenges, like mapping the sea floor, and predictability
requires that we connect those observations to predictive
models that include both biology and the ocean environment.
As you've highlighted, in order to achieve this, we need
to have opportunities for all to participate. It must be an
inclusive and diverse workforce of people meeting these
challenges. This is not impossible. Our entering class of Ph.D.
students this fall has 25 percent American People of Color,
including 10 percent Black students. It--this still doesn't
represent the demographics of the U.S., but it shows that we
can make strides in this right now, and we must.
Last January, as you observed, we began the U.N. Decade of
Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. I can tell you
firsthand that the U.S. has shown great leadership in
developing both the rationale for the decade, as well as the
groundbreaking science and technology ideas that have been
proposed for the decade. We have the opportunity to now
leverage our U.S. resources with the resources of other
countries from around the world. It's a once in a generation
opportunity to have our oceanshots made more affordable by the
contribution of others. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leinen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much, Dr. Leinen. And
next we will go to Dr. Crosby.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL P. CROSBY,
PRESIDENT & CEO, MOTE MARINE LABORATORY
Dr. Crosby. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, Chair Johnson,
Ranking Member Bice, Members of the Subcommittee on
Environment. I greatly appreciate your invitation, and the
opportunity to testify at this hearing on defining a national
oceanshot. I provided much more comprehensive thoughts and
recommendations on this important subject in my written
testimony, and my comments today are provided in my role as
President and CEO of a somewhat unique organization.
Established in 1955, Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium
is a completely independent nonprofit marine research and
science education institution that, for 66 years, has pushed
the frontiers of science for a noble cause, conservation and
sustainable use of our oceans. Mote currently has over 260
staff, including 37 Ph.D. level scientists conducting research
at our six campuses throughout Florida, and with partner
institutions around the world. Mote is also a total soft money
research and science education institution, in that, unlike
universities and agencies, we must proactively secure all of
our annual funding, primarily through competitive research
grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, and
philanthropy. We also have no tenure, no guaranteed jobs, yet
we have researchers with over 30-year careers at Mote. Mote
believes that a national oceanshot should be aimed at achieving
a vision that we have advocated of Oceans for All by pushing
forward the frontiers of science to develop innovative
solutions for restoring, sustainably utilizing, and conserving
the wealth of our ocean resources, while also ensuring equity
of transformational opportunities for experiential STEM
education of all K-12 students, and the broader public, that
will enhance the overall level of ocean literacy throughout
diverse communities.
Now, irrespective of the enormous economic, cultural,
aesthetic, and general quality of life values that the ocean
provides to each of us, everybody everywhere in the world, no
matter where you live, is connected to the ocean, as our Chair
said in her opening remarks, with every breath you take. Over
50 percent of the oxygen we breathe comes from the oceans, not
land. Therefore, a national oceanshot that prioritizes science-
based solutions to address the most pressing challenges facing
our oceans is absolutely vital to our continued existence.
A national oceanshot strategy for maximum impact, beyond
just pushing the frontiers of science, will need to weave
together four components. The specific ocean science and
technology development foci that are most urgently needed, the
importance of building more diverse, equitable, and inclusive
ocean S&T enterprises, the vital need for an enhanced level of
ocean literacy throughout society, and the important role of
independent nonprofit institutions as full partners with
government and academia.
Now, specific and most urgently needed science and
technology development foci that should be included are the
following six areas: 1) coral reef research and restoration, 2)
harmful algal bloom mitigation and technology development, 3)
evolution of science-based environmentally sustainable
aquaculture, 4) advancing electronic monitoring technologies
for fisheries, 5) impacts of ocean nano-plastics, and 6)
coastal resiliency, science, and engineering.
In addition, building a more diverse, equitable, and
inclusive ocean S&T enterprise will bolster creative and
collaborative solutions to all the grand challenges our oceans
are facing. Unfortunately, only 10 percent of undergraduate
geoscience marine STEM degrees are awarded to underrepresented
minorities. The Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority
Participation Marine Science Laboratory Alliance, Center of
Excellence, or MarSci-LACE for short, can serve as a model for
a national oceanshot priority in developing and implementing a
new paradigm for increasing under-represented minority
participation and success in marine STEM-related careers beyond
that provided by traditional degree-granting institutions. A
novel aspect of MarSci-LACE lies with independent marine
research institutions having a distinct culture of innovation,
independence, and entrepreneurship that is essential for the
future underrepresented minority success in higher education
research and careers in STEM.
And, in closing, it's worth noting that paradigms for
funding and conducting science in the U.S. have evolved
considerably since World War II, with the creation of NSF, a
growing role for Federal funding of research in the intervening
decades, and now the growing importance once again of
philanthropy and independent nonprofit research institutions,
such as Mote Marine Laboratory. So given the somewhat unique
role of these institutions, these nonprofit independent
research institutions, a national oceanshot initiative should
consider the critical value of these institutions, and the
vital niche role they play in enabling the U.S. to stay at the
forefront in a global research and innovation enterprise. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Crosby follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. And, finally, we have Dr.
Ballard.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT D. BALLARD,
PRESIDENT, OCEAN EXPLORATION TRUST,
EXPLORER-AT-LARGE, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY
Dr. Ballard. I want to thank the leadership of the
Subcommittee and its Members for inviting me to speak today. I
would like to begin----
Chairwoman Sherrill. Dr. Ballard, I'm having trouble
hearing you.
Dr. Ballard [continuing]. Despite this fact, we have
better maps of Mars and the far side of the moon than half of
our own country. I believe every classroom in America should
have a detailed map of our country on its walls that shows all
of our great country, not just the half that pokes up above sea
level. Fortunately, Congress created the Office of Ocean
Exploration within NOAA in 2004, but only recently has Congress
begun giving that office the resources needed to map and
characterize that 50 percent of----
Chairwoman Sherrill. Is there anything we can do to
improve Dr. Ballard's sound?
Dr. Ballard. When it comes to the----
Staff. We're working on that.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thanks.
