U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–964 PDF 2014

USING NEW OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES: PROMOTING 

EFFICIENT MARITIME TRANSPORTATION AND 

IMPROVING MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS 

AND RESPONSE CAPABILITY 

(113–72) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 21, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida, 

Vice Chair 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

JANICE HAHN, California 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Thomas W. Altshuler, Ph.D., vice president and group general manager, 

Teledyne Marine Systems ................................................................................... 3 

Charles Benton, chief executive officer, Technology Systems Inc. ...................... 3 

Casey Moore, president, Sea-Bird Scientific .......................................................... 3 

Dean Rosenberg, chief executive officer, PortVision, a division of AIRSIS 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 3

David M. Slayton, research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 

and cochair and executive director, Arctic Security Initiative ......................... 3 

Eric J. Terrill, Ph.D., director, Coastal Observing Research and Development 

Center, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San 

Diego ..................................................................................................................... 3 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Hon. John Garamendi, of California ...................................................................... 28 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Thomas W. Altshuler, Ph.D.: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................ 30 

Charles Benton, prepared statement ..................................................................... 39 

Casey Moore: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................ 47 

Dean Rosenberg, prepared statement .................................................................... 55 

David M. Slayton: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................ 76 

Eric J. Terrill, Ph.D.: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ................................ 98 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 87964.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 87964.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 87964.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 87964.004
(1) 

USING NEW OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES: PROMOTING EFFICIENT MARITIME TRANSPORTATION AND IMPROVING MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS AND RESPONSE CAPABILITY 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME

TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in Room 

2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HUNTER. Good morning. I apologize for my tardiness. The 

subcommittee will come to order. 

Today we are meeting to discuss using new ocean technologies to 

promote efficient maritime transportation and improve maritime 

domain awareness and response capability. This is a followup to 

our previous hearings regarding maritime domain awareness last 

July, and one earlier this year recommended by Ranking Member 

Garamendi, on the future of the Federal Government’s navigation 

programs. 

In addition, I held a roundtable in San Diego in February, and 

met with a variety of companies that are part of The Maritime Alliance. The Maritime Alliance represents over 1,400 companies in 

the San Diego area that produce $14 billion in direct sales and sustain 46,000 jobs from traditional maritime industries to high-tech 

companies; 19,000 of those jobs are high-technology jobs. 

The Maritime Alliance has identified 14 distinct maritime technology clusters, such as ocean observation, ports and security, maritime robotics and large floating platforms. This is an area of the 

economy, particularly the high-technology maritime companies, 

that has been growing and provides cutting-edge products around 

the world. The companies involved in this sector are also significant exporters. 

Today’s hearing will highlight this sector of our economy, and we 

will learn how emerging technologies can be best used. We will also 

hear how we can improve the process for fielding new technologies 

in a more timely manner. Frankly, when it comes to that, the 

Coast Guard could use a lot of help, getting stuff probably within 

the first decade that it is created, and getting it into the Coast 

Guard. 

2 

In addition, we will hear testimony on large floating platforms 

and their possible applications, specifically in locations such as the 

Arctic. I believe the Arctic represents—and Mr. Garamendi does, as 

well—an opportunity for us to think outside the box on how we approach establishing a presence in the Arctic region, and what technologies can best be utilized in the Arctic. 

With that, I yield to Ranking Member Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, it’s a pleasure working with you, 

and thank you very much for scheduling this hearing on new and 

emerging ocean technologies and their applications to advanced 

maritime transportation and ocean science research in the United 

States. This hearing is a perfect followup to our two previous technologically based hearings, and the meeting you had in southern 

California concerning the—and, respectively, the maritime domain 

awareness and the future of aids to navigation. I really am delighted with your interest in this area, I share that interest, and 

perhaps together we can advance this whole important arena. 

From my perspective, however, two questions are the most pertinent to ask. First, is the United States aggressively maintaining its 

competitive edge in both basic and applied ocean research? And, 

second, is the United States still the global leader in the development of new innovations in maritime technologies? 

The fact that I am even raising these questions should be alarming. Not too long ago, the United States was recognized as the 

uncontested world leader in scientific research and development, 

an edge that fueled the growth of our economy and led to unparalleled legacy of scientific achievement in the 20th century. Now the 

situation is quite different. Over the past 30 years, Federal funding 

for basic ocean science and applied research has been reduced, and 

is insufficient when compared with the level of funding invested in 

ocean science and engineering by our competitors from around the 

world. 

Some critics have claimed, in fact, that we have entered a new 

world order in scientific research, including ocean science and engineering. In this new world order, the U.S. science will remain a 

leader. But other nations, especially China and India, will create 

an increasingly competitive environment, which will have serious 

ramifications on U.S. national security and economic strength further down the road. 

What does this mean? Does this mean that this—what does this 

mean about this morning’s hearing? First, we need to understand 

how these evolving circumstances are changing the scientific paradigm that has guided ocean science research in the United States 

for many decades. 

We need to understand how the private sector and academic 

community are collaborating with Federal agencies, and we need to 

know how that collaboration can best be leveraged to advance the 

innovation in ocean science and engineering. The implications are 

huge for both our stature as a science leader, and our future as a 

global economic power. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for calling the hearing. I look 

forward to the testimony of the witnesses. 

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the ranking member. I’m going to try to introduce everybody with the right names here. And if I do mess up, 

3 

just yell your last name out loud, the way it is supposed to be pronounced, please. 

Dr. Thomas Altshuler—is that correct? OK. Vice president and 

group general manager of Teledyne Marine Systems; Mr. Chuck 

Benton, CEO of Technology Systems Inc.; Mr. Casey Moore, president of Sea-Bird Scientific; Mr. Dean Rosenberg, CEO of 

PortVision—Dean, very good to see you again; Commander David 

Slayton, research fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution; and Dr. Eric Terrill, director of the Coastal Observing Research and Development Center, Marine Physical Laboratory, the 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography. And there we have it. 

