[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
USING NEW OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES: PROMOTING EFFICIENT MARITIME
TRANSPORTATION AND IMPROVING MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS AND RESPONSE
CAPABILITY
=======================================================================
(113-72)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 21, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-781 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
------ 7
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska JOHN GARAMENDI, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey RICK LARSEN, Washington
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida, LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
Vice Chair CORRINE BROWN, Florida
TOM RICE, South Carolina JANICE HAHN, California
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida (Ex Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Thomas W. Altshuler, Ph.D., vice president and group general
manager, Teledyne Marine Systems............................... 3
Charles Benton, chief executive officer, Technology Systems Inc.. 3
Casey Moore, president, Sea-Bird Scientific...................... 3
Dean Rosenberg, chief executive officer, PortVision, a division
of AIRSIS Inc.................................................. 3
David M. Slayton, research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford
University, and cochair and executive director, Arctic Security
Initiative..................................................... 3
Eric J. Terrill, Ph.D., director, Coastal Observing Research and
Development Center, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California, San Diego............................ 3
PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS
Hon. John Garamendi, of California............................... 28
PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED
BY WITNESSES
Thomas W. Altshuler, Ph.D.:
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California.. 30
Charles Benton, prepared statement............................... 39
Casey Moore:
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California.. 47
Dean Rosenberg, prepared statement............................... 55
David M. Slayton:
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California.. 76
Eric J. Terrill, Ph.D.:
Prepared statement........................................... 88
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California.. 98
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
USING NEW OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES: PROMOTING EFFICIENT MARITIME
TRANSPORTATION AND IMPROVING MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS AND RESPONSE
CAPABILITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in
Room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Hunter. Good morning. I apologize for my tardiness. The
subcommittee will come to order.
Today we are meeting to discuss using new ocean
technologies to promote efficient maritime transportation and
improve maritime domain awareness and response capability. This
is a followup to our previous hearings regarding maritime
domain awareness last July, and one earlier this year
recommended by Ranking Member Garamendi, on the future of the
Federal Government's navigation programs.
In addition, I held a roundtable in San Diego in February,
and met with a variety of companies that are part of The
Maritime Alliance. The Maritime Alliance represents over 1,400
companies in the San Diego area that produce $14 billion in
direct sales and sustain 46,000 jobs from traditional maritime
industries to high-tech companies; 19,000 of those jobs are
high-technology jobs.
The Maritime Alliance has identified 14 distinct maritime
technology clusters, such as ocean observation, ports and
security, maritime robotics and large floating platforms. This
is an area of the economy, particularly the high-technology
maritime companies, that has been growing and provides cutting-
edge products around the world. The companies involved in this
sector are also significant exporters.
Today's hearing will highlight this sector of our economy,
and we will learn how emerging technologies can be best used.
We will also hear how we can improve the process for fielding
new technologies in a more timely manner. Frankly, when it
comes to that, the Coast Guard could use a lot of help, getting
stuff probably within the first decade that it is created, and
getting it into the Coast Guard.
In addition, we will hear testimony on large floating
platforms and their possible applications, specifically in
locations such as the Arctic. I believe the Arctic represents--
and Mr. Garamendi does, as well--an opportunity for us to think
outside the box on how we approach establishing a presence in
the Arctic region, and what technologies can best be utilized
in the Arctic.
With that, I yield to Ranking Member Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure working with
you, and thank you very much for scheduling this hearing on new
and emerging ocean technologies and their applications to
advanced maritime transportation and ocean science research in
the United States. This hearing is a perfect followup to our
two previous technologically based hearings, and the meeting
you had in southern California concerning the--and,
respectively, the maritime domain awareness and the future of
aids to navigation. I really am delighted with your interest in
this area, I share that interest, and perhaps together we can
advance this whole important arena.
From my perspective, however, two questions are the most
pertinent to ask. First, is the United States aggressively
maintaining its competitive edge in both basic and applied
ocean research? And, second, is the United States still the
global leader in the development of new innovations in maritime
technologies?
The fact that I am even raising these questions should be
alarming. Not too long ago, the United States was recognized as
the uncontested world leader in scientific research and
development, an edge that fueled the growth of our economy and
led to unparalleled legacy of scientific achievement in the
20th century. Now the situation is quite different. Over the
past 30 years, Federal funding for basic ocean science and
applied research has been reduced, and is insufficient when
compared with the level of funding invested in ocean science
and engineering by our competitors from around the world.
Some critics have claimed, in fact, that we have entered a
new world order in scientific research, including ocean science
and engineering. In this new world order, the U.S. science will
remain a leader. But other nations, especially China and India,
will create an increasingly competitive environment, which will
have serious ramifications on U.S. national security and
economic strength further down the road.
What does this mean? Does this mean that this--what does
this mean about this morning's hearing? First, we need to
understand how these evolving circumstances are changing the
scientific paradigm that has guided ocean science research in
the United States for many decades.
We need to understand how the private sector and academic
community are collaborating with Federal agencies, and we need
to know how that collaboration can best be leveraged to advance
the innovation in ocean science and engineering. The
implications are huge for both our stature as a science leader,
and our future as a global economic power.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for calling the hearing. I
look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
Mr. Hunter. I thank the ranking member. I'm going to try to
introduce everybody with the right names here. And if I do mess
up, just yell your last name out loud, the way it is supposed
to be pronounced, please.
Dr. Thomas Altshuler--is that correct? OK. Vice president
and group general manager of Teledyne Marine Systems; Mr. Chuck
Benton, CEO of Technology Systems Inc.; Mr. Casey Moore,
president of Sea-Bird Scientific; Mr. Dean Rosenberg, CEO of
PortVision--Dean, very good to see you again; Commander David
Slayton, research fellow with Stanford University's Hoover
Institution; and Dr. Eric Terrill, director of the Coastal
Observing Research and Development Center, Marine Physical
Laboratory, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. And there
we have it.
So, Dr. Altshuler, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS W. ALTSHULER, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT AND
GROUP GENERAL MANAGER, TELEDYNE MARINE SYSTEMS; CHARLES BENTON,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS INC.; CASEY MOORE,
PRESIDENT, SEA-BIRD SCIENTIFIC; DEAN ROSENBERG, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, PORTVISION, A DIVISION OF AIRSIS INC.; DAVID M.
SLAYTON, RESEARCH FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION, STANFORD
UNIVERSITY, AND COCHAIR AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARCTIC SECURITY
INITIATIVE; AND ERIC J. TERRILL, PH.D., DIRECTOR, COASTAL
OBSERVING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, SCRIPPS INSTITUTION
OF OCEANOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Mr. Altshuler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee. I want to make a couple of brief
remarks that I think will highlight the points that were just
raised by Congressman Garamendi about the ocean.
So the ocean is one of the most exciting economic
opportunities of the 21st century. The global reliance on ocean
resources and the dependence on the marine environment will
result in a continued growth in the so-called blue economy
worldwide. The United States has a unique leadership position
in many aspects of that economy right now. The U.S. is the
single biggest market, and is a clear frontrunner in advance
technology, and has established a role as a thought leader.
With all of these advantages, the immense growth potential
of the marine market, the blue economy is likely to provide the
U.S. businesses a strong return over the next decade, through
both the domestic market and, more importantly, the
international markets. This robust market will continue
technology advancement that can be leveraged by everything from
advanced ocean sciences to improving the efficiency and safety
of Marine Transportation Systems.
As a business leader of one of the group of companies
called Teledyne Marine Systems, I have had the privilege of
working in this portion of the marine segment of Teledyne
Technologies for almost 6 years. Teledyne recognizes the huge
potential of this market over a decade ago, and has
systematically grown its presence in the marine market.
Currently, Teledyne Marine is a growing group of 13
established, well-reputed undersea technology companies whose
collective size has expanded from $6 million in 2000 to over
$600 million in 2013, with approximately half of the revenue
resulting from international sales of our product. These
companies have developed and introduced some of the most
innovative technologies and products that have revolutionized
the diverse marine markets, from offshore to inshore, and
oceanographic to defense.