Dr. Ballard [continuing]. Submitted to the Subcommittee, I
found a glaring absence of innovative ideas, including the use
of telepresent technologies and autonomous vehicles, including
uncrewed surface ships for future ocean exploration and
research. The Department of Defense and private industry are
much farther down this road than the oceanographic community,
with DARPA's (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's) Sea
Hunter and Ocean Infinity's Armada surface ships, as well as
uncrewed containerized ships that will soon be coming online.
Clearly the oceanographic community----
Staff. I'm sorry to interrupt, also, if you are able to
turn up your audio on your devices as well, that should also
increase it, if it's not all the way up.
Dr. Ballard [continuing]. But sadly, they're not even
thinking about such ships for the UNOLS (University-National
Oceanographic Laboratory System) fleet. Last year, during the
height of the----
Chairwoman Sherrill. Still very quiet.
Dr. Ballard [continuing]. Our ship of exploration, the EV
(Exploration Vessel) Nautilus, put to sea when many other
research ships did not. Thankfully, we'd already implemented
the use of telepresence, which does not require the science
team to be at sea. Telepresence is clearly a major step in the
direction of future uncrewed research ships, and this year
we'll begin moving the operational team ashore as well.
When it comes to the Blue Economy, I believe the most
important thing we need to focus on is feeding the growing
population of the world. Noted Harvard sociobiologist E.O.
Wilson warns us that there's a limit to how many people the
world's farmlands can feed, even if all human were vegetarians,
and that limit is 10.5 billion people. According to the latest
projections, we reach that number by the year 2050. This crisis
could come even sooner than 2050, since we're using up so much
farmland to house our growing population, and just last week
China encouraged its people to increase the number of children
in their families by 50 percent, which this curve does not
include.
For the human race to survive we need to move away from
being a hunter/gatherer society at sea, and, like we did on
land over 2,000 years ago, become farming and herding at sea.
To do this we need to accelerate open ocean aquaculture in the
tropics, where there are few fish living there naturally. We
need to convert carnivores to herbivores, and feed them sea-
based plants instead of land-based plants. Their cages would be
fully submerged, far from land, in deep water, and managed by
autonomous vehicle systems.
When it comes to how we increase the engagement of
underrepresented minorities in ocean science and technology, we
need to start very early in their lives. Aquariums engage
toddlers in the wonderment of the underwater world. We begin in
middle school to engage all American children in live
interactive exploration in all possible venues. And equally
important, we believe our core of exploration, which is now
exploring the unknown America, has all the faces of our country
in its ranks to serve as role models and mentors for the next
generation.
When it comes to involving more Native Americans and
Hispanics in ocean exploration and technology, I would focus on
their early history in America. We now know that Native
Americans, and many members of the Hispanic communities in our
country today, can trace their origins to the migration of
humans across the land bridge called Beringia that formed some
22,000 years ago, when vast glaciers covered the world's land
map, lowering sea levels some 125 meters, or 410 feet, below
its present level. As a result, there are vast areas of the
U.S. continental shelf that were once occupied by the ancestors
of today's Native American and many Hispanics living in our
country today. Clearly there should be more efforts to
explore--OK, I need to--with Native--I'm sorry for that
problem. Can you hear me even better now?
Finally, I want to recommend cutting across many
disciplines in the recommendations I've made, which are
supported by many different agencies within the Federal
Government, including the Department of Commerce, Interior,
Education, Defense, to name a few. For that reason, we need to
place a greater emphasis upon interagency programs using
organizations like the National Ocean Partnership Program
(NOPP). But, again, I want to thank all of you for inviting me
to testify before you today, and I'll be more than happy to
answer any of your questions you might have, and my testimony
that I just gave is also in written form.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ballard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. Thank you so much. So at
this point we will begin our first round of questions. I'll
recognize myself for five minutes.
To begin, in the U.S. we've seen an increase in the number
of devastating extreme weather events in the last few decades.
NOAA reported that 2020 set a new annual record of 22 weather
and climate disasters that caused at least $1 billion in
damages. For one, our hurricane seasons are getting more
powerful as climate change causes the oceans to warm, which
fuels the hurricane intensity. And, Mr. McLean, you mentioned
that weather changes in the Indian Ocean can affect the
Midwest, and if you like our seven-day forecast, thank a
oceanographer. So how exactly do ocean measurements help us
better understand weather patterns and improve predictions of
hurricanes and other extreme weather events?
Mr. McLean. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill. The--as
a former aviator, I think you're very sensitive to that ocean
and atmospheric interaction, in that the oceans really do drive
weather. For 50 years--NOAA celebrates now its 50th
anniversary--we've been studying that air/sea interaction. That
was the purpose of creating our agency, among several others.
And what we've come after that 50 years is a much better
understanding of that air/sea interaction. So, by establishing
the types of observing systems and monitoring systems that Dr.
Leinen spoke of, we've been able to see not just the
correlation but the causation of activities that our ocean
atmosphere interruptions, disruptions, changes, that are then
experienced all the way across the Pacific, and onto America's
heartland, as far as the East Coast, and even into Europe.
Global circulation is the key to understanding local
events, when and how they will occur. And the key to our
enhancing that understanding, to give you better forecasts in
the coast of New Jersey, is to be understanding this complete
global circulation. More monitoring, more analysis, that'll
beget better models, and we need larger computers in order to
run them. Those observations are key to understanding the
weather.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thanks so much. So you listed a
couple of the gaps in ocean science or technology that we need
to fill. Are there any others, besides more computers? We
talked a little bit about the lack of diversity that we're
working on. Where are the gaps that we need to fill?
Mr. McLean. I believe most of those you see as a starting
point in what--each of the testimonies has been given here
today. I think we all agree on so many of those commonalities.
What I would offer to you is that NOAA, as the civilian ocean
science agency of the United States--NOAA is a $12 billion
agency trapped in a $5-1/2 billion budget. When I compare that
to all of the objectives that we have, responsibly been
allocated to us by Congress through authorizations, if I stack
all those authorizations up in what we're supposed to be doing,
we just can't afford to do them all.