So, Dr. Altshuler, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS W. ALTSHULER, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT AND GROUP GENERAL MANAGER, TELEDYNE MARINE 

SYSTEMS; CHARLES BENTON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS INC.; CASEY MOORE, PRESIDENT, 

SEA-BIRD SCIENTIFIC; DEAN ROSENBERG, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PORTVISION, A DIVISION OF AIRSIS INC.; 

DAVID M. SLAYTON, RESEARCH FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, AND COCHAIR AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARCTIC SECURITY INITIATIVE; AND ERIC J. 

TERRILL, PH.D., DIRECTOR, COASTAL OBSERVING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 

SAN DIEGO 

Mr. ALTSHULER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the committee. I want to make a couple of brief remarks that I think will highlight the points that were just raised 

by Congressman Garamendi about the ocean. 

So the ocean is one of the most exciting economic opportunities 

of the 21st century. The global reliance on ocean resources and the 

dependence on the marine environment will result in a continued 

growth in the so-called blue economy worldwide. The United States 

has a unique leadership position in many aspects of that economy 

right now. The U.S. is the single biggest market, and is a clear 

frontrunner in advance technology, and has established a role as 

a thought leader. 

With all of these advantages, the immense growth potential of 

the marine market, the blue economy is likely to provide the U.S. 

businesses a strong return over the next decade, through both the 

domestic market and, more importantly, the international markets. 

This robust market will continue technology advancement that can 

be leveraged by everything from advanced ocean sciences to improving the efficiency and safety of Marine Transportation Systems. 

As a business leader of one of the group of companies called 

Teledyne Marine Systems, I have had the privilege of working in 

this portion of the marine segment of Teledyne Technologies for almost 6 years. Teledyne recognizes the huge potential of this market 

over a decade ago, and has systematically grown its presence in the 

marine market. 

Currently, Teledyne Marine is a growing group of 13 established, 

well-reputed undersea technology companies whose collective size 

4 

has expanded from $6 million in 2000 to over $600 million in 2013, 

with approximately half of the revenue resulting from international 

sales of our product. These companies have developed and introduced some of the most innovative technologies and products that 

have revolutionized the diverse marine markets, from offshore to 

inshore, and oceanographic to defense. 

Teledyne Marine has achieved this growth through a combination of acquisitions, of technology-leading companies, and organic 

growth of those companies. This collective approach has resulted in 

strong, high-tech job growth, with direct and substantial impact on 

our local communities. Employing 2,000 people, our marine companies provide high-tech jobs nationwide, from Cape Cod, where I 

live, to San Diego, Seattle to Daytona Beach, and New Hampshire 

to the gulf coast. 

Our product portfolio spans a wide range of capabilities, and that 

is one of the reasons that I think today will be very exciting for 

me. We provide undersea technologies, including unmanned vehicles, measurement systems, imaging and survey systems, underwater communication systems, and underwater connectors. The 

benefits gained with the associated high-performance, highly reliable products that we offer have ranged from new scientific discoveries to operational efficiencies in very harsh environments. 

As Teledyne Marine looks to the future, we see exciting opportunity growths. Ours and our market peers’ current technologies 

and technologies under development will revolutionize how we understand and leverage the ocean. In the oceanographic arena, 

which is core to our understanding of the marine environment, the 

United States has a clear leadership position. 

Through programs such as the integrated oceanographic observing system, IOOS, led by NOAA, the regional partnerships between 

Federal and State governments, academic institutions, and the private sector, have resulted in a leap-ahead understanding of coastal 

marine environments. Its influences on fisheries and local economies in the United States, and even weather forecasting, is significant. These regional partnerships facilitated by IOOS are viewed 

worldwide as a highly successful example of how to effectively leverage human talent and resources for coastal marine studies, and 

have resulted in a growing export of marine technologies to the 

international community and driven advanced technology research 

and development. Other key Federal programs, such as the Ocean 

Observatories Initiative, have done the same. 

As the oceanographic market grows, so does the defense and security in offshore arenas. Both fund the development and exploitation of corporate internal research and development will ensure 

that companies like Teledyne Marine and our peers can provide the 

most advanced technology into the worldwide blue economy. With 

the existing and emerging technologies, both the domestic and 

international markets will provide long-term manufacturing job 

growth for our U.S.-based businesses. 

As we compete with foreign-developed technology, our technology 

advantage can be short-lived, and that is a big risk. What is needed 

is to facilitate export of our product to the key—is a key to sustaining positive economic impact for this blue economy in the 

5 

United States, and will provide affordable technology for broad marine applications throughout the United States. 

Overall, because of the partnership across Federal and State governments, academic and nonprofit organizations, the blue economy 

is an outstanding opportunity for the U.S. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Ended right at 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUNTER. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. Benton? 

Mr. BENTON. Chairman Hunter and distinguished members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

to testify on the subject of small vessel safety and security at this 

important hearing. I appreciate and welcome the committee’s continued focus on this subject. 

Vessel tracking enables collision avoidance, makes more efficient 

use of our waterways possible, and enhances maritime security and 

response. The automatic identification system developed in the 

1970s is the primary vessel tracking capability for large ships. This 

capability has been extremely successful and it is used in a broad 

range of operational settings. However, the reality is that the cost 

and infrastructure of AIS result in less than 1 percent of all vessels 

using it. 

There is a long-identified need to better support small vessel operations through enhanced identification and tracking capabilities. 

In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security issued a small vessel security strategy that outlines many issues relating to this. In 

2010, the DHS S&T Directorate, Borders and Maritime Division 

issued a small business innovation research program topic looking 

for innovative new small vessel identification and tracking technologies. 

My company responded with a proposal titled, ‘‘Smart Chart 

AIS,’’ and set forth the concept that, since virtually all small vessel 

operators also had smart phones, a surrogate AIS capability could 

be developed that took advantage of these already-present systems. 

This resulted in development of the Smart Chart AIS app that is 

distributed for free to the public. Features in Smart Chart AIS include NOAA charts, weather radar, cruising guide information, social network functionality, augmented reality capability, and, most 

importantly, surrogate AIS capability for small vessels, referred to 

as AIS-i. 

AIS-i is a new protocol we developed for use over the wireless 

Internet. We are putting this protocol into the open domain, and 

have engineered it so that any company can integrate the protocols 

into their equipment. The intent is to enable all small vessels to 

use AIS for free or at very low cost. 