Teledyne Marine has achieved this growth through a
combination of acquisitions, of technology-leading companies,
and organic growth of those companies. This collective approach
has resulted in strong, high-tech job growth, with direct and
substantial impact on our local communities. Employing 2,000
people, our marine companies provide high-tech jobs nationwide,
from Cape Cod, where I live, to San Diego, Seattle to Daytona
Beach, and New Hampshire to the gulf coast.
Our product portfolio spans a wide range of capabilities,
and that is one of the reasons that I think today will be very
exciting for me. We provide undersea technologies, including
unmanned vehicles, measurement systems, imaging and survey
systems, underwater communication systems, and underwater
connectors. The benefits gained with the associated high-
performance, highly reliable products that we offer have ranged
from new scientific discoveries to operational efficiencies in
very harsh environments.
As Teledyne Marine looks to the future, we see exciting
opportunity growths. Ours and our market peers' current
technologies and technologies under development will
revolutionize how we understand and leverage the ocean. In the
oceanographic arena, which is core to our understanding of the
marine environment, the United States has a clear leadership
position.
Through programs such as the integrated oceanographic
observing system, IOOS, led by NOAA, the regional partnerships
between Federal and State governments, academic institutions,
and the private sector, have resulted in a leap-ahead
understanding of coastal marine environments. Its influences on
fisheries and local economies in the United States, and even
weather forecasting, is significant. These regional
partnerships facilitated by IOOS are viewed worldwide as a
highly successful example of how to effectively leverage human
talent and resources for coastal marine studies, and have
resulted in a growing export of marine technologies to the
international community and driven advanced technology research
and development. Other key Federal programs, such as the Ocean
Observatories Initiative, have done the same.
As the oceanographic market grows, so does the defense and
security in offshore arenas. Both fund the development and
exploitation of corporate internal research and development
will ensure that companies like Teledyne Marine and our peers
can provide the most advanced technology into the worldwide
blue economy. With the existing and emerging technologies, both
the domestic and international markets will provide long-term
manufacturing job growth for our U.S.-based businesses.
As we compete with foreign-developed technology, our
technology advantage can be short-lived, and that is a big
risk. What is needed is to facilitate export of our product to
the key--is a key to sustaining positive economic impact for
this blue economy in the United States, and will provide
affordable technology for broad marine applications throughout
the United States.
Overall, because of the partnership across Federal and
State governments, academic and nonprofit organizations, the
blue economy is an outstanding opportunity for the U.S.
Mr. Garamendi. Ended right at 5 minutes.
Mr. Hunter. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Benton?
Mr. Benton. Chairman Hunter and distinguished members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you to testify on the subject of small vessel safety and
security at this important hearing. I appreciate and welcome
the committee's continued focus on this subject.
Vessel tracking enables collision avoidance, makes more
efficient use of our waterways possible, and enhances maritime
security and response. The automatic identification system
developed in the 1970s is the primary vessel tracking
capability for large ships. This capability has been extremely
successful and it is used in a broad range of operational
settings. However, the reality is that the cost and
infrastructure of AIS result in less than 1 percent of all
vessels using it.
There is a long-identified need to better support small
vessel operations through enhanced identification and tracking
capabilities. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security
issued a small vessel security strategy that outlines many
issues relating to this. In 2010, the DHS S&T Directorate,
Borders and Maritime Division issued a small business
innovation research program topic looking for innovative new
small vessel identification and tracking technologies.
My company responded with a proposal titled, ``Smart Chart
AIS,'' and set forth the concept that, since virtually all
small vessel operators also had smart phones, a surrogate AIS
capability could be developed that took advantage of these
already-present systems. This resulted in development of the
Smart Chart AIS app that is distributed for free to the public.
Features in Smart Chart AIS include NOAA charts, weather radar,
cruising guide information, social network functionality,
augmented reality capability, and, most importantly, surrogate
AIS capability for small vessels, referred to as AIS-i.
AIS-i is a new protocol we developed for use over the
wireless Internet. We are putting this protocol into the open
domain, and have engineered it so that any company can
integrate the protocols into their equipment. The intent is to
enable all small vessels to use AIS for free or at very low
cost.
The recent conference was convened at the California
Maritime Academy titled, ``E-navigation Underway.'' E-
navigation is defined as the harmonized collection,
integration, exchange, presentation, and analysis of maritime--
of marine information onboard and ashore by electronic means to
enhance berth-to-berth navigation, and related services for
safety and security at sea and protection of the marine
environment. I presented a paper titled, ``AIS-i: Supporting
the Recreational Boating Community Over Wireless Internet,''
which was enthusiastically received. Attendees included senior
Government and industry personnel from around the world.
This led to an invitation to an invitation by the Radio
Technical Commission for Maritime Services, for RTCM, for me to
make a presentation at their annual technical meeting. RTCM is
an international body that creates standards in documentation
that are referenced by the International Electronics
Commission, and the U.N.'s International Maritime Organization,
in establishing and sometimes mandating performance standards.
An outcome of the meeting was a unanimous committee vote to
have two special committees evaluate and report on having AIS
formally reviewed and incorporated into the international
standards process. This is the first step in a process leading
to AIS-i protocols being adopted on a global basis.
The protocols and service that have emerged from this
project are gaining national and international recognition as
an appropriate and clearly needed solution that will enhance
maritime safety and security. The project is rapidly
transitioning from an R&D phase to a transitional phase, in
which standards will be finalized and formally adopted.
Continued support for these efforts will ensure that homeland
security interests are addressed, and that the U.S. will
provide the leadership needed to enhance the safety and
security of the 99 percent of the maritime community that small
vessels represent.
Thank you again for your interest and focus on this
important subject.
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Moore, you are recognized.
Mr. Moore. Chairman Hunter, I wish to thank you, Ranking
Member Garamendi, and all the members of the committee for
allowing me to participate in this hearing. I am Casey Moore,
president of Sea-Bird Scientific. I am here today. I represent
the over-200 scientists, engineers, and other associates that
comprise our company.
Sea-Bird Scientific develops and manufactures oceanographic
sensors. Our products measure physical, biological, and
chemical properties throughout the ocean. Examples include
temperature, salinity, nutrient concentrations, and ocean pH.
They play an increasingly important role in ocean observing.
Ocean observations are not a new concept in supporting
maritime operations and response. For example, sea-state
parameters such as wave height and tides have been used by the
Coast Guard and maritime industry for years. What are new are
the technologies, advancements, and sensors, platforms, and
communications that allow for detailed ocean monitoring within
the water column from shore and from space. Networked together,
these tools are changing the game.
Over the past decade in the U.S., there have been efforts
initiated to implement this network on a national scale. Local
and regional ocean-observing systems teaming with Federal
agencies, academic researchers, and public stakeholders work to
begin forming an integrated ocean observing system, or IOOS.
IOOS serves an increasingly important role in managing the
observing infrastructure.
This infrastructure, still nascent in terms of maturity,
results largely from public investment. I contend today that we
need to invest more. I know this is not a popular notion, in
light of our continuing budget deficits, but I hold the
conviction that it is in our country's economic, social, and
strategic interests to fully develop this network.
As just one example of modern ocean observing at work, I
will touch upon an event that is still fresh in our minds. In
late 2012, Hurricane Sandy exacted heavy damage on the eastern
seaboard of the U.S. Less publicized was the fact that
significant damages and possible loss of life were averted
through the use of regional IOOS assets.
A summary supplied by the Marine Technology Society to
NOAA's National Ocean Service indicated that IOOS buoys and
moorings enabled far more focused preparation and response.
Observation and forecasting information resulted in a diversion
of commercial container and Navy ships out of the storm's reach
for a savings of $6 billion to $7 billion. They also prompted
evacuation of over 30,000 people living on first floors and in
basements in Hoboken, New Jersey, before the storm surge
completely inundated the city.
While these events in many ways validated the utility for
ocean monitoring, they belie an important point: We could have
done better. Current observing capabilities along the east
coast are only a fraction of those envisioned by IOOS planners.
Denser sampling would have further reduced risk and uncertainty
and preparation and response.
As one specific example, higher spacial resolution vertical
sampling of ocean temperature would have provided greater
accuracy in determining the storm's intensity at landfall. This
could have saved millions in preparation and better enabled
response efforts.