And we don't work in isolation. We're not a solo act as a
Federal agency. We work with other Federal agencies, of course,
but we also provide much of our funding, and we enjoy the
fruits of, the academic community, places like Dr. Leinen's
institution, Dr. Ballard's institution, Dr. Crosby's
institution. We fund all of these components, and get much
value from it. We're just not doing enough. So those gaps are
in the areas already identified for us to be taking action, but
to fill those gaps, we need more resources than we have
available.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thanks. And then, as I mentioned in
my opening statement, we spend relatively little on ocean
science. In fact, a fraction of a percent of our GDP is
allocated to ocean science, and a recent report by the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission reported that the
global average for ocean science spending is only 1.7 percent
of GDP. It also found that countries with the strongest
relative growth in ocean science over the last few years
included China, Iran, India, and Korea, but not the United
States. So, Mr. McLean, again, it's my understanding there's no
dedicated funding to support the U.S.'s activities during the
Ocean Decade. How will these activities be funded, how much
does the U.S. need for ocean science compared to what we're
currently spending, and what would it take to have a national
Oceanshot?
Mr. McLean. Chairwoman, I believe that a good analogy
could be that the cost of mapping the world ocean, as developed
by experts far beyond my--or expertise far beyond my own, is
that the rough approximate cost of a Mars mission would be what
it takes in order to map the world ocean, and that the United
States leadership could be attained in order to achieve that,
but roughly $3 billion. And I--I'll not put him on the spot,
but I believe my colleague Dr. Ballard might have further
analysis and information on deriving some of those numbers. But
the level and scale of what we're spending right now is more
like 50 to $80 million a year to be mapping, and at that rate,
you could multiply by time and see how long it's going to take
us to get there.
To fund the Ocean Decade, there is no pot of money. No
nation has yet allocated a specific pot of money. But at the
interagency level in the United States, with Navy, NASA
(National Aeronautics and Space Administration), NOAA, NSF, and
other agencies, we're looking at prioritizing what may arise as
these ocean opportunities, because they will indeed be highly
leveraged, as several of your Members of the Committee have
said, and several panelists as well. This will be a highly
leveraged opportunity, so now is a good time for us to be
making investments at the Federal level, either with the
initiative of the executive branch or the congressional and
legislative branch to find some opportunity to fund, some pot
of money to fund, which could easily be distributed through the
National Ocean Partnership Program, as I believe Dr. Crosby
mentioned, and Dr. Leinen. So we have the vehicles, we have the
methods. We can do this.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Well, thank you so much, and I'm
afraid my time has expired. Before we proceed, I want to bring
the Subcommittee's attention to a letter for the record from
owner, CEO, and Chief Submersible Pilot of Caladan Oceanic,
LLC, and retired U.S. Navy Commander Mr. Victor Vescovo. Mr.
Vescovo's letter expresses support for this hearing, states
that the U.S. is no longer the clear leader in ocean research,
and discusses his Oceanshot recommendation of comprehensively
mapping and characterizing the entire U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone. His letter also offers recommendations for how the U.S.
can succeed, including making marine research permitting more
efficient, and engaging the fast-acting private sector. So,
without objection, I am placing this document in the record.
And I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mrs. Bice, for five minutes.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill. First of all,
Mr. McLean, you mentioned the costs of mapping would be
approximately $3 billion, and you touched on the timeframe. How
long would it actually take to complete that mission?
Mr. McLean. I believe we could accomplish that in a
decade, for two reasons. One is the number of survey systems
that are available that could be accessed, but even more so,
the opportunity to increase technology, to be delivering better
methods, better products than we have today, would be the
inspiration of such an oceanshot, much as the space shot, the
Moon shot, was the inspiration for so many technologies that
had been the fruits of the investments that the aerospace
industry had invested. So I think there will be a logic that
follows that we won't use today's technology, and over the
course of the decade, excuse me, that we'll be having the
entree and the inspiration for innovators in the country to be
building and making new tools to do this in a more automated
way, a less fuel consuming way, and also less personnel
dependent. It would lower the cost.
Mrs. Bice. And this is for any of our panelists, can you
talk a little bit about the collaboration with other countries,
in either trying to map, or using technology to research the
ocean? Dr. Ballard?
Dr. Ballard. Yes. It is sort of ironic that we are being
funded by NOAA's Office of Exploration to map the Exclusive
Economic Zone, and, in our particular case, focusing on the
Central Pacific and Western Pacific, where a tremendous amount
of Americans' real estate is located. We literally have to turn
our sonars off when we transit through other nations, and these
nations lack the resources to map their own EEZs. I see a great
opportunity for America to do what we used to refer to as soft
power, and help those other nations map their own countries,
instead of having us transit through those countries' EEZs with
our systems turned off.
Mrs. Bice. Do you believe there's a collaborative
opportunity there for us to work with those countries to
actually achieve that goal?
Dr. Ballard. Absolutely. They lack the resources. Some of
these countries--90 percent of their nations', Kiribati, for
example, 90 percent of that nation's land is beneath the sea,
and they lack any of the technologies that we have to actually
map and characterize theirs, because after we map and
characterize, we then move into the Blue Economy phase to take
advantage of what we've learned. And just imagine that if you
help them do that, they might be very interested in helping you
go to the next level. So I think it's just smart business.
Mrs. Bice. This was brought up in a couple of the opening
statements about science-based agriculture, or ocean farming.
Can you talk a little bit about where we are right now with
ocean farming, and what the potential could be? Certainly we
see the decrease in farmland across the United States. What are
the opportunities that we have for that particular industry?
Dr. Ballard. Well, certainly Michael, in Mote Marine Labs,
has been doing pioneering work in this area. I know that some
new open ocean aquaculture is being done off Western Florida.
What's important about it is that you're looking at real estate
particularly in the tropics. There's a program called the
Velella Project that worked off the big island of Hawaii, off
the Kona Coast, where they're out in tropical water that has
very low nutrients, so you're not competing with the ecosystems
in those waters. And they're taking what are very expensive
fish that we pay at sushi restaurants, and they call it
yellowtail sushi, and we pay $7--$17.50 a pound for that
wholesale, and we pay $1.50 for a pound of pork.
So if you look at the value of those ecosystems--and they
flipped them from being carnivores, at the top of the food
chain, to herbivores, at the bottom, by feeding them now more
and more ocean plant-based foods, so it's scalable to a very
large level, because the largest living space on our planet is
in the high seas and the mid-water zone. So this is a simple
solution that can be brought online, but it's not happening.