The recent conference was convened at the California Maritime 

Academy titled, ‘‘E-navigation Underway.’’ E-navigation is defined 

as the harmonized collection, integration, exchange, presentation, 

and analysis of maritime—of marine information onboard and 

ashore by electronic means to enhance berth-to-berth navigation, 

and related services for safety and security at sea and protection 

of the marine environment. I presented a paper titled, ‘‘AIS-i: Supporting the Recreational Boating Community Over Wireless Internet,’’ which was enthusiastically received. Attendees included senior Government and industry personnel from around the world. 

6 

This led to an invitation to an invitation by the Radio Technical 

Commission for Maritime Services, for RTCM, for me to make a 

presentation at their annual technical meeting. RTCM is an international body that creates standards in documentation that are referenced by the International Electronics Commission, and the 

U.N.’s International Maritime Organization, in establishing and 

sometimes mandating performance standards. 

An outcome of the meeting was a unanimous committee vote to 

have two special committees evaluate and report on having AIS 

formally reviewed and incorporated into the international standards process. This is the first step in a process leading to AIS-i protocols being adopted on a global basis. 

The protocols and service that have emerged from this project 

are gaining national and international recognition as an appropriate and clearly needed solution that will enhance maritime safety and security. The project is rapidly transitioning from an R&D 

phase to a transitional phase, in which standards will be finalized 

and formally adopted. Continued support for these efforts will ensure that homeland security interests are addressed, and that the 

U.S. will provide the leadership needed to enhance the safety and 

security of the 99 percent of the maritime community that small 

vessels represent. 

Thank you again for your interest and focus on this important 

subject. 

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Moore, you are recognized. 

Mr. MOORE. Chairman Hunter, I wish to thank you, Ranking 

Member Garamendi, and all the members of the committee for allowing me to participate in this hearing. I am Casey Moore, president of Sea-Bird Scientific. I am here today. I represent the over200 scientists, engineers, and other associates that comprise our 

company. 

Sea-Bird Scientific develops and manufactures oceanographic 

sensors. Our products measure physical, biological, and chemical 

properties throughout the ocean. Examples include temperature, 

salinity, nutrient concentrations, and ocean pH. They play an increasingly important role in ocean observing. 

Ocean observations are not a new concept in supporting maritime operations and response. For example, sea-state parameters 

such as wave height and tides have been used by the Coast Guard 

and maritime industry for years. What are new are the technologies, advancements, and sensors, platforms, and communications that allow for detailed ocean monitoring within the water column from shore and from space. Networked together, these tools 

are changing the game. 

Over the past decade in the U.S., there have been efforts initiated to implement this network on a national scale. Local and regional ocean-observing systems teaming with Federal agencies, academic researchers, and public stakeholders work to begin forming 

an integrated ocean observing system, or IOOS. IOOS serves an increasingly important role in managing the observing infrastructure. 

This infrastructure, still nascent in terms of maturity, results 

largely from public investment. I contend today that we need to invest more. I know this is not a popular notion, in light of our continuing budget deficits, but I hold the conviction that it is in our 

7 

country’s economic, social, and strategic interests to fully develop 

this network. 

As just one example of modern ocean observing at work, I will 

touch upon an event that is still fresh in our minds. In late 2012, 

Hurricane Sandy exacted heavy damage on the eastern seaboard of 

the U.S. Less publicized was the fact that significant damages and 

possible loss of life were averted through the use of regional IOOS 

assets. 

A summary supplied by the Marine Technology Society to 

NOAA’s National Ocean Service indicated that IOOS buoys and 

moorings enabled far more focused preparation and response. Observation and forecasting information resulted in a diversion of 

commercial container and Navy ships out of the storm’s reach for 

a savings of $6 billion to $7 billion. They also prompted evacuation 

of over 30,000 people living on first floors and in basements in Hoboken, New Jersey, before the storm surge completely inundated 

the city. 

While these events in many ways validated the utility for ocean 

monitoring, they belie an important point: We could have done better. Current observing capabilities along the east coast are only a 

fraction of those envisioned by IOOS planners. Denser sampling 

would have further reduced risk and uncertainty and preparation 

and response. 

As one specific example, higher spacial resolution vertical sampling of ocean temperature would have provided greater accuracy 

in determining the storm’s intensity at landfall. This could have 

saved millions in preparation and better enabled response efforts. 

A fully capable ocean observing network requires substantial investment. Independent studies provided to IOOS show that costs 

for a full build-out and operation of a national observing network 

will exceed $3 billion annually. This is a large number, but it is 

important to remember that approximately 45 percent of our country’s GDP is now concentrated in the coastal regions. Economic and 

human impacts of ocean events and our need to effectively regulate 

and respond will only increase. 

One common model we use in describing the future of ocean observing is that we see networks and systems eventually growing 

into an analog of the national weather network. This analogy is 

apt. Effective monitoring of the ocean extends our ability to—excuse me—greater acuity and understanding long-term weather patterns. It also reduces uncertainty in near-term events. 

With greater forecasts and real-time understanding, we can better manage resources to mitigate and respond, as opposed to simply 

falling victim to changing conditions. This will not only benefit the 

fisher in Oregon, but also the farmer in Kansas. 

I once again wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to 

provide testimony in this important matter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thanks, Mr. Moore. 

Mr. Rosenberg? 

Mr. ROSENBERG. Thank you, Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member 

Garamendi. My name is Dean Rosenberg, and I am the CEO of 

AIRSIS, a software technology company focused on the energy and 

transportation industries. Our PortVision division provides patented tools and technologies to increase maritime domain awareVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:35 Oct 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\5-21-1~1\87964.TXT JEAN
8 

ness and improve safety, security, and efficiency in the maritime 

industry. 

PortVision maintains a global network of VHF receivers that detect collision avoidance signals, also known as automatic identification system, or AIS, transmitted by vessels around the world. As 

many of you know, AIS transponder use by vessels larger than 65 

feet has been mandated by the Coast Guard since 2005. Its original 

purpose was collision avoidance at sea. 