A fully capable ocean observing network requires
substantial investment. Independent studies provided to IOOS
show that costs for a full build-out and operation of a
national observing network will exceed $3 billion annually.
This is a large number, but it is important to remember that
approximately 45 percent of our country's GDP is now
concentrated in the coastal regions. Economic and human impacts
of ocean events and our need to effectively regulate and
respond will only increase.
One common model we use in describing the future of ocean
observing is that we see networks and systems eventually
growing into an analog of the national weather network. This
analogy is apt. Effective monitoring of the ocean extends our
ability to--excuse me--greater acuity and understanding long-
term weather patterns. It also reduces uncertainty in near-term
events.
With greater forecasts and real-time understanding, we can
better manage resources to mitigate and respond, as opposed to
simply falling victim to changing conditions. This will not
only benefit the fisher in Oregon, but also the farmer in
Kansas.
I once again wish to thank the committee for the
opportunity to provide testimony in this important matter.
Mr. Hunter. Thanks, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Rosenberg?
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member
Garamendi. My name is Dean Rosenberg, and I am the CEO of
AIRSIS, a software technology company focused on the energy and
transportation industries. Our PortVision division provides
patented tools and technologies to increase maritime domain
awareness and improve safety, security, and efficiency in the
maritime industry.
PortVision maintains a global network of VHF receivers that
detect collision avoidance signals, also known as automatic
identification system, or AIS, transmitted by vessels around
the world. As many of you know, AIS transponder use by vessels
larger than 65 feet has been mandated by the Coast Guard since
2005. Its original purpose was collision avoidance at sea.
However, shortly after AIS went into widespread use, we
realized that the same data used aboard vessels could also
provide significant value to shoreside personnel who needed to
solve business problems. So, in 2006, PortVision was born,
leveraging federally mandated technology, and repurposing it to
drive additional benefits across the maritime industry.
Now, in 2014, our PortVision AIS network processes over 50
million real-time vessel position reports each day, and we
store over 40 billion arrival, departure, and individual vessel
movements. To put this another way, during every second of my
testimony today, PortVision is processing another 500 real-time
vessel positions from around the world. Our customers use this
data to improve many types of operations, whether it be
scheduling of vessels at an oil refinery, supporting an
incident response operation, or supporting homeland security
and law enforcement activities. There are over 3,000 PortVision
users leveraging AIS for these and other valuable purposes,
including vessel operators, marine terminals, Government
agencies, and every major oil company.
You can think of our network as a commercial version of the
Coast Guard's nationwide AIS initiative. However, while NAIS is
focused primarily on aggregating AIS data around the U.S. and
its territories, we have extended our network globally.
Additionally, the NAIS initiative is focused on AIS data
acquisition for use in VTS and related operational
environments, whereas PortVision is focused on analysis and
harvesting of that data to drive business intelligence in the
maritime domain. Our observation is that current Government
systems appear to be good at collecting and displaying real-
time data, but not necessarily in aggregating and making it
broadly accessible to field personnel, who must clearly
understand waterway utilization in order to carry out their
mission objectives.
AIS continues to grow in value. We participate in maritime
industry groups around the country that rely on our data and
expertise, and we are regularly called upon to provide data and
testimony associated with key incidents, such as the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, major hurricane and weather events, and
numerous compliance and law enforcement activities.
AIS is also helping the maritime industry accommodate a new
surge of Gulf traffic, including vessels transporting crude oil
shipments from new finds in the Dakotas, west Texas, and other
locations. We are a key enabler in this new and evolving
chapter in our Nation's energy evolution.
Another promising development is the use of AIS in
pipeline, bridge, and offshore asset protection. PortVision
partnered with CAMO, an industry trade association of coastal
and marine operators, on a system that proactively notified
vessels and pipeline operators when there is imminent risk that
a vessel might damage pipeline infrastructure. Over the last
two decades, there has been over $100 million in property
damage, and over 25 fatalities associated with coastal and
marine pipeline incidents. Our project with CAMO has received
Coast Guard approval, and FCC approval is pending.
Still another application is identifying bad actors and
driving regulatory compliance. For example, PortVision has
partnered with the Offshore Marine Service Association to
identify and report Jones Act violators, while individual port
authorities use PortVision to enforce speed reduction
initiatives. Other Government customers use PortVision data and
services to support homeland security and intelligence
operations. These value-added benefits are only possible if
carriers transmit a persistent signal with accurate data.
We know of no uniform enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard
to ensure that carriers comply. Some VTS regions are very
vigilant about compliance, while other regions have less active
oversight. I urge the subcommittee to ensure that all vessels
required to transmit AIS maintain a consistent, uninterrupted,
and accurate AIS transmission, to ensure that these valuable
AIS technology initiatives can continue.
Finally, I seek the subcommittee's support in encouraging
Federal agencies to look to commercial sector and small
business to help execute their maritime domain awareness
initiatives. Companies like ours provide proven valuable
services at very low cost. However, commercial offerings like
PortVision are often overlooked in favor of reinventing the
wheel through Government-funded build-versus-buy initiatives.
This not-invented-here culture can put up barriers to
Government adoption of proven and widely deployed commercial
technology. It also prevents many Coast Guard and other
Government field personnel from operating as effectively as
industry partners who have access to these tools.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share our story. We
believe that blue economy companies like PortVision are key
enablers of enhanced maritime domain awareness, and increase
safety, security, and efficiency across the Marine
Transportation System. I look forward to your feedback, and
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Hunter. Thanks, Mr. Rosenberg.
Commander Slayton, you have an interesting bio. You have
been in the Arctic since you were 17--13----
Mr. Slayton. I was 13, and joined the Navy when I was 17,
and have probably spent about 3 years, total, operational time
in the High North, between all the Arctic nations.
Mr. Hunter. It is all yours.
Mr. Slayton. Save Russia.
Mr. Hunter. Right.
Mr. Slayton. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. It is indeed an honor and a privilege
to talk to the committee about the creation of new and emerging
ocean technologies, how facilitating their development would
expand maritime entrepreneurship, job development, and
commerce, and further our understanding of the ocean
environment in support of vital U.S. interests in the maritime
domain.
Additionally, I am glad to discuss what we at the Hoover
Institution and the Arctic Security Initiative view as
impediments, barriers, and factors that limit or constrain the
creation and use of such technologies and their applications.
These technologies we discuss today will become increasingly
important as we witness the convergence of climate change and
national security challenges, a convergence clearly recognized
in the High North and other regions around the world, and ably
identified within the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, the
National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, and, most recently, in the Center for Naval
Analyses' Military Advisory Board report.
As recent events in Russia highlight, coupled with the
effects of climate change, the Arctic has re-emerged as a
significant strategic territory: in part due to the region's
abundant energy, mineral, and natural resources, and in part
due to increased maritime access to the area. That being said,
we in the United States need to be prepared, at a minimum, with
greater Coast Guard and Navy presence, monitoring capability,
and infrastructure capacity. Presently, we are not prepared,
and we are far from being ready.
In this context, when we evaluate maritime security
requirements, the U.S. and other Arctic nations require the
capacity and capability to support, respond, and react to the
events that are taking place now. Moreover, as we have said,
security is also about safety, adequate naval response,
environmental, humanitarian assistance disaster relief, and
commercial accidents that might take place in the High North.
And it is there that our Coast Guard is going to be on the
front lines that--anything that happens in the Arctic.
Last year, the Navy, Coast Guard, DOD, and the President
all released policy documents on the Arctic. All the policies
called for new technology capabilities, infrastructure
capacity. The documents, together, make up the nascent U.S.
Arctic strategy--however, unfunded.
Then, in January of this year, President Obama released the
U.S. implementation plan for national strategy for the Arctic
region. The plan is an integrated Arctic management process
with a clear objective to engage with the State of Alaska,
Alaska Natives, and key stakeholders and actors from industry,
academia, and nongovernmental organizations.
For the maritime domain, the plan presents a 10-year
horizon that will be used to prioritize Federal infrastructure
in the U.S. maritime Arctic. It is not surprising that within
the section of the maritime domain the plan calls for
recommendation for Federal public-private partnerships, a
recent subject of this subcommittee to support the prioritized
marine infrastructure elements that are to be developed in
Federal projects. This may prove to be an early indication
that, without investment partnerships with the private sector,
new initiatives such as maritime-centered economic development
may be constrained or limited by the Federal budget process.