Mrs. Bice. Dr. Crosby?
Dr. Crosby. Congressman Brice, if I could add to that? The
United States imports over 90 percent of the seafood that we
consume in this country. Well over 50 percent of that is
aquaculture. The overwhelming majority of that is from China.
The United States has a pitiful track record, as does most of
the world, when it comes to open ocean aquaculture. But the
technologies that have been developed over the past decade for
open water aquaculture, as well as land-based recirculating
systems, has advanced rather significantly. This is one of the
greatest opportunities for our country to grow a whole new
economy. It's an issue of food security, it's an environment--
it's an environmental sustainability issue, and we have the
technologies to move forward with this now, and this should
really be a priority within an oceanshot.
Mrs. Bice. Perfect. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you. Next I recognize the
Chairwoman of the Full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for five
minutes.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
have a question, after I make a statement, for each of the
witnesses. President Kennedy's moonshot speech excited
Americans with a goal of landing a human on the Moon. It
sparked the curiosity of a nation in space exploration. It has
been argued that a similar oceanshot is needed to spark the
Nation's curiosity about our oceans. In terms of defining a
large, multi-disciplinary goal for ocean science and
technology, I'd like to ask each of you to briefly articulate
your concept of a national Oceanshot, and why it matters. I
know, Mr. McLean, I was talking with you, you got close to
commenting on something----
Mr. McLean. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. I believe that
it would be to fully map, explore, and characterize the ocean
to the point where we have no longer any mysteries of what is
in the ocean. And this would take a lot of people, take a fair
bit of time, and sufficient funding, significant funding, in
order to make this happen. But until we really know the planet,
the submerged portion of the planet, here we are as managers in
your Committee, and other Committees of jurisdiction, trying to
give recommendations for how we manage the patient, the ocean,
because of our human influences on it. We don't have the
``Grey's Anatomy'' of the ocean. We don't have the full pulse
and respiration of the ocean until we do this work. And until
we get that, we won't really know how to handle and take care
of the patient, which gives us life. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Ballard?
Mr. Ballard Add to that, we--you know, I was born in
Wichita, Kansas, where all oceanographers come from, and I'm a
13th generation American, and I was brought up on the history
of the Lewis and Clark expedition. When Jefferson acquired the
Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, he doubled the size of the
United States of America, and launched that great 2-year
expedition, and we know how much it changed the economy of our
Nation. We now have done that again in acquiring the U.S. EEZ.
We have now doubled again the size of America, and as we
export, we will change the economy of our country once again.
He called his Corps of Exploration the Lewis and Clark
expedition. Our core--the team of our ships of exploration, are
they doing the second expedition, we call it the Lois and Clark
expedition, because 55 percent of our team are women in
positions of authority, and, as you saw in that image, we're
able, through our telepresent technology, to engage all
children in this historic expedition that will take the next 10
years. So talk about an oceanshot, that's it.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you.
Dr. Leinen. Chairwoman Johnson, I'll add to that by saying
that we need to go beyond mapping, and seeing what's there in a
geographic sense, to understanding what's there in the
biological sense. And not just mapping what we can see, the
large organisms, but also that unseen, microbial world of the
ocean that really controls so many of the interactions between
the organisms and ourselves. I like to say, you know, it's a--
the microbes on the world, they just like to have us around
because we're great hosts, and that's true for the ocean as
well. So this idea of being able to actually define what is in
the ocean, as well as the various parts of the ocean and
mapping them, is really critical for this oceanshot.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Dr. Crosby?
Dr. Crosby. Madam Chair, if I could just add two cents'
worth here on this? Nobody on this panel will disagree that
pushing the frontiers of science should be, and must be, a
priority for this oceanshot, but I would suggest that there's
both a strategic perspective that should be addressed, as well
as a more tactical perspective. Strategically, things like
mapping the entire sea floor, this is pushing the frontiers of
science, no question about it. It's an exciting thing that
should be done. But at the same time, we are witnessing now the
functional extinction, right before our eyes, of coral reefs in
Florida and around the country. We are witnessing right now
harmful algal blooms that are decimating the environment,
public health, our quality of life, and the economy, and we're
also witnessing rising sea levels that are really creating
significant challenges to coastal communities all around the
Nation. And I would suggest that part of the oceanshot must be
to harness the national research and engineering enterprise to
address these most urgent problems as well.
And I would further state that we must engage the public
in this. We must enhance the level of ocean literacy amongst
the broader public to understand the importance of the science,
and the connections with the oceans, and we're not going to do
that through peer reviewed science publications. We need to
engage more of the aquariums and museums around the country in
telling the story, and translating and transferring science
from the oceanshot.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Your--all of your
testimony has been excellent, and I appreciate you being here,
and I yield back.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now I am
going to defer to Committee Counsel for the order of
recognition.
Staff. Mr. Feenstra is recognized.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairwoman Sherrill, and Ranking
Member Bice, and I want to thank the witnesses for their
testimony, and sharing their extensive research and experience
with us. Although my district is not near the coast or the
Great Lakes, we do have rivers, and lakes, and watersheds, and
fisheries in Iowa that are crucial to our economy.
Additionally, improving our knowledge of ocean currents and
temperatures will help us create and better predict our weather
in the Midwest, which also helps our rural economy, and my
district.
So this is a question for all the witnesses. While my
district may not touch the ocean, or Lake Michigan, we are home
to the Missouri River, and our own great lakes in Iowa. I would
like to know how advances made in oceanfront might also benefit
inland waterways? For example, in 2019 the Missouri River
flooded three times, causing significant damages to Iowans that
we're still recovering from today. Are there any oceanshot
proposals for flood prevention and building community
resilience in such disasters like these? And I'd like to ask
anyone that could answer that.
Mr. McLean. Congressman Feenstra, I'll certainly defer to
my panelist colleagues shortly to follow, but from the
oceanshot proposals that have come to our attention so far, I
think the bigger picture approach of recognizing how greater
ocean observations, and understanding what they mean, greater
density of observations, to really fill out some of the systems
that we have today will give our friends in Iowa, whether they
be transportation sector, agricultural sector, lake residents,
the insults that the land-living people have endured are more
easily forecast in the future, and something that's very much
part of what we're looking at here, and across all Federal
agencies.