However, shortly after AIS went into widespread use, we realized 

that the same data used aboard vessels could also provide significant value to shoreside personnel who needed to solve business 

problems. So, in 2006, PortVision was born, leveraging federally 

mandated technology, and repurposing it to drive additional benefits across the maritime industry. 

Now, in 2014, our PortVision AIS network processes over 50 million real-time vessel position reports each day, and we store over 

40 billion arrival, departure, and individual vessel movements. To 

put this another way, during every second of my testimony today, 

PortVision is processing another 500 real-time vessel positions from 

around the world. Our customers use this data to improve many 

types of operations, whether it be scheduling of vessels at an oil refinery, supporting an incident response operation, or supporting 

homeland security and law enforcement activities. There are over 

3,000 PortVision users leveraging AIS for these and other valuable 

purposes, including vessel operators, marine terminals, Government agencies, and every major oil company. 

You can think of our network as a commercial version of the 

Coast Guard’s nationwide AIS initiative. However, while NAIS is 

focused primarily on aggregating AIS data around the U.S. and its 

territories, we have extended our network globally. Additionally, 

the NAIS initiative is focused on AIS data acquisition for use in 

VTS and related operational environments, whereas PortVision is 

focused on analysis and harvesting of that data to drive business 

intelligence in the maritime domain. Our observation is that current Government systems appear to be good at collecting and displaying real-time data, but not necessarily in aggregating and making it broadly accessible to field personnel, who must clearly understand waterway utilization in order to carry out their mission objectives. 

AIS continues to grow in value. We participate in maritime industry groups around the country that rely on our data and expertise, and we are regularly called upon to provide data and testimony associated with key incidents, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, major hurricane and weather events, and numerous 

compliance and law enforcement activities. 

AIS is also helping the maritime industry accommodate a new 

surge of Gulf traffic, including vessels transporting crude oil shipments from new finds in the Dakotas, west Texas, and other locations. We are a key enabler in this new and evolving chapter in our 

Nation’s energy evolution. 

Another promising development is the use of AIS in pipeline, 

bridge, and offshore asset protection. PortVision partnered with 

CAMO, an industry trade association of coastal and marine operators, on a system that proactively notified vessels and pipeline opVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:35 Oct 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\5-21-1~1\87964.TXT JEAN
9 

erators when there is imminent risk that a vessel might damage 

pipeline infrastructure. Over the last two decades, there has been 

over $100 million in property damage, and over 25 fatalities associated with coastal and marine pipeline incidents. Our project with 

CAMO has received Coast Guard approval, and FCC approval is 

pending. 

Still another application is identifying bad actors and driving 

regulatory compliance. For example, PortVision has partnered with 

the Offshore Marine Service Association to identify and report 

Jones Act violators, while individual port authorities use 

PortVision to enforce speed reduction initiatives. Other Government customers use PortVision data and services to support homeland security and intelligence operations. These value-added benefits are only possible if carriers transmit a persistent signal with 

accurate data. 

We know of no uniform enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard to 

ensure that carriers comply. Some VTS regions are very vigilant 

about compliance, while other regions have less active oversight. I 

urge the subcommittee to ensure that all vessels required to transmit AIS maintain a consistent, uninterrupted, and accurate AIS 

transmission, to ensure that these valuable AIS technology initiatives can continue. 

Finally, I seek the subcommittee’s support in encouraging Federal agencies to look to commercial sector and small business to 

help execute their maritime domain awareness initiatives. Companies like ours provide proven valuable services at very low cost. 

However, commercial offerings like PortVision are often overlooked 

in favor of reinventing the wheel through Government-funded 

build-versus-buy initiatives. This not-invented-here culture can put 

up barriers to Government adoption of proven and widely deployed 

commercial technology. It also prevents many Coast Guard and 

other Government field personnel from operating as effectively as 

industry partners who have access to these tools. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share our story. We believe that blue economy companies like PortVision are key enablers 

of enhanced maritime domain awareness, and increase safety, security, and efficiency across the Marine Transportation System. I look 

forward to your feedback, and happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thanks, Mr. Rosenberg. 

Commander Slayton, you have an interesting bio. You have been 

in the Arctic since you were 17—13—— 

Mr. SLAYTON. I was 13, and joined the Navy when I was 17, and 

have probably spent about 3 years, total, operational time in the 

High North, between all the Arctic nations. 

Mr. HUNTER. It is all yours. 

Mr. SLAYTON. Save Russia. 

Mr. HUNTER. Right. 

Mr. SLAYTON. Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, 

and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to 

talk to the committee about the creation of new and emerging 

ocean technologies, how facilitating their development would expand maritime entrepreneurship, job development, and commerce, 

10 

and further our understanding of the ocean environment in support 

of vital U.S. interests in the maritime domain. 

Additionally, I am glad to discuss what we at the Hoover Institution and the Arctic Security Initiative view as impediments, barriers, and factors that limit or constrain the creation and use of 

such technologies and their applications. These technologies we discuss today will become increasingly important as we witness the 

convergence of climate change and national security challenges, a 

convergence clearly recognized in the High North and other regions 

around the world, and ably identified within the 2014 Quadrennial 

Defense Review, the National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and, most recently, in the 

Center for Naval Analyses’ Military Advisory Board report. 

As recent events in Russia highlight, coupled with the effects of 

climate change, the Arctic has re-emerged as a significant strategic 

territory: in part due to the region’s abundant energy, mineral, and 

natural resources, and in part due to increased maritime access to 

the area. That being said, we in the United States need to be prepared, at a minimum, with greater Coast Guard and Navy presence, monitoring capability, and infrastructure capacity. Presently, 

we are not prepared, and we are far from being ready. 

In this context, when we evaluate maritime security requirements, the U.S. and other Arctic nations require the capacity and 

capability to support, respond, and react to the events that are taking place now. Moreover, as we have said, security is also about 

safety, adequate naval response, environmental, humanitarian assistance disaster relief, and commercial accidents that might take 

place in the High North. And it is there that our Coast Guard is 

going to be on the front lines that—anything that happens in the 

Arctic. 