Closely aligned with the subject of this hearing, the plan
recognizes a number of key requirements that relate to the
changing U.S. maritime Arctic and its future. Included are
major technology initiatives on developing telecommunications
services; enhancing maritime domain awareness; sustaining
Federal capacity to conduct maritime operations in ice-covered
waters--rated as icebreakers in a capacity to break ice;
increasing charting in the region; and improved geospatial
referencing; oil and other hazardous material spill prevention,
containment, and response in supporting the circumpolar Arctic
observing system.
This is just a subset of the many tasks presented in the
plan. However, it is clear--very clear--that the maritime
domain requires special and timely attention, using integrated
approaches that can respond to a broad array of national
security challenges.
In closing, while the issues are many and not without
challenge, the maritime industry and the maritime
entrepreneurial centers of this Nation afford great
opportunities. Now is the time to approach our maritime and our
Arctic interests and responsibilities urgently and with
national strategic priority.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Garamendi, and
the members of the committee, for the privilege of appearing
before you. I look forward to the remainder of the hearing, and
I look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Hunter. Thanks, Commander. We actually figured out what
the Navy and Coast Guard's plan was for icebreaking. It is to
wait until it melts, and then we won't need one any more.
Right?
It is a joke. Come on, it is a joke.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Terrill, you are recognized.
Mr. Terrill. I would like to start first by thanking
Congress and the Federal agencies in their ongoing support of
ocean technology development and sustained observations of our
oceans, as this investment has made the U.S. a leader in the
development, manufacture, and applications of ocean technology.
This investment not only allows U.S. companies to compete
successfully in the global economy, but the investment in ocean
science and technology creates jobs and strengthens and
supports U.S. national security. And, for better or worse, I am
actually a product of this investment, and I have spent the
better part of my career in a close relationship with this
ocean technology, ocean research, and Federal agencies, whose
missions depend on timely and accurate data.
For maritime domain awareness to be responsive to emerging
needs, the U.S. Government needs to consider partnering
internally across agencies and externally to industry and the
research community. In the present economy, this leveraging
can't be understated. In addition, we need to consider better
approaches to procurement programs that serve national MDA
needs, as all too often new technology and concepts of
operations sink before they can even take off, because their
price tags are too high.
One existing framework that we have heard earlier about
this morning is the Integrated Ocean Observing System. This was
initiated only 14 years ago as an interagency planning effort,
and already has a formal program office at NOAA and 11 regional
associations that are collecting observations and serving them
up to a diverse stakeholder community.
And, coincidentally, the Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation Act of 2009 needs to be reauthorized.
IOOS has many successes, including providing on-scene
environmental information in many extreme events that the
country has faced, including Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the
Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco, and the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, to name just a few. In
all these cases, IOOS has acted as a decision support system,
and the observations provided many of the behind-the-scenes
data that was used by local, State, and Federal responders.
Ocean technology that is the foundation of this IOOS system
is a network of high-frequency radar systems that provides 24/7
maps of ocean currents around the coast of the U.S. Data are
used to support oil spill response, search and rescue, water
quality tracking, fisheries management, and marine protected
areas, and it is one example of how the U.S. Coast Guard and
other Federal agencies rely upon NOAA through MOUs to provide
operational ocean data. It involves 31 organizations
maintaining 133 radars now, and my group at Scripps was
intimately involved in the design of that data management
system that is functioning now at the National Data Buoy
Center.
One exciting next step for the technology is to apply it
for ship-tracking applications. And just recently there were
some tests in the Philippines by U.S. Pacific Command, Office
of Naval Research, Scripps, and the radar manufacturer to
demonstrate this capability, and this builds off of earlier
Department of Homeland Security-funded research efforts.
However, the opportunity for the U.S. to transition the
U.S. HF Radar National Network to having this capability will
remain elusive because, right now, the national network is
funded at $5 million a year, which is half of the $10 million a
year required to reach 100 percent capacity. And the program
budget for this effort has remained flat in NOAA since
receiving its own funding line 3 years ago.
Another example of potential partnership and transition for
coastal MDA needs is the repurposing of land surveillance
equipment returning home from Afghanistan. With the war drawing
down, opportunities exist for repurposing the investments and
surveillance aerostats and towers equipped with X-band radar
and cameras. These systems were originally developed to provide
force protection of forward-operating bases. In the same suite
of sensors, a networked architecture, with some modifications,
are well suited to providing this type of capability in a
maritime environment for providing detection of offshore
vessels, illegal fishing, and providing port and harbor
security.
Maritime evaluations of these technologies are timely and
currently pursued on a pilot level by the NAVAIR, Naval Air
Systems Command, and Office of Naval Research. And this summer,
two systems will be deployed overseas as part of a
demonstration effort with PACOM. So I would encourage looking
at how other technologies and working with the defense research
enterprise can be capitalized within partnerships with the U.S.
Coast R&D center, because I think they would be low-cost and
provide a high return on investment.
The Arctic also presents another set of challenges that we
have heard about. Ocean technology is going to be required to
provide the kinds of observations necessary to understand the
oceanographic and ice conditions that will exist up there.
Right now we don't have those technologies in place, and the
environment is highly undersampled. So partnerships developed
with the Navy, NOAA, National Science Foundation, DARPA, and
U.S. research organizations should be considered to leverage
the respective investments of those groups.
So, to close, I encourage partnerships across agencies,
fund pilot demonstrations that involve the research enterprise
and industry, and let's build U.S. MDA capabilities from our
existing modern-day successes. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. Thanks, Doctor. I am now going to recognize
Members, starting with myself.
Let me just say, first, it is great to have everybody here.
You know, we can't force Government agencies, no matter who
they are, to adopt any kind of technology, right? But what we
can do is make sure that they are not recreating what you are
already doing inside the Government bureaucracy for 10 times as
much as you are doing it for.
But that is what we can do, and that is one thing we are
going to basically look at after this, to see all the stuff
that is out there, what is going on, and make sure that they
are not trying to recreate the wheel, especially if the
technology already exists.
So, to start, Mr. Rosenberg, let me ask you to, if you
would, demonstrate this. And, two, if you could, talk to how
this is different than any other kind of common picture
operating system that the Government uses, or AIS. What is
different about this and separates it out? If you could, talk
to that as you demonstrate.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes. So, PortVision--so if you look at the
NAIS initiative, it is really focused on the aggregation of
data, of the aggregation of AIS data. What we are trying to do
is make business sense of that data. So, if you look on the
monitor, we are looking at the live version of L.A. and Long
Beach right now. And I have highlighted the MSC Luciana. What
we are doing is not only showing kind of the traditional points
on a map common operating picture, but we are also providing
additional sort of maritime business intelligence.
So, in the events list we see when this particular vessel
departed the Shengdong container terminal in China, when she
arrived at San Francisco, and when she ultimately arrived at
the Hanjin terminal in Long Beach. So we are really trying to
solve sort of business problems, or have a more thorough
understanding of what is going on.
And then, we take that further to actually getting into the
reporting aspect. So I have brought up that TTI Hanjin terminal
in Long Beach, and I am now showing very detailed information
about every vessel arrival, the type of arrival, the draft
before and after, which implies loading or unloading, where
that vessel came from, and what its next destination is.
Most of the Coast Guard and Government systems don't get to
this level of MDA-type understanding. They typically are more
focused on sort of the real-time points on a map, and seeing
where a vessel is right now.
Mr. Hunter. So how does this help you solve----
Mr. Rosenberg. So, what we found is--you know, my
contention is, today, you know, today, on Wednesday, there are
dozens, if not hundreds, of field personnel and Coast Guard and
Government agencies in the U.S. that need information about
current real-time and historical data. They don't have it, but
their industry partners do. You know, some other personnel need
information to look at compliance activities or law enforcement
or litigation activities. They don't have it, but their
industry partners do.