Resilience in the coastal environment, which includes the
lakes, resilience is top priority. How do we let those citizens
who have chosen to live within the vulnerable reach of coasts,
whether it be a lake coast or saltwater coast, but also people
in the middle of the heartland may not have a body of water
next to them. The resilience to climate change is very much a
part of what we're looking for as the products of this science.
And when we can tell people what is coming, whether it's the
finance industry, the re-insurers, or the homeowner, and the
mayor, knowing what is coming, and building your community, or
your personal property, or your business to be responsive to
that future is very important, and we're committed to be
delivering that. NOAA's at the center of this with our climate
service information, and the academic colleagues that support
us throughout the sector of the university community, including
each of the panelists' organizations that are with us today.
Thank you.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Any other thought on that from
anyone?
Dr. Ballard. Yes. At this very minute my team is in Lake
Huron. We're working to map--working with the Thunder Bay
Marine Sanctuary there, which was massively increased. As you
know, Thunder Bay and the Great Lakes are very unique in that,
because they're freshwater, shipwrecks are perfectly preserved.
And so we're now going through a very systematic use of the
very technology we developed for ocean exploration to apply it
to Great Lakes exploration, and we're also doing that entire
operation live. So, yes, we see the Great Lakes as an
underwater museum of American history, and we need to make sure
we understand it and preserve it.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. This will be a question to all
the witnesses also. On another similar note--again, coming from
the Midwest, one of my many priorities in Congress of promoting
and enhancing wind energy and renewable fuels. Are there any
emerging ocean technology ideas that these energy spaces could
also be utilized in a lake or a river environment? Is there
anything out there that we can garner from ocean technology?
Mr. McLean. I'll offer other colleagues an opportunity to
speak, I've been getting most of the questions, but please
defer. All right. Perhaps, Congressman, we can get back to you
with some ideas. And I think, from across the Federal sector,
the ideas of technologies that are emerging with Department of
Energy and commercial sector, there are probably a good number
of technologies, but the ones that we're focused on right now
are more on the oceanfront, but, by looking at hydrothermal, or
thermal-based energy, and also wind, I could imagine that
there's a lot to discuss here, but we would look forward to
having a more comprehensive answer for you in the future.
Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. And, you know, considering I know in
oceans there's also algae technology that's being used in the
biofuels industry, and we're playing with that also in the
Midwest, when it comes to algaes, and things like that. So I
think there's a lot of collaboration that could be done by
what's happening in the ocean, and then also what's happening
in the Midwest when it comes--and then also wind. I mean, we do
so much with wind here, but, you know, you look at the vastness
of oceans, and how we could capture the wind that's coming off
oceans, and things like that. So I truly engage those that are
on the call to, you know, look at those type of things. So--
thank you so much, I yield back.
Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair
Sherrill, and Ranking Member Bice, and--holding this hearing
during National Ocean Month, and thank you to our witnesses. We
know, as you've established in the testimony, that every person
on this planet benefits from a healthy ocean, and I appreciate
the discussion today about why ocean health is important to
everyone, not just those of us who represent coastal districts.
The ocean drives our economy, feeds, employs, and transports
us, and the power of its waves generates clean energy. And as
we recognize the inaugural year of the U.N. Decade of Ocean
Science, I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
Committee, with the leadership at NOAA, and the scientific
community to protect and preserve the ocean, and to rapidly
accelerate the collection, management, and dissemination of
ocean data.
So tomorrow, to recognize World Oceans Day, I'm going to
reintroduce my bipartisan Blue Globe Act with my fellow co-
Chair of the House Oceans Caucus, Congressman Young. For those
Members who are on this--in this hearing today, if you're not
already a Member of the House Oceans Caucus, I invite you to
join us. Our bill tasks the National Academy of Sciences with
assessing the potential for an Advanced Research Project
Agency--Oceans, or ARPA-O, because we need to overcome the long
term and high-risk barriers in the development of ocean
technology. So I'm going to ask, Mr. McLean, how would ARPA-O
help drive the advances in ocean science and technology that
are necessary to contribute to our national Oceanshot goals,
and what steps is NOAA currently taking to scale up ocean
observations and exploration?
Mr. McLean. Congresswoman Bonamici, thank you so much for
your support for many of the programs that you mentioned, and
the opportunities that are before us. In terms of an ARPA-O, I
think it would be wonderful for this government, for the United
States, to be proffering such an instrument, because it would
change the tolerance for risk. In order to have an ARPA-like
approach, almost by definition, one has to surrender the
timidity with which we generally approach Federal science
programs, and give us that courage to have the innovative risk-
taking, possibly failing, in order to learn something, and we
don't have that today. I think the paucity of resources leaves
us with a remarkably diminished risk tolerance. So I think that
would be one very positive step.
The other one I'd mention, in terms of what the Federal
community is doing, including, of course, NOAA, as the
principal civilian ocean science agency, is that we're
embracing more of the National Ocean Partnership prospect. And,
once again, thank you to the Congress for giving us the tools
to further expand the utility of the National Ocean Partnership
Program. So, by looking at--as I believe Dr. Ballard and Dr.
Crosby each mentioned, looking at philanthropy as a ready
partner, looking at the commercial sector as a ready partner,
and other components, we have instead traditionally just been
relying on two or more Federal agencies to sponsor the Ocean
Partnership Program activities. But by broadening that, we, I
think, will be much more successful.
Now, I'm not saying that NOPP would equal ARPA-O, but what
I can say is you combine the two together, and you really take
an all hands on deck approach, as we are with climate science
under the current administration, I think we get there. I think
we have a wonderful opportunity to get there. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. So much. That's very helpful.
And, Dr. Leinen, after the stark findings in the latest IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Special Report on
the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, we know that
ocean data and monitoring are critical in assessing and
adapting to the climate crisis, so I appreciate the
acknowledgement in your testimony that we understand the
effects of environmental stressors like harmful algal blooms
and marine heat waves, ocean acidification, and hypoxia. But
there's still a significant gap in our understanding of how to
predict this--these phenomena, as you mentioned. So coastal
communities, including those I represent in Northwest Oregon,
are acutely aware of this gap. So how can Congress better
support not only basic ocean science and observation, but also
adaptation and mitigation research necessary to support coastal
communities affected by the climate crisis?