Last year, the Navy, Coast Guard, DOD, and the President all 

released policy documents on the Arctic. All the policies called for 

new technology capabilities, infrastructure capacity. The documents, together, make up the nascent U.S. Arctic strategy—however, unfunded. 

Then, in January of this year, President Obama released the 

U.S. implementation plan for national strategy for the Arctic region. The plan is an integrated Arctic management process with a 

clear objective to engage with the State of Alaska, Alaska Natives, 

and key stakeholders and actors from industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations. 

For the maritime domain, the plan presents a 10-year horizon 

that will be used to prioritize Federal infrastructure in the U.S. 

maritime Arctic. It is not surprising that within the section of the 

maritime domain the plan calls for recommendation for Federal 

public-private partnerships, a recent subject of this subcommittee 

to support the prioritized marine infrastructure elements that are 

to be developed in Federal projects. This may prove to be an early 

indication that, without investment partnerships with the private 

sector, new initiatives such as maritime-centered economic development may be constrained or limited by the Federal budget process. 

Closely aligned with the subject of this hearing, the plan recognizes a number of key requirements that relate to the changing 

U.S. maritime Arctic and its future. Included are major technology 

11 

initiatives on developing telecommunications services; enhancing 

maritime domain awareness; sustaining Federal capacity to conduct maritime operations in ice-covered waters—rated as icebreakers in a capacity to break ice; increasing charting in the region; and improved geospatial referencing; oil and other hazardous 

material spill prevention, containment, and response in supporting 

the circumpolar Arctic observing system. 

This is just a subset of the many tasks presented in the plan. 

However, it is clear—very clear—that the maritime domain requires special and timely attention, using integrated approaches 

that can respond to a broad array of national security challenges. 

In closing, while the issues are many and not without challenge, 

the maritime industry and the maritime entrepreneurial centers of 

this Nation afford great opportunities. Now is the time to approach 

our maritime and our Arctic interests and responsibilities urgently 

and with national strategic priority. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Garamendi, and 

the members of the committee, for the privilege of appearing before 

you. I look forward to the remainder of the hearing, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thanks, Commander. We actually figured out what 

the Navy and Coast Guard’s plan was for icebreaking. It is to wait 

until it melts, and then we won’t need one any more. Right? 

It is a joke. Come on, it is a joke. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. Terrill, you are recognized. 

Mr. TERRILL. I would like to start first by thanking Congress and 

the Federal agencies in their ongoing support of ocean technology 

development and sustained observations of our oceans, as this investment has made the U.S. a leader in the development, manufacture, and applications of ocean technology. 

This investment not only allows U.S. companies to compete successfully in the global economy, but the investment in ocean 

science and technology creates jobs and strengthens and supports 

U.S. national security. And, for better or worse, I am actually a 

product of this investment, and I have spent the better part of my 

career in a close relationship with this ocean technology, ocean research, and Federal agencies, whose missions depend on timely and 

accurate data. 

For maritime domain awareness to be responsive to emerging 

needs, the U.S. Government needs to consider partnering internally 

across agencies and externally to industry and the research community. In the present economy, this leveraging can’t be understated. In addition, we need to consider better approaches to procurement programs that serve national MDA needs, as all too often 

new technology and concepts of operations sink before they can 

even take off, because their price tags are too high. 

One existing framework that we have heard earlier about this 

morning is the Integrated Ocean Observing System. This was initiated only 14 years ago as an interagency planning effort, and already has a formal program office at NOAA and 11 regional associations that are collecting observations and serving them up to a 

diverse stakeholder community. 

12 

And, coincidentally, the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation Act of 2009 needs to be reauthorized. 

IOOS has many successes, including providing on-scene environmental information in many extreme events that the country has 

faced, including Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the Cosco Busan 

oil spill in San Francisco, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 

the Gulf of Mexico, to name just a few. In all these cases, IOOS 

has acted as a decision support system, and the observations provided many of the behind-the-scenes data that was used by local, 

State, and Federal responders. 

Ocean technology that is the foundation of this IOOS system is 

a network of high-frequency radar systems that provides 24/7 maps 

of ocean currents around the coast of the U.S. Data are used to 

support oil spill response, search and rescue, water quality tracking, fisheries management, and marine protected areas, and it is 

one example of how the U.S. Coast Guard and other Federal agencies rely upon NOAA through MOUs to provide operational ocean 

data. It involves 31 organizations maintaining 133 radars now, and 

my group at Scripps was intimately involved in the design of that 

data management system that is functioning now at the National 

Data Buoy Center. 

One exciting next step for the technology is to apply it for shiptracking applications. And just recently there were some tests in 

the Philippines by U.S. Pacific Command, Office of Naval Research, 

Scripps, and the radar manufacturer to demonstrate this capability, and this builds off of earlier Department of Homeland Security-funded research efforts. 

However, the opportunity for the U.S. to transition the U.S. HF 

Radar National Network to having this capability will remain elusive because, right now, the national network is funded at $5 million a year, which is half of the $10 million a year required to 

reach 100 percent capacity. And the program budget for this effort 

has remained flat in NOAA since receiving its own funding line 3 

years ago. 

Another example of potential partnership and transition for 

coastal MDA needs is the repurposing of land surveillance equipment returning home from Afghanistan. With the war drawing 

down, opportunities exist for repurposing the investments and surveillance aerostats and towers equipped with X-band radar and 

cameras. These systems were originally developed to provide force 

protection of forward-operating bases. In the same suite of sensors, 

a networked architecture, with some modifications, are well suited 

to providing this type of capability in a maritime environment for 

providing detection of offshore vessels, illegal fishing, and providing 

port and harbor security. 

Maritime evaluations of these technologies are timely and currently pursued on a pilot level by the NAVAIR, Naval Air Systems 

Command, and Office of Naval Research. And this summer, two 

systems will be deployed overseas as part of a demonstration effort 

with PACOM. So I would encourage looking at how other technologies and working with the defense research enterprise can be 

capitalized within partnerships with the U.S. Coast R&D center, 

because I think they would be low-cost and provide a high return 

on investment. 

