[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]