Dr. Leinen. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. Yes, I
think that much of the community has started to turn to look at
adaptation as well as understanding, because we know that it's
going to be necessary. And, as an example, my own university
has a center for climate change impacts and adaptation that
focuses on partnership with our local and regional communities
to look, for example, at their adaptation to sea level rise,
and we're not the only ones. This is going on around the
country. It's very important, and I think that this a place
where we really need to use all of the partnerships that are
available to us. NOAA has an important role to play, but they
can't do all of it. Universities have an important role to play
in developing new ways of adaptation, but we can't do all of
it. And I think that Congress can really help by fostering
those connections, and emphasizing partnerships, and actually
funding partnerships that work effectively to do this.
I'd also like to comment on your question about an ARPA-O,
because in your questions to all of us you asked us to comment
on the idea of an Ocean Internet of Things. And we're used to
this idea on land, and--all of our devices communicating with
each other, but that's not possible in the ocean right now. We
have tens of thousands of sensors and instruments in the ocean,
and they can't talk to each other because the electromagnetic
transmission in the ocean doesn't work very well. It doesn't
work over long distances. A few months ago we all sat in front
of our televisions and watched a new rover land on Mars, and we
actually saw, with a few minutes' delay, the process of that
taking place because it was communicating with satellites, it
was communicating with other devices on Mars, and communicating
back to us. We can't do that in the ocean unless there's a wire
attached to that sensor or instrument that goes to the surface,
or goes to a mooring, and then goes up to a satellite, and then
back down. That's the only way that instruments could talk to
each other. But there are exciting ideas about new ways of
transmission, and new mechanisms for transmission, that could
be looked at to really create an Ocean Internet of Things, as
well as a land-based Internet of Things.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you so much, and thanks to
the Chair for your indulgence in letting me run over a bit for
that wonderful answer. Thank you again. I yield----
Staff. Mr. Kildee is recognized.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, and thank you to
Chairwoman Sherrill for hosting this really important hearing.
I come from Michigan, as you may know, and so I'll talk about
the Great Lakes, which, for us, is our lifeblood, but it also
literally outlines the shape of our State, defines who we are
as a people, so I'm really happy--I was happy to hear Dr.
Ballard's reply to the question from Mr. Feenstra, and I'd like
to pursue a little bit more regarding the specific issues
regarding the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes are central not only to defining who we
are as a people--we rely upon them for the essentials of life--
but also for our livelihoods. According to the Great Lakes Sea
Wave Partnership, shipping on the Great Lakes and the St.
Lawrence Seaway supported $35 billion in economic activity in
2017. Detailed maps are important for enabling safe and
efficient transportation and shipping, particularly when it
comes to protecting the environment. Last year my legislation,
that I authored along with Senator Gary Peters, the Great Lakes
Environmental Sensitivity Index Act, became law. This
bipartisan legislation prioritizes and updates Federal mapping
of the Great Lakes, which are used to respond to emergencies
and to protect habitats, species, structures that are most
likely to be impacted by a potential spill, or some other sort
of disaster.
The Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) Maps for the
Great Lakes are maintained by NOAA, and Environmental
Sensitivity Index Maps are detailed guides that highlight
vulnerable locations. NOAA, for example, announced just
recently at a field hearing that the agency updated the ESI
maps for two specific priorities in the Great Lakes, priority
areas, that is, including the Mackinaw Straits. Other maps in
the Great Lakes, however, have not been updated, some for
decades. So, Mr. McLean, if I could start with you, can you
give us a bit of an update on the Environmental Sensitivity
Index Maps in the Great Lakes, and where we stand on them.
Mr. McLean. Congressman, thank you very much for, first,
your leadership in recognizing the importance of that
opportunity, and, second, for raising generally the notion of
mapping in the Great Lakes. The area inside of NOAA that has
primary responsibility for those activities is one we--that I
work very closely with, because there was a science connection,
but I'll be happy to give you a follow up and more detailed
explanation of the exact schedule of where we're going. But let
me reside--rely back on a point I made earlier. Without the
leadership that your legislation provided, including the
authorization of appropriations, the recommended funding level,
we're at a point where we can't do it all, and trying to figure
out the triage order, or the highest priority, is something
that we have been entertaining.
And after several events up in the Lakes that I know
you're--I'm sure very familiar with, we've been looking at the
modeling in and around certain areas where pristine shorelines,
versus the possibility of spills, might be implicated. And
principally the area of leadership for this activity is the
Office of Response and Restoration, which are our experts in
valuing, and also guiding, the chemistry to clean up such spill
events. But our Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
is very involved in that as well, as our sea grant components,
and the many other aspects of the NOAA programs. But we'd be
very happy to follow up with you with a more detailed answer,
sir. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. And, Dr. Ballard, since you
mentioned the Lakes, I wondered if you might comment, but I'd
be interested--about how much of the Great Lakes remain
unmapped or unexplored. We obviously know that there's a lot of
area in our oceans globally that are unexplored, and we assume
that the Great Lakes must be fully mapped and explored, but
what--we know that's not the case. What sort of technologies or
resources do you all believe are needed in order to finish that
process?
Dr. Ballard. You're accurate, Congressman. A tremendous
amount of the Great Lakes has not been mapped in any sufficient
detail. I might point out that the expedition we're conducting
right now in your State, or off your State, is being all run
from land. The vehicles are all autonomous, supported by
drones. Biggest part of our costs in ocean exploration is the
ship. We're not using a ship. We're able to do it all remotely,
and I think that that will greatly accelerate the rate at which
we finish the Great Lakes. They could be done much more rapidly
if we reverted to doing it all from land, with autonomous
surface ships. Like I mentioned, autonomous surface ships--
we're working with the University of New Hampshire to make this
all happen. They're experts in the development of these new
vehicle systems, and we have a new one coming online this year
that can go back into the Great Lakes and map at an even higher
accuracy, and at a greater speed.
Mr. Kildee. Any other comments from the other panelists
before we--I yield back? Looks like my time's expired as it is.