13 

The Arctic also presents another set of challenges that we have 

heard about. Ocean technology is going to be required to provide 

the kinds of observations necessary to understand the oceanographic and ice conditions that will exist up there. Right now we 

don’t have those technologies in place, and the environment is 

highly undersampled. So partnerships developed with the Navy, 

NOAA, National Science Foundation, DARPA, and U.S. research 

organizations should be considered to leverage the respective investments of those groups. 

So, to close, I encourage partnerships across agencies, fund pilot 

demonstrations that involve the research enterprise and industry, 

and let’s build U.S. MDA capabilities from our existing modern-day 

successes. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thanks, Doctor. I am now going to recognize Members, starting with myself. 

Let me just say, first, it is great to have everybody here. You 

know, we can’t force Government agencies, no matter who they are, 

to adopt any kind of technology, right? But what we can do is make 

sure that they are not recreating what you are already doing inside 

the Government bureaucracy for 10 times as much as you are 

doing it for. 

But that is what we can do, and that is one thing we are going 

to basically look at after this, to see all the stuff that is out there, 

what is going on, and make sure that they are not trying to recreate the wheel, especially if the technology already exists. 

So, to start, Mr. Rosenberg, let me ask you to, if you would, demonstrate this. And, two, if you could, talk to how this is different 

than any other kind of common picture operating system that the 

Government uses, or AIS. What is different about this and separates it out? If you could, talk to that as you demonstrate. 

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes. So, PortVision—so if you look at the NAIS 

initiative, it is really focused on the aggregation of data, of the aggregation of AIS data. What we are trying to do is make business 

sense of that data. So, if you look on the monitor, we are looking 

at the live version of L.A. and Long Beach right now. And I have 

highlighted the MSC Luciana. What we are doing is not only showing kind of the traditional points on a map common operating picture, but we are also providing additional sort of maritime business 

intelligence. 

So, in the events list we see when this particular vessel departed 

the Shengdong container terminal in China, when she arrived at 

San Francisco, and when she ultimately arrived at the Hanjin terminal in Long Beach. So we are really trying to solve sort of business problems, or have a more thorough understanding of what is 

going on. 

And then, we take that further to actually getting into the reporting aspect. So I have brought up that TTI Hanjin terminal in 

Long Beach, and I am now showing very detailed information 

about every vessel arrival, the type of arrival, the draft before and 

after, which implies loading or unloading, where that vessel came 

from, and what its next destination is. 

Most of the Coast Guard and Government systems don’t get to 

this level of MDA-type understanding. They typically are more foVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:35 Oct 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\5-21-1~1\87964.TXT JEAN
14 

cused on sort of the real-time points on a map, and seeing where 

a vessel is right now. 

Mr. HUNTER. So how does this help you solve—— 

Mr. ROSENBERG. So, what we found is—you know, my contention 

is, today, you know, today, on Wednesday, there are dozens, if not 

hundreds, of field personnel and Coast Guard and Government 

agencies in the U.S. that need information about current real-time 

and historical data. They don’t have it, but their industry partners 

do. You know, some other personnel need information to look at 

compliance activities or law enforcement or litigation activities. 

They don’t have it, but their industry partners do. 

And we have lots of sort of anecdotal stories around Coast Guard 

and Government personnel calling on industry partners to get the 

data. Because, at the field level, at the field personnel level, they 

don’t have access to these systems. In the VTS office, in the headquarters, in the command center, they have access to all sorts of 

common operating picture technology. But at the field level, where 

people are actually doing their jobs deployed, they don’t have that 

information. 

So, I mean, our technology, other technologies like ours, are Webbased, they are PDA-based, they are smart phone—it is pretty 

easy, certainly. 

Mr. HUNTER. I have a question, kind of a general question for everybody. When it comes to hiring people—this probably is outside 

of the software world—but in the actual blue technology manufacturing part, or R&D, where do you hire from? What ages do you 

hire? How hard is it to get people that know what they are doing 

with their hands and making stuff? Or do you find it difficult, or 

is it not difficult? Do you have plenty of folks out there to hire? 

Anybody? Everybody. 

Mr. ALTSHULER. I will start with that. We actually find hiring 

very difficult. So we want highly skilled technicians. We need very 

good engineering skills. The ocean is an incredibly complex environment. There are limited numbers of ocean engineering programs, and those programs are probably underfunded, from a 

standpoint of the research and development in grants they get. So 

it is a slow, organic growth of that skill set. 

When you look at the economy, the blue economy, it is going very 

quickly. So it is definitely underrepresented, from a standpoint of 

what we can bring in, as personnel. And I would guess—I would 

like to hear what other people see. But offline, many of the gentlemen here I have talked to in the past, and they would say the 

same thing, I would think. So—— 

Mr. MOORE. It is a challenging environment to hire in the Northwest, because we find ourselves competing with industries such as 

Microsoft in the Seattle area for capable engineers, industries such 

as Boeing. On the other hand, we don’t expect or—we don’t expect 

the level of turnover. So when we do hire, we invest in individuals, 

and it is usually a long-term venture. So there is very little turnover in our business with professionals, and it tends to work out 

in the long run. 

Mr. SLAYTON. I will take a stab at this one, as well. Yes, I admire the tenacity and the entrepreneurship of the gentlemen that 

sit to my left. And being up in the Bay Area, we are a stone’s throw 

15 

away from Sand Hill Road, one of the largest concentrations of venture capitalists in the United States. Also, sitting on the campus 

at Stanford University and having other great universities like UC 

Berkeley, Santa Clara, San Jose State nearby, we have the opportunity here about the challenges and the barriers to starting these 

ventures, first and foremost. 

Going to sea inherently is already a dangerous situation. And to 

try to lure and entice investment in that area is challenged by who 

is going to underwrite these areas. Again, the folks that are going 

to be hired that we put out to sea likewise have a reasonable expectation that they are going to receive and be compensated in that 

way. 

So, again, I understand and fully realize the challenges that 

these gentlemen face to find a capable workforce on top of trying 

to fund their initial enterprises, going forward. 

Mr. TERRILL. I would like an opportunity to—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Go ahead, sure. 