And we have lots of sort of anecdotal stories around Coast
Guard and Government personnel calling on industry partners to
get the data. Because, at the field level, at the field
personnel level, they don't have access to these systems. In
the VTS office, in the headquarters, in the command center,
they have access to all sorts of common operating picture
technology. But at the field level, where people are actually
doing their jobs deployed, they don't have that information.
So, I mean, our technology, other technologies like ours,
are Web-based, they are PDA-based, they are smart phone--it is
pretty easy, certainly.
Mr. Hunter. I have a question, kind of a general question
for everybody. When it comes to hiring people--this probably is
outside of the software world--but in the actual blue
technology manufacturing part, or R&D, where do you hire from?
What ages do you hire? How hard is it to get people that know
what they are doing with their hands and making stuff? Or do
you find it difficult, or is it not difficult? Do you have
plenty of folks out there to hire? Anybody? Everybody.
Mr. Altshuler. I will start with that. We actually find
hiring very difficult. So we want highly skilled technicians.
We need very good engineering skills. The ocean is an
incredibly complex environment. There are limited numbers of
ocean engineering programs, and those programs are probably
underfunded, from a standpoint of the research and development
in grants they get. So it is a slow, organic growth of that
skill set.
When you look at the economy, the blue economy, it is going
very quickly. So it is definitely underrepresented, from a
standpoint of what we can bring in, as personnel. And I would
guess--I would like to hear what other people see. But offline,
many of the gentlemen here I have talked to in the past, and
they would say the same thing, I would think. So----
Mr. Moore. It is a challenging environment to hire in the
Northwest, because we find ourselves competing with industries
such as Microsoft in the Seattle area for capable engineers,
industries such as Boeing. On the other hand, we don't expect
or--we don't expect the level of turnover. So when we do hire,
we invest in individuals, and it is usually a long-term
venture. So there is very little turnover in our business with
professionals, and it tends to work out in the long run.
Mr. Slayton. I will take a stab at this one, as well. Yes,
I admire the tenacity and the entrepreneurship of the gentlemen
that sit to my left. And being up in the Bay Area, we are a
stone's throw away from Sand Hill Road, one of the largest
concentrations of venture capitalists in the United States.
Also, sitting on the campus at Stanford University and having
other great universities like UC Berkeley, Santa Clara, San
Jose State nearby, we have the opportunity here about the
challenges and the barriers to starting these ventures, first
and foremost.
Going to sea inherently is already a dangerous situation.
And to try to lure and entice investment in that area is
challenged by who is going to underwrite these areas. Again,
the folks that are going to be hired that we put out to sea
likewise have a reasonable expectation that they are going to
receive and be compensated in that way.
So, again, I understand and fully realize the challenges
that these gentlemen face to find a capable workforce on top of
trying to fund their initial enterprises, going forward.
Mr. Terrill. I would like an opportunity to----
Mr. Hunter. Go ahead, sure.
Mr. Terrill [continuing]. Address a little of this, as
well. As a federally funded--primarily federally funded
research organization in La Jolla, obviously, the cost of
living is pretty high for young, entry-level technical staff to
be joining us and living locally. But we are able to tap into
the nearby universities, 20,000 strong, a lot of engineering
students, physics students.
And, as others have mentioned, a lot of technical staff, it
takes them about 10 years before they are really useful and
independent, because it is such a cross-discipline field that
we are working in. We need engineers and technical staff that
don't get seasick, know their way around, how to turn a wrench,
but also are technically competent at the cutting edge of new
technology, whether it is electrical engineering, or mechanical
engineering, or the sciences.
And so, we do have retention issues, but what we have found
is, through internships and through tapping into the local
universities, we are able to hire in employees. In fact, a lot
of our employees, after they have been with Scripps for a
number of years, they often are highly sought-after by industry
because they have that real-world experience of their butts on
the line to make equipment work, and they are sought after by
industry to do the same for them.
Mr. Hunter. Last question here in the last minute. What do
you all see is the next step in the next 20 years? Like, when
is the next--what is the jump going to be to when it comes to
maritime technology and science? Is it in the mapping arena? Is
it in the exploration arena? Just curious. Where do you see
things going in the next quarter century?
Anybody. Yes, please.
Mr. Benton. I think e-navigation is going to have a huge
impact. Essentially, the world is becoming networked, and that
is happening in the maritime environment. There are initiatives
in Europe and elsewhere globally to move that forward. And I
think the U.S. is a little bit behind the curve in
participating in what ultimately is going to be an architecture
that is open, that anybody can both contribute information to
and get information from.
So, I think it is important that funding and just Federal
focus be given to that, more than it is today.
Mr. Altshuler. I would add to that. The--you know, on the
networking thing, I think we have just talked about networks
that are above the water. But probably the growth of sub-sea
underwater networking is going to change how we do ocean
observation, how we do security, port security, deepwater
military operations, blue water operations. We have seen a
little bit in the last few years of these observatories. They
are relatively simple networking systems.
You know, as we go to independent systems that are--use
acoustic communications, that use optical communications, what
you will see is the ability to distribute data, to distribute
sensing, and exiltrate that information back to the resources
that need that. And, as I said, that can be science, and that
can be national defense.
So, we are investing heavily in that area. We think that
that is a huge growth market. And we see the rest of the world,
and specifically China, very interested in that type of
technology.
Mr. Moore. I presented in my discussion the concept of
moving to a paradigm similar to the national weather network. I
think that is apt for reasons mentioned.
But I also want to consider it or wish you to consider it
in terms of how the national weather network is now used, and
how little idea we had in--50 years ago as to how it would
weave itself into our social fabric so deeply. I think that
that same basic truth holds as we expand and develop these
ocean monitoring technologies, both within and through remote
sensing capabilities, and bring these networks together.
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, I think on the AIS front it is really
going to be around industry collaboration. I mean AIS was
really just legislated for collision avoidance, but then
industry ran with it and came up with all of these other
benefits. And so, we see transmission of AIS signals being able
to automate a lot of the activities that are now done by a
radio, or that are now done many days in advance.
Mr. Slayton. I will build on the comment that was made
earlier about the blue economy growing. And it is growing
because we have just added another ocean to the planet. The
Arctic is opening up. There is a huge need for hard
infrastructure, deepwater ports, and associated infrastructure
that goes along with that, as well as the networking that is
going to be required to bring folks together in the High North.
Once you get above about 65, 70 north, it becomes very
challenging to communicate, particularly at the level that we
are used to, here in the mid-latitudes, in the bandwidth that
is required.
Mr. Terrill. One revolution I see us going in the next 20
years is the reliance on unmanned systems. Just as we are
seeing in the aerial domain, underwater unmanned systems,
surface unmanned systems on the ocean surface are really
revolutionizing the way we do ocean science right now. We are
sampling the earth, earth's ocean, at a resolution that is
unheralded to date. Right now there is over 1,500 profiling
floats that sink down to 2,000 meters and surface every 10 days
to give us a sense of how much ocean heat is present in the
earth's ocean.
Another revolution I see is the ability to do very precise
forecasting. So, just as we have precision agriculture that is
doing very high-resolution agriculture, we are going to see
that with weather and in the ocean world. That sort of level of
precision will be surfacing that we can take advantage of, and
that will be able to take advantage of all the tools to be able
to exploit these unmanned sensors that are going to be
deployed.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you all. Mr. Garamendi, our ranking
member, is recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. For all of you, thank you so very much for
fascinating and extremely important testimony. One hardly knows
where to start, as we cover the total spectrum of what you have
put before.
I think what I would like to do is to go back to a couple
of questions that were raised a moment ago and push them
forward, about the personnel side of this, and the research
side of it.
There is a markup going on very soon in the Space and
Technology Committee that is going to reauthorize much of the
underlying authority for research. Don't know if any of you
gentlemen have been following that. There are some concerns
that exist about that potential markup, particularly the level
of funding available for the social science part of it. I was
just thinking about how we would have been better prepared for
the Iraq War if somebody had thought about the social science
piece of that war.
There is that, and there is the overall funding issues.
And, back to the educational piece, which I think two of you
gentlemen are specifically involved in, or at least nearby, and
the rest of you are dependent upon.
So, let's talk about the research budget, the legislation
that is going on around here, the reauthorization of that, if
you followed it, how you see that coming together. And then, on
the--how that research also--the research budget ties in with
the education and the future employees of the private sector,
as well as the public sector side of it.