Thank you so much. I love this Committee, and this is a good
example of why I do. This is a fascinating hearing. Thank you,
and I yield back.
Staff. Mrs. Fletcher is recognized.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much. And thank you to
Chairwoman Sherrill for hosting this really important hearing.
Thank you to all the witnesses. This has been a really useful
and informative hearing, and these issues are vitally important
to people in my district in Houston, as well as the entire Gulf
Coast region, where this is such a huge part of our lives, and
our livelihoods, and I'm really pleased and proud that some of
the most important legislation that we took up in the last
Congress, and again in this Congress, relates to issues
relating to ocean science. And I also want to acknowledge the
leadership of my colleague, Congresswoman Bonamici, who's been
just a really tremendous leader on these issues. So really glad
to be with all of you today to hear your thoughtful questions.
And I want to follow up on some of the questions that Mr.
Kildee just asked, because he talked about maps, and the Great
Lakes, which is obviously important. I have a little bit
different angle on maps. There are a number of ocean technology
industries with footprints, headquarters, in my district,
including the geodata company Fugro, which is a major
contributor to ocean mapping data to the ocean decade, and also
Ocean Power Technologies, which is a U.S. company focused on
innovative ocean energy technology. And I've been there, I've
visited with them, I've seen some of the really incredible
things that they're doing, and think it's really exciting, and
that there are a lot of opportunities to partner here, which
is, of course, something so important to those of us in our
district.
So my first question, I guess, is directed to Mr. McLean.
How can NOAA better leverage private sector partnerships with
companies like these to support ocean science?
Mr. McLean. Congresswoman, your two examples are
fantastic, because the technologies that are available through
those two companies, and others, certainly, in the Houston area
that have grown, in some cases, out of the oil industry are
really applicable to civilian science, and there's a huge
opportunity there. We looked at using the professional
societies to get greater engagement between, for example, NOAA
program managers and the technologies available. I think there
is at times a propensity to look with a lean budget and say,
``Well, my gosh, we can't afford to do something different than
what we're doing today'', but we're learning how to get out of
that trap, and we're realizing that bringing program managers
in confluence with the providers of such technology, including
Ocean Power Tech and Fugro, is an opportunity for us.
We actually hosted, at several of the OCEANS Conferences--
they're sponsored by the Marine Technology Society and the IEEE
(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Ocean
Engineering Society every year, and we hosted a seminar, ``How
To Do Business With NOAA.'' It was one of the most popular
seminars that has been ever launched at those conferences, and
people really came to understand that working with certain
Federal agencies is not the exact same way you work with other
Federal agencies. And being able to explain that, and open it,
is really, I think, the key. We're committed to it, we realize
that--where such partnership is, and--let me just highlight
Fugro for a second. Fugro is donating ocean mapping data, as is
Dr. Ballard, as are Dr. Leinen's people, but Fugro, as a
commercial company, doesn't have to do this, and they are, with
the spirit of advancing our knowledge of the ocean. So there's
remarkable opportunity in the public/private sector. Thank you.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much for that, and for
specifically highlighting Fugro, which is headquartered right
here in my district, and is doing--just really thoughtful work,
and I'm glad to hear that it's been such a successful
partnership, and collaboration, really. And I guess that's a
question I'd love to follow up with any of the other witnesses,
if you want to weigh in on this issue, or whether it's your
view that it's necessary for the government to either be more
flexible, or do anything differently, or perhaps novel to work
more effectively in these kind of public/private partnerships,
and if so, are there specific suggestions you would make for
how to do that, and anything you think we should be doing in
Congress to help make that possible? Dr. Ballard, looks like
you have your----
Dr. Ballard. Well, as you know, I have a long history in
academia, but an equally long history with the National
Geographic Society, and their leadership now has changed
dramatically just within recent months during the pandemic, and
I encourage you to reach out to the leadership of the society,
because it's moving much, much closer to the academic view of
exploration. And they're contributing significantly not only in
mounting expeditions--we've done a number of expeditions with
them--but they're also making a major commitment--Dr. Vicki
Phillips, who's the new Educational Officer at National
Geographic, wants to reach 28 million children, and we're
mounting major programs with them. Because of the technology of
telepresence, we're able to go into any classroom in the United
States at will, but we needed sponsors, and here's a private
sector organization, National Geographic, stepping up to the
plate, and offering to reach vast numbers of people.
And while I have the podium here, I didn't get a chance in
my speech to talk about a particular aspect of the
underrepresented community. Please read my full testimony. I'm
dyslexic, and I believe it's a very underrepresented community,
and you'll find in the ocean world a significant, large number
of dyslexics, and I think this a kind of initiative that's
across all parties. Look at the Dyslexic Caucus in your House,
and you'll see every persuasion of representatives there, and I
see an opportunity for bipartisan activities on reaching the
dyslexic community.
Mrs. Fletcher. Great. Well, thank you so much, Dr.
Ballard, and for your full testimony touching on this issue and
others, and your testimony here now. Thanks to all of you. I
have exceeded my time, but I do thank you all for your
submissions, and for your really thoughtful work. And, again,
Chairwoman Sherrill, thank you for holding this hearing, and I
yield back.
Staff. Mr. Casten is recognized.
Mr. Casten. Thank you so much. This is fascinating as
always, as I would expect from our illustrious Chairwoman. Mr.
McLean, I want to try to focus on climate change, and
particularly, you know, areas where we have--where, at least
from my vantage point, not yours, please chime in if you
disagree, sort of the highest ration of gaps in our knowledge
to potential impacts. And the first one is--if you could just
help me--and I ask this in the context of where should we be
funding, and where, you know, where should we be focusing a
little bit more strongly. The first one is how comfortable are
you that we have a good understanding of changes in temperature
and CO2 at depth, and the impacts of mixing, and how
big a deal on that is--if we are--if we have gaps in that
knowledge?
Mr. McLean. Congressman, we have labels of confidence in
the IPCC, for example, and I'd have to refer you back and do a
little bit more homework to give you that label of confidence.
But I would offer you right now that we need to do much more
work there in order to be looking at the climate cycle, and the
ocean climate cycle with carbon. So that's an area that we need
more measurements. We need more opportunities to establish
monitoring networks and such.