Mr. TERRILL [continuing]. Address a little of this, as well. As a 

federally funded—primarily federally funded research organization 

in La Jolla, obviously, the cost of living is pretty high for young, 

entry-level technical staff to be joining us and living locally. But we 

are able to tap into the nearby universities, 20,000 strong, a lot of 

engineering students, physics students. 

And, as others have mentioned, a lot of technical staff, it takes 

them about 10 years before they are really useful and independent, 

because it is such a cross-discipline field that we are working in. 

We need engineers and technical staff that don’t get seasick, know 

their way around, how to turn a wrench, but also are technically 

competent at the cutting edge of new technology, whether it is electrical engineering, or mechanical engineering, or the sciences. 

And so, we do have retention issues, but what we have found is, 

through internships and through tapping into the local universities, we are able to hire in employees. In fact, a lot of our employees, after they have been with Scripps for a number of years, they 

often are highly sought-after by industry because they have that 

real-world experience of their butts on the line to make equipment 

work, and they are sought after by industry to do the same for 

them. 

Mr. HUNTER. Last question here in the last minute. What do you 

all see is the next step in the next 20 years? Like, when is the 

next—what is the jump going to be to when it comes to maritime 

technology and science? Is it in the mapping arena? Is it in the exploration arena? Just curious. Where do you see things going in the 

next quarter century? 

Anybody. Yes, please. 

Mr. BENTON. I think e-navigation is going to have a huge impact. 

Essentially, the world is becoming networked, and that is happening in the maritime environment. There are initiatives in Europe and elsewhere globally to move that forward. And I think the 

U.S. is a little bit behind the curve in participating in what ultimately is going to be an architecture that is open, that anybody can 

both contribute information to and get information from. 

So, I think it is important that funding and just Federal focus 

be given to that, more than it is today. 

16 

Mr. ALTSHULER. I would add to that. The—you know, on the networking thing, I think we have just talked about networks that are 

above the water. But probably the growth of sub-sea underwater 

networking is going to change how we do ocean observation, how 

we do security, port security, deepwater military operations, blue 

water operations. We have seen a little bit in the last few years of 

these observatories. They are relatively simple networking systems. 

You know, as we go to independent systems that are—use acoustic communications, that use optical communications, what you will 

see is the ability to distribute data, to distribute sensing, and 

exiltrate that information back to the resources that need that. 

And, as I said, that can be science, and that can be national defense. 

So, we are investing heavily in that area. We think that that is 

a huge growth market. And we see the rest of the world, and specifically China, very interested in that type of technology. 

Mr. MOORE. I presented in my discussion the concept of moving 

to a paradigm similar to the national weather network. I think that 

is apt for reasons mentioned. 

But I also want to consider it or wish you to consider it in terms 

of how the national weather network is now used, and how little 

idea we had in—50 years ago as to how it would weave itself into 

our social fabric so deeply. I think that that same basic truth holds 

as we expand and develop these ocean monitoring technologies, 

both within and through remote sensing capabilities, and bring 

these networks together. 

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes, I think on the AIS front it is really going 

to be around industry collaboration. I mean AIS was really just legislated for collision avoidance, but then industry ran with it and 

came up with all of these other benefits. And so, we see transmission of AIS signals being able to automate a lot of the activities 

that are now done by a radio, or that are now done many days in 

advance. 

Mr. SLAYTON. I will build on the comment that was made earlier 

about the blue economy growing. And it is growing because we 

have just added another ocean to the planet. The Arctic is opening 

up. There is a huge need for hard infrastructure, deepwater ports, 

and associated infrastructure that goes along with that, as well as 

the networking that is going to be required to bring folks together 

in the High North. Once you get above about 65, 70 north, it becomes very challenging to communicate, particularly at the level 

that we are used to, here in the mid-latitudes, in the bandwidth 

that is required. 

Mr. TERRILL. One revolution I see us going in the next 20 years 

is the reliance on unmanned systems. Just as we are seeing in the 

aerial domain, underwater unmanned systems, surface unmanned 

systems on the ocean surface are really revolutionizing the way we 

do ocean science right now. We are sampling the earth, earth’s 

ocean, at a resolution that is unheralded to date. Right now there 

is over 1,500 profiling floats that sink down to 2,000 meters and 

surface every 10 days to give us a sense of how much ocean heat 

is present in the earth’s ocean. 

Another revolution I see is the ability to do very precise forecasting. So, just as we have precision agriculture that is doing very 

17 

high-resolution agriculture, we are going to see that with weather 

and in the ocean world. That sort of level of precision will be surfacing that we can take advantage of, and that will be able to take 

advantage of all the tools to be able to exploit these unmanned sensors that are going to be deployed. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you all. Mr. Garamendi, our ranking member, is recognized. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. For all of you, thank you so very much for fascinating and extremely important testimony. One hardly knows 

where to start, as we cover the total spectrum of what you have 

put before. 

I think what I would like to do is to go back to a couple of questions that were raised a moment ago and push them forward, about 

the personnel side of this, and the research side of it. 

There is a markup going on very soon in the Space and Technology Committee that is going to reauthorize much of the underlying authority for research. Don’t know if any of you gentlemen 

have been following that. There are some concerns that exist about 

that potential markup, particularly the level of funding available 

for the social science part of it. I was just thinking about how we 

would have been better prepared for the Iraq War if somebody had 

thought about the social science piece of that war. 

There is that, and there is the overall funding issues. And, back 

to the educational piece, which I think two of you gentlemen are 

specifically involved in, or at least nearby, and the rest of you are 

dependent upon. 

So, let’s talk about the research budget, the legislation that is 

going on around here, the reauthorization of that, if you followed 

it, how you see that coming together. And then, on the—how that 

research also—the research budget ties in with the education and 

the future employees of the private sector, as well as the public sector side of it. 

So, let’s start, I don’t know, left to right. But we will start with 

Scripps and move down the line here, quickly. 

Mr. TERRILL. Well, thank you. Certainly one of the things the 

country depends on is continuity and steadiness of research funding, so that that continuity of civilian workforce, being at the cutting edge of developing new tools and capabilities, can transition to 

the industry and the Government. It wouldn’t be there if we didn’t 

have that continuity. So I would support you on that, that we need 

to have that in place. 