So, let's start, I don't know, left to right. But we will
start with Scripps and move down the line here, quickly.
Mr. Terrill. Well, thank you. Certainly one of the things
the country depends on is continuity and steadiness of research
funding, so that that continuity of civilian workforce, being
at the cutting edge of developing new tools and capabilities,
can transition to the industry and the Government. It wouldn't
be there if we didn't have that continuity. So I would support
you on that, that we need to have that in place.
I am not familiar with the specific markups that you are
referencing, but we definitely need to keep that research
budget healthy.
Mr. Slayton. Likewise, I agree with what Dr. Terrill--
again, being based at the university, and seeing the amount of
dollars that flow in from the National Science Foundation and a
number of different grants that support some of the things we
mentioned today, particularly the underwater vehicles, the
expanded network capability, and the deeper research that is
going to be required, particularly in the oceans, I think it
has been mentioned on more than one occasion we know more about
the moon than we know about parts of the ocean.
Again, I will go back to the area that I am involved in
right now. Currently, only 10 percent of the floor of the
Arctic is mapped. And at current projections, it is going to
take another 70 or 80 years to complete that job for our Navy
and Coast Guard and our professional mariners, going forward.
Mr. Garamendi. Let me stop there for a quick second. How
does your organization work with the U.S. Navy on this question
of the Arctic?
Mr. Slayton. We have tied with the Navy, informal for the
most part. We have one active-duty naval officer that
participates at the Hoover Institution, as well as we are
always open to inform the Navy and the Coast Guard, really, any
service on the work that we are doing. All the research and all
the analysis that we do is available publicly, and we are
always glad to support the DOD and the services.
Mr. Garamendi. Be very specific. The Coast Guard has some--
we have some interest in this committee with the Coast Guard.
How do they work with you?
Mr. Slayton. There is no direct ties at this point.
Mr. Garamendi. And----
Mr. Slayton. Other than informally advising the Coast
Guard.
Mr. Garamendi. OK. Let's continue on with the research side
of it, the importance of research on down the line. I suspect
the answer is ``extremely important,'' but----
Mr. Rosenberg. Right. It is. We are not directly engaged in
a lot of Government-funded research, so my concern is mostly
around the recruiting side of it. So the two dimensions of, you
know, more STEM awareness at an early age, from middle school
going on into high school, and then also broadened awareness of
our maritime academies and the ability to generate some more
maritime DNA that can enter the workforce.
Mr. Moore. The three companies that came together to form
Sea-Bird Scientific, all three started as very small startups
that basically were holding direct relationships and were
coming from researcher community, building from science and
research dollars, supporting the research environment, the
research environment within the United States, supporting these
companies as they have grown.
Presently, we have shifted focus to much more operational
programmatic efforts. That is, in part, because that is where
money is these days. We would look at trying to do what we did
now. In other words, trying to start up a science technology
business in oceanography, especially within the ocean
observing, I think it would be a very difficult road at this
point in time. So, as beneficiaries, we are thankful, but we
have really seen that tide shift away from research support.
Mr. Benton. My company has been involved in small business
innovation research for 25, 30 years now. And we are highly
ranked in our ability to commercialize stuff. But Dr. Terrill
mentioned continuity in funding. And one of the huge issues
that we run into is that you can have a project that is
successful and then is orphaned because there has not been any
thought given to the budgeting process to take something that
is ready to transition and let it get enough legs so that it
can be supported by private industry.
So that would be my biggest recommendation, is to make sure
that funding that does go out there is spread across the whole
TRL level, so that people can actually get their basic research
transitioned into an operational condition that will benefit
the economy and us.
Mr. Altshuler. So, first of all, I think I would support
strongly my colleagues here that are advocates for a strong
research budget. I think there are a couple things we need to
think about, though, and the first is what do we do relative to
small business, to product development relative to large
science programs. Large science programs drive industry in what
they invest. And industry invests heavily here.
From a self-centered standpoint, I started out in my
remarks saying that we are a $600 million business at Teledyne
Marine. We probably invest $50 million a year in product
development, in research and development internally, and then
we have a fraction of that, and probably a smaller fraction
than most would think, that is federally funded. Where we sell
is into the science programs.
So, it is a multiplier effect. If the science programs have
long legs, they are well thought out, and continuous, then
industry has the ability to grow around that. And so, I think
that is really critical, that we build something that is going
to drive the rest of businesses here to invest their own money
into growing that economy. Our--the worldwide community is
doing that, and the worldwide community is copying what the
U.S. is doing right now.
Mr. Garamendi. I have run well over my time. I will make a
couple quick comments.
The science--the Federal funding for science programs in
this particular area, in the oceans and ocean observation,
often wind up at research facilities like Hoover or Scripps,
both of which are connected to universities, and I suspect it
is similar around the United States. That funding not only
deals--not only provides the basic science, and whatever comes
from that, but it also provides the education for the
engineers, the scientists, and others. Those are the
fellowships, the--and the rest that flow from that, so that the
funding for science is also the funding for education, which is
the foundation for the workers that the private sector needs.
And so, as we move this issue forward, if we are going to
deal with this, we have to come back to the research piece of
it and make sure that that has long legs, that it is--that
there is continuity, and, in this particular area, that it is
available for the ocean sciences in the broadest sense of it.
Unfortunately, we are not going in that direction. The clear
indication is that we are backing away from funding basic
research.
There are folks, as you say, in Sand Hill Road that are
happy to pick up--that used to be happy to pick up this. Now
they want to have a quick turnaround with some sort of an app
for the iPhone. But hopefully they will get back to more basic
things that actually have--longer lasting than an app that
disappears in 6 months because it is replaced by another app.
I think I had better yield back; I am at least 4 minutes
and 45 seconds over my time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the----
Mr. Hunter. Thank the ranking member. Mr. Rice is
recognized.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. This
is very interesting to me. I live on the ocean, and I am an
avid fisherman, spend a lot of time on the ocean, and truly
enjoy it. And there are a lot of questions I have, being from
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, which is a resort town, and
somewhat in Hurricane Alley, maybe on the edge of it. Living
there for decades, and seeing hurricane prediction, and
predictions of how many hurricanes are going to occur, I have
to see the--I believe the University of Colorado just said,
``We are not going to do this any more, because we can't get it
right.''
They seem absurdly inaccurate. Almost every single year.
Are we making any progress in this type of prediction? I mean I
know it is very difficult to understand these earth systems,
but are we making progress?
Mr. Terrill. Well, I see some eyes looking towards me, so I
will take a stab at this.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Terrill. I have actually been involved in hurricane
research at some level, and so I would like to make some
comments that the longer range forecasts that University of
Colorado used to put out, it was a very difficult problem,
because of the way that the chaos of the system that we are
dealing with.
Where we have seen steady improvements every year is in our
ability to track forecasting. So if you think about hurricanes
and the evacuations that you have experienced, some estimates I
have seen cost about $1 million a mile of coastline to evacuate
shorelines. So the more we can improve track forecasts, the
better. And we are getting there.
The difficulties we are having right now are in intensity
forecasting. And sometimes that threshold of when you evacuate
is based on what are the strength of the winds, and what will
those winds be 24, 48 hours out. And the reason our intensity
forecasts are often lacking is because we don't have good
information about the ocean heat content.
Hurricanes are a thermal engine. They depend on the amount
of heat that is in the upper ocean available to fuel the
storms. By being able to have better observations of ocean heat
up near the surface, it will give us better intensity
forecasts, and that has been demonstrated.
But, I agree, those long-range forecasts, that is a
gambling man's game to be in. But that shorter term forecast, I
think we are making progress.
Mr. Altshuler. Yes, I would like to comment a little bit
and add to what Dr. Terrill said.
Probably one of the most successful ocean observing
programs worldwide is called the Argo Program. And Scripps has
a major position in there. Teledyne has a major position. We
supply two-thirds of what are called profiling floats that
measure the heat, or the thermal properties of the ocean, down
to 2,000 meters. And there are some new systems that will go
all the way down to 6,000 meters. Those allow the ocean
modeling, which understands the heat content, and thus
understands the energy budget when you have these types of
storms. That is one big piece of it.