One of the key issues that we talk about is climate-
related carbon sequestration. And as we look at the Great
Atlantic Conveyor Belt, as it's described, or the Atlantic
Meridional Overturning Circulation that's up in the Northern
Hemisphere, and we have the same in the Southern Hemisphere, as
we start to watch that slow down, that's very concerning to our
European colleagues, because that's what keeps those high
latitude countries a little bit warmer from the Gulf Stream
influence. If that slows down, what effects might await us?
Further, if it slows down, how will the carbon that's taken
into deep water and sequestered, because of the organic
activity in the upper ocean, how will that change? We need to
know that a little bit better, so that's an area that I think
warrants the kind of ARPA-O discussion that we were having, or
other type of innovative research to be putting more
monitoring, more studying of chemical and physical process, and
then being able to see what that tells us for the longer term
climate. In the near term climate, I think we're pretty good at
being able to project what scale and resolution of accuracy we
can project, but for the longer term effects, that's a
necessary area of investment.
Mr. Casten. You have--no surprise, you have exactly
understood the reason I asked the question, that--I've--you
know, I've seen for years these discussions of Gulf Stream
slowdown, maybe even stopping, maybe even migration. Can you
help our panel understand, you know, a little bit more tangibly
what's at stake if that shuts down, and how it impacts our own
climate, and where the gaps are? Like, what do we need to know
more to actually be able to predict if this is a big problem,
or just something that's scary, but unlikely?
Mr. McLean. At the broad stroke level, we're pretty good
at understanding what the situation is. That situation is
indeed concerning, and there are no off ramps to this. We have
to figure a way through this. If we look and realize that the
ocean absorbs about 25 percent of the carbon dioxide into the
ocean itself, just in the chemical gradient--there's greater
concentration in the atmosphere, the ocean absorbs it--that's
changing the pH of the ocean. That means the ocean is getting
more acidic. That's--that is compromising the life cycle of
many small organisms, and even larger organisms, that calcify.
So, by not understanding this fully, we're not able to
give the kind of forecast for how people could hopefully
mitigate, but perhaps even at a larger scale, look at the cause
of this. What is causing the CO2 buildup? It is our
current global energy source. And that informs policymakers
that go beyond my ability or my domain, but we're just
responsible for providing that science. The more science we can
generate to inform the right path forward for policymakers, the
more informed our Nation will be, and the better decisions and
choices we'll make. But that--the carbon buildup in the ocean,
it's acidification, it's a compromise of coral reefs, which are
a lifeblood. Dr. Crosby was talking about the concerns for
coral reefs. There are many impacts on coral reefs now,
acidification being just one of them, and we also have a
shellfish industry that is--that's rooted in the ability to be
predictable. This is a great disruptor of that prediction. But
when we start talking about global circulation scales, there's
still more that we need to know, other than the broad strokes.
We need that artistic fine brush of the portrait to be able to
look with greater precision as what year--what years will we
then be at what circumstance.
Mr. Casten. OK.
Mr. McLean. I hope that----
Mr. Casten. And if that--yeah. And I guess what I'm trying
to understand is if that--so if that thermal conveyor, you
know, shuts down, as you said, and then Europe becomes much
cooler because the heat isn't there, is it reasonable to
conclude that that means that the United States goes the other
direction, that that's where the heat is being pulled from?
What happens to our continent if that conveyor belt shuts down,
or slow substantially?
Mr. McLean. I think that's still an open question, and I
would have to defer to really the state of the science right
now, which finds a number of issues that relate to that being
not quite settled. But I'd be happy to follow up with you, and
even bring some experts that could discuss that subject with
you, sir.
Mr. Casten. Very much appreciate that. Thank you, and I
yield back.
Dr. Leinen. If I could make a comment on that? One of the
big gaps there, Congressman, is our lack of knowledge of the
deep ocean. So--and heat in the deep ocean. We know that about
93 percent of the excess heat that's generated from greenhouse
gases goes into the ocean, and, as a result of development of
the Argo system at universities, including mine, and its
operation by NOAA, we know the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean
fairly well. But two things, No. 1, NOAA is having trouble
funding the complete Argo system, No. 2, it only goes down to
2,000 meters. We now have instruments that area called Deep
Argo that would allow us to do the full depth, and that's the
lower part of that overturning cycle. And one of the reasons we
can't give you great answers to the question of what will
happen as a result of--if this slows down is that we don't
understand the deep part. So we have to add that to the Argo
system in order to be able to answer those questions.
Mr. Casten. Well, let's do that, and thank you to staff
for allowing Dr. Leinen's excellent answer and clarification
beyond her time.
Chairwoman Sherrill. Thank you so much. For those of you
on the Committee, you know I, as a former Naval officer,
normally run a tight ship, but this was so interesting, and
such a great panel. I thank you for your indulgence in some of
the time we went over on the questions, but really, really
interesting. I want to thank first all of our Committee--our
panel Members before we bring this to a close. I want to thank
my Ranking Member for co-hosting such a great panel. I also
just want to point out that this has been, I think, just a
great group of Members of Congress from both coasts, East
Coast, West Coast, our Southern Coast, the Gulf, with our
Member from Texas, and then our inland Members who see how
critically important the ocean is even to our Midwest and
Southwestern States. So it's really a great group of Members,
and I would encourage all of our panelists for--to feel free to
reach out to any of our Members through our professional staff,
and the experts on our different staffs that are engaged in
these issues, and we'd be happy to continue this really
fascinating discussion. And I do want to recognize Rep.
Bonamici, who has been such a leader in really protecting our
oceans and looking for forward-thinking legislation. So thank
you, everyone, today for your time and your participation.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
statements from the Members, and for any additional questions
the Committee may ask of the witnesses. And I encourage
Members,
if you have further questions, to please reach out to the
professional staff, and we can drill down into some of that.
The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
Thank you all so much.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was
adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Craig McLean
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Mikie Sherrill
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg44719_chrg-117hhrg44719.htm
- Size
- 105,690 bytes
- SHA-256
- 8905b49b525311b2ecf925f9f49ef9afd45a83d16c76996d1deb2998e931bc69
- Original
- No public link identified.