The next is more of a tactical piece. And there are some
new efforts--again, coming out of NOAA and out of IOOS--called
storm gliders. So they are looking at underwater autonomous
vehicles that are put out in front of the storms, still out at
sea, still well away from the shoreline to--really, to start to
understand the ocean mixing. Because that is the other piece of
this that becomes very important, is as the storms come
through, the dynamics of the ocean become different than in the
steady-state environment, and that changes how the storm
gathers energy, and how the storm intensifies or doesn't
intensify.
The best example of this is probably looking at the loop
current within the Gulf of Mexico, and what are called core
eddies that shed off the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico.
These are very warm pockets of water. Satellite imagery does
not really tell you how big they big they are and how deep they
go. But as the storms go over, if they go over a core eddy,
they can grow from a Category 1 or 2 storm to a Category 5
storm very, very quickly.
So, it is a very important process to study the--actually,
the full 300 or 3-dimensional heat budget of that ocean to be
able to deal with those types of models.
Mr. Rice. As an offshore fisherman, I would look at sea
surface temperature charts to try to find those eddies, because
often the fish are in those very eddies.
So, what I am hearing from you is that we are improving in
tracking and short-term forecasting, but that, really, there is
not a whole lot of progress in long-term hurricane numbers,
intensity, all those types of things. Is that correct?
Mr. Terrill. That is correct. The last large science
efforts actually came out of the Department of Defense. Office
of Naval Research sponsored large programs to study the rapid
intensification of storms, and developed a lot of these
unmanned technologies we heard about. And we are making
improvements, but what we are finding is the ocean is
undersampled. So if we have the data points, we can actually
get those intensity forecasts a lot better, take advantage of
some of the hurricane P300 aircraft, putting assets right in
the path of the storm to get those observations.
Mr. Rice. The other problem I see with data that is
erroneous or lacking is in the marine fisheries. I hear a lot
from fishermen in my district about the fact that fisheries'
seasons are closed, or the timelines are shortened, based on
erroneous information in--that the marine life is plentiful,
particularly in the areas being closed.
So, is there any improvement in those areas? Can we look
forward to improved data?
Mr. Altshuler. I will try that again, although this is
pushing a little bit.
There are a couple of interesting efforts that are
underway. Probably one which is--has U.S. content and has
Canadian content is called the Ocean Tracking Network. And the
idea is to tag and track fisheries. So, what ends up happening
is there is a bottom network of sensors that is watching fish
moving around through certain restricted areas. That is
probably the best types of data to get.
From--other than that, it is a really hard problem to go
and try to understand. Again, because it is a three-dimensional
problem in the ocean, and we really don't understand much below
the surface of the ocean.
Mr. Rice. Well, and it is unfortunate, because we are
dealing with people's livelihoods. And when you do things like
close the black sea bass fishery off South Carolina, and the
fishermen can't catch anything else, because every time they
put their line down they catch a black sea bass because there
are so many of them, it is obviously based on erroneous data.
And if there is any way we can improve that.
Has anybody here studied the long-term effects of the
Deepwater Horizon incident? I am curious about that. No? The--
you know, there is talk of significant oil and gas reserves off
of the shores of South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia. And
there is pushback on doing the testing required. The only
charts that they have were done 30 years ago, based on antique
technology, and they are talking of doing sonic testing off the
shores to determine, with new technology, whether or not these
reserves exist.
But there has also been pushback because it would damage
marine life. Can you describe--can anybody here describe the
process of this testing, and how it damages marine life? No?
Mr. Moore. I can take a stab at it.
Mr. Rice. OK.
Mr. Moore. At risk of error. In the aftermath of the BP oil
spill, there was prospect or promise of funding regional
centers using some of the settlement money--State centers, if
you will, for excellence, that would be doing various research
efforts to study the ecosystems within their local environs.
That funding really hasn't arrived at the centers yet. So there
has been, basically, a stall in actually doing--going forward.
There is another body of funding that has been funding
consortiums from different States in the area that is very
research-oriented. That funding has started to flow, and there
has been programmatic efforts going on. But from my--I don't
have direct knowledge of what progress they have made in
actually identifying the impact, long term.
Mr. Rice. Has anybody here been involved in any of this
sonic testing at all?
Mr. Moore. Our sensors, our equipment, our----
Mr. Altshuler. So--and I can add to that. So, I think from
the standpoint of the surveys, it is what is called a seismic
survey, where they use large vessels that have streamers, they
have hydrophone arrays that stream back behind the ships, and
then they use--right now the current technology is an airgun to
acoustically activate the water, and put seismic energy into
the subsurface to look for what is called top salt. It is the
layer where the potential oil is underneath.
And there are concerns--it is used a lot, but there are
environmental concerns relative to that. The type of energy
that is put into the water column currently--just to give an
idea of technology development, there are--there is a
consortium of oil companies, and a program that is being led
out of Texas A&M University at the environmental station down
at Texas A&M University to look at other types of technologies,
to put energy into that sublayer that has less environmental
issues. That would change how you do the surveys.
And then, you propagate to what Mr. Moore has been talking
about, which is, once you are there, it is the environmental
monitoring. And the things that didn't exist in Deepwater
Horizon was the response capability to understand when or if
you have that type of an accident, how you respond and how
quickly you can understand the oil moving into the water
column. Because that oil was moving in at 1,200 meters. And
that is--again, as I have said earlier, it is very hard to
sample down that deep, and only a few types of systems can
actually do good measurements there.
Mr. Terrill. As you mentioned, the sonic testing is using
airguns. And I think you referred to them as ancient
technologies. And at those times I don't think we had a good
understanding of the impacts to marine mammals. Since then,
with the advent of U.S. Navy sonars, and all the testings and
investment of research that have gone into them, they have
started to put criteria, in terms of the amount of sound that
can be put in the ocean with potential damage to the marine
mammals.
Mr. Rice. But----
Mr. Terrill. But there are some mitigating tools now, I
think, coming out. Using electromagnetics is one area that oil
companies are beginning to use that aren't impactful to the
marine life, that provide alternatives to oil exploration.
Mr. Rice. I am way over my time, but thank you very, very
much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. When only two or three people show up to the
hearing, you are allowed to go over your time. That is the
rule.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. I have a question. Just if you could, go down
the line and give me an example. PortVision is easy to
understand. Right? I got that, right? I understand how that is
applicable, why it should be used, what it provides.
But in practical applicability, to what different agencies
should be using right now to make their lives easier, or to
save money, or to save lives, or to be able to do something
that they can't do right now, could you just kind of give me,
each of you, what do you think we should be using, any
Government agency, not--you know, Coast Guard, NOAA, Navy,
whatever--what should we be using or seeing that we are not,
for whatever reason? Practically, a real example, if you could.
Mr. Altshuler. So I will start with a product we make that
has been successfully used in the ocean. It is relatively new.
There are approximately 500 that we have sold. And that is
called an underwater glider. And what it uses is a very slight
change in the--whether the glider floats or sinks. It is a
buoyancy engine to move up and down through the water column.
And it is used to do everything from naval operational ISR to
core science--and I mentioned storm gliders--including looking
at storms.
This is probably one of the core components to both coastal
and deep ocean observation at the first 1,000 meters of the
ocean. It is a core element to the ocean observatory's
initiative. It is--we see it being used worldwide by academic
organizations and internationally. But it is at its fledgling
stage. I think that we will see that technology adopted, or we
should see that technology adopted over the next 10 years. It
will change how we understand the ocean.
And as you go down the group of gentlemen here, and we talk
to even some of the other committees, it is really just a truck
to take the sensors into the ocean to allow us to understand
the bits and pieces of it.
Mr. Benton. Automatic identification systems, you know, the
traditional ones are very successful. And all of the benefits
that come out of that also apply to small vessels, when you
start enabling them.
So, from the Coast Guard perspective, just being able to
track where vessels are, support search and rescue, et cetera,
all of that is supported. From Custom and Border Protection
perspective, a boat coming over from the Bahamas, gets the cell
phone wireless network and lights up, and they can start the
clearing process.
Also, the whole Internet use of the wireless Internet to
support maritime stuff is equally applicable for spots like the
Arctic. The architecture that we are using to support the
recreational community fits right into the e-navigation
concepts that IMO is looking at. So, the ability to take
traditional large vessel bridge information, such as AISA Class
A and B, repackage that, and bounce it off an Iridium satellite
into a network architecture, enables a whole lot of stuff to
start happening to support Arctic operations without putting a
whole lot of money into building new infrastructure.
Mr. Moore. We need his truck.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Moore. So, the--if we are going----
Mr. Hunter. If I could--I mean I have been--I have seen a
lot of autonomous underwater, nonmotorized vehicles, right,
that have that--they use the swell and kind of like the wings
that the surfboard--the liquid robotics guys use up in Silicon
Valley, or whoever. We had some guys in San Diego that have
their own autonomous vehicle that is kind of self-propelled.
But I have seen that. So, I mean, that is going to be there.
Mr. Moore. Yes. And by deploying those, we can address a
lot of the problems that have come up in the question and
answer period, including better fisheries management, the
ability to get the heat--vertical heat transfer in the upper
water column for storm prediction of intensity. These types of
problems can be addressed using that type of mechanism. And it,
right now, seems among the most efficient and cost-effective--
and actually using on a widespread capacity, so----
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, I think, from our perspective,
improving efficiency of commercial vessel movements.
So, at the Army Corps of Engineers, improving predictive
forecasting and collaboration around show points on inland
rivers, lock management and the ability to support more
efficient queuing in and around locks to be more predictive in
transit times.
For Coast Guard and Customs and DHS, again, the frontline
personnel giving what we call portable MDA or portable maritime
domain awareness into the hands of those who have to do
boarding, those who have to do incident investigations, and
other things that are outside of the command center. And then
the other things that I talked about earlier.
Mr. Hunter. Just really quick, can you do--I mean do you
know right now--do they write algorithms that can queue them,
the Coast Guard or Homeland Security, off of the information of
where the ships are coming from and where they are going to,
and that kind of thing?
Mr. Rosenberg. So, I mean, there are notices of arrival,
and there is data around that. It is not typically used for
what I call berth rotation scheduling, or for actually
improving the efficiency of once a vessel gets to the sea buoy
and it moves up to its other activities in and around the port.
There was a funded initiative called LOMA at the Army Corps
of Engineers. I believe that that has been defunded, but I am
not certain. And that was a home-grown system for doing some
lock automation and lock management.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
Mr. Slayton. I will talk both for general oceans
applications as well as High North, in order, for
infrastructure.
Again, applaud the efforts of the Army Corps recently, and
the combined efforts of looking at both Port Clarence and Nome
for port expansion. I have heard both from State
representatives, as well as the local municipal leaders, about
looking at some out-of-the-box applications for expanding the
capacity and capability of both those port facilities, where
some of these proposed floating platforms, particularly based
on the geography, and based on the weather, and based on the
changing environment, may be extremely beneficial in the High
North going forward.
Next, I think as you have heard from all the panelists, the
increase in communications capability across the board is
required, and no more so than in the High North. So I think a
strong look at how some additional fiber can be laid in to
support the communications and bandwidth infrastructure in the
High North is definitely warranted.
We have also heard a lot about the monitoring, and I think
that is the key. Congressman Rice said--had mentioned about the
lack of forecasting ability for the oceans. You go up to the
High North, it is one-third. There is a reason why they say if
you don't like the weather in Alaska, wait 5 minutes. It is
because it is very unpredictable.
And, again, the more we monitor, the more sensors we put
into the environment, the better those forecasts are going to
be. And that has a direct effect in risk reduction for the
folks that are out there trying to make a living on the ocean.
And that is going to make us more efficient and a better
economy, going forward.
Again, applaud the efforts of the unmanned side, both for
the surface, the underwater, as well as the aerial. And, again,
I look at the high-endurance, long--high-altitude, long-
endurance UAVs to fill as a space-based gap filler, until we do
get some additional satellites to cover some of those areas.
And there is plenty of platforms out there, trucks, that can
fill that role right now to bring that capability to pass.
That is all I have. Thank you.
Mr. Terrill. A couple of points I would like to make is,
first, I think one activity this subcommittee could be involved
in is giving a little more legs to the U.S. Coast Guard R&D
facility to more closely interact with the Naval Research
Enterprise and other Government agencies that are directly
involved doing this whole MDA, maritime surveillance process.
Coast Guard R&D would be a quick study to get up to speed on
all those types of activities, and be able to leverage that at
a significant cost savings to the taxpayer.
That would also include demonstration activities, so that
we can work in a spiral development world, where we aren't
placing large sums of resources into making bad mistakes. We
can make bad mistakes with small investments, and learn lessons
from those. So that would be one point I would make.
The other is what I talked about earlier with high-
frequency radar, and how that is used for all the ocean science
applications, as well as the MDA applications of them. And we
are running into a little bit of a tragedy where every agency
thinks the other guy is going to pick up the tab for it. Right
now we have got NOAA stepping to the plate. They have been
paying for 50 percent of that system, and it is used by a lot
of other agencies. So getting some legs into those budgets that
support those systems that are cutting across a lot of
agencies--I don't know how to solve that problem, but that is
one I will point out there.
And the last point would be that I think the long-term
investment in ocean technology--specifically STEM--having
science technology, engineering, mathematics efforts to support
the future MDA workforce, future naval workforce, is only going
to benefit this country. So I would encourage that. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. That is it for me this morning. Mr. Garamendi?
Mr. Garamendi. I want to thank the witnesses. Fascinating,
very interesting. Very, very important.
It seems to me that there are a couple of things that--
well, I have got a bunch of questions. I think I would like to
submit them to you gentlemen, and you comment if you care to.
We can't force you to, but I think it would be helpful. One of
them has to do with all these UAVs and the security of them.
Who can hack into them? What happens if they do, and suddenly
the ship is headed for San Francisco, instead of San Diego? We
looked at that when we were looking at an L&G terminal off the
coast of Malibu, and what would happen if we missed the
location of the ship. Anyway, I would like to look at those
kinds of things.
Also, this issue has been raised, the chairman has been all
over this forever and a day, and he ought to stay with it, and
that is a lot of work is being done by independent researchers,
university researchers, and the private sector, and attempting
to be replicated by, in this case, the Coast Guard. The use of
PortVision, wherein the Coast Guard would contract for that
with PortVision, rather than building their own system. So we
need to look at that across the board and to better utilize the
private sector's work, and integrate that into the military.
I was taken by the testimony that you made. I asked about
the integration of your Arctic program with the U.S. Navy and
you said, ``Not so much.''
We are out of time, so I am just going to say I am going to
let it hang there. And when the opportunity arises to meet with
the Navy and--I am going to ask them what they are doing in
working with other organizations, and not invent-it-here
mentality that exists everywhere--and I suspect in your own
organizations also.
I will let it go at that. We will submit to you a series of
questions. If you care to answer, it would be helpful to us.
Thank you very much for the testimony.
Mr. Hunter. I just want to say thanks for coming out.
Thanks for coming out and kind of making--one of the reasons we
do this is to simply raise the observation and raise awareness
that you are out there, and that there is a blue economy, and
there is this sector of the economy that is kind of--people
don't really pay attention to. And especially in southern
California, people had no idea the impact, the good jobs, what
it means for San Diego, you know, for maritime. So we are
trying to just raise awareness.
You know, we don't know if there is going to be a lot of
funding for this type of stuff going forward. But what it means
is, like Mr. Garamendi just said, it is not just the Coast
Guard that could benefit, or the Navy that could benefit, or
NOAA, or the weather folks. It is everybody, because everybody
touches the ocean in some way, and maritime touches everybody.
And so, if there is a way to make sure that anybody that
has got a stake in this game realizes that they have a stake in
the game, kind of like the icebreaker for the Arctic, no one
entity is going to pay for that. It is going to be a lot of
agencies are probably going to have to help pay for that, if
they see it as a priority, and that kind of goes along the
entire section here of maritime technology.
So, I just want to say thanks for coming out. Thanks for
talking with us. And thank you, witnesses. The subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]