I am not familiar with the specific markups that you are referencing, but we definitely need to keep that research budget 

healthy. 

Mr. SLAYTON. Likewise, I agree with what Dr. Terrill—again, 

being based at the university, and seeing the amount of dollars 

that flow in from the National Science Foundation and a number 

of different grants that support some of the things we mentioned 

today, particularly the underwater vehicles, the expanded network 

capability, and the deeper research that is going to be required, 

particularly in the oceans, I think it has been mentioned on more 

than one occasion we know more about the moon than we know 

about parts of the ocean. 

18 

Again, I will go back to the area that I am involved in right now. 

Currently, only 10 percent of the floor of the Arctic is mapped. And 

at current projections, it is going to take another 70 or 80 years 

to complete that job for our Navy and Coast Guard and our professional mariners, going forward. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me stop there for a quick second. How does 

your organization work with the U.S. Navy on this question of the 

Arctic? 

Mr. SLAYTON. We have tied with the Navy, informal for the most 

part. We have one active-duty naval officer that participates at the 

Hoover Institution, as well as we are always open to inform the 

Navy and the Coast Guard, really, any service on the work that we 

are doing. All the research and all the analysis that we do is available publicly, and we are always glad to support the DOD and the 

services. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Be very specific. The Coast Guard has some— 

we have some interest in this committee with the Coast Guard. 

How do they work with you? 

Mr. SLAYTON. There is no direct ties at this point. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. And—— 

Mr. SLAYTON. Other than informally advising the Coast Guard. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. Let’s continue on with the research side of 

it, the importance of research on down the line. I suspect the answer is ‘‘extremely important,’’ but—— 

Mr. ROSENBERG. Right. It is. We are not directly engaged in a 

lot of Government-funded research, so my concern is mostly around 

the recruiting side of it. So the two dimensions of, you know, more 

STEM awareness at an early age, from middle school going on into 

high school, and then also broadened awareness of our maritime 

academies and the ability to generate some more maritime DNA 

that can enter the workforce. 

Mr. MOORE. The three companies that came together to form 

Sea-Bird Scientific, all three started as very small startups that basically were holding direct relationships and were coming from researcher community, building from science and research dollars, 

supporting the research environment, the research environment 

within the United States, supporting these companies as they have 

grown. 

Presently, we have shifted focus to much more operational programmatic efforts. That is, in part, because that is where money 

is these days. We would look at trying to do what we did now. In 

other words, trying to start up a science technology business in 

oceanography, especially within the ocean observing, I think it 

would be a very difficult road at this point in time. So, as beneficiaries, we are thankful, but we have really seen that tide shift 

away from research support. 

Mr. BENTON. My company has been involved in small business 

innovation research for 25, 30 years now. And we are highly 

ranked in our ability to commercialize stuff. But Dr. Terrill mentioned continuity in funding. And one of the huge issues that we 

run into is that you can have a project that is successful and then 

is orphaned because there has not been any thought given to the 

budgeting process to take something that is ready to transition and 

19 

let it get enough legs so that it can be supported by private industry. 

So that would be my biggest recommendation, is to make sure 

that funding that does go out there is spread across the whole TRL 

level, so that people can actually get their basic research 

transitioned into an operational condition that will benefit the 

economy and us. 

Mr. ALTSHULER. So, first of all, I think I would support strongly 

my colleagues here that are advocates for a strong research budget. 

I think there are a couple things we need to think about, though, 

and the first is what do we do relative to small business, to product 

development relative to large science programs. Large science programs drive industry in what they invest. And industry invests 

heavily here. 

From a self-centered standpoint, I started out in my remarks saying that we are a $600 million business at Teledyne Marine. We 

probably invest $50 million a year in product development, in research and development internally, and then we have a fraction of 

that, and probably a smaller fraction than most would think, that 

is federally funded. Where we sell is into the science programs. 

So, it is a multiplier effect. If the science programs have long 

legs, they are well thought out, and continuous, then industry has 

the ability to grow around that. And so, I think that is really critical, that we build something that is going to drive the rest of businesses here to invest their own money into growing that economy. 

Our—the worldwide community is doing that, and the worldwide 

community is copying what the U.S. is doing right now. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I have run well over my time. I will make a couple quick comments. 

The science—the Federal funding for science programs in this 

particular area, in the oceans and ocean observation, often wind up 

at research facilities like Hoover or Scripps, both of which are connected to universities, and I suspect it is similar around the United 

States. That funding not only deals—not only provides the basic 

science, and whatever comes from that, but it also provides the 

education for the engineers, the scientists, and others. Those are 

the fellowships, the—and the rest that flow from that, so that the 

funding for science is also the funding for education, which is the 

foundation for the workers that the private sector needs. 

And so, as we move this issue forward, if we are going to deal 

with this, we have to come back to the research piece of it and 

make sure that that has long legs, that it is—that there is continuity, and, in this particular area, that it is available for the 

ocean sciences in the broadest sense of it. Unfortunately, we are 

not going in that direction. The clear indication is that we are 

backing away from funding basic research. 

There are folks, as you say, in Sand Hill Road that are happy 

to pick up—that used to be happy to pick up this. Now they want 

to have a quick turnaround with some sort of an app for the 

iPhone. But hopefully they will get back to more basic things that 

actually have—longer lasting than an app that disappears in 6 

months because it is replaced by another app. 

I think I had better yield back; I am at least 4 minutes and 45 

seconds over my time. 

20 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the—— 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank the ranking member. Mr. Rice is recognized. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. This is 

very interesting to me. I live on the ocean, and I am an avid fisherman, spend a lot of time on the ocean, and truly enjoy it. And there 

are a lot of questions I have, being from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, which is a resort town, and somewhat in Hurricane Alley, 

maybe on the edge of it. Living there for decades, and seeing hurricane prediction, and predictions of how many hurricanes are going 

to occur, I have to see the—I believe the University of Colorado just 

said, ‘‘We are not going to do this any more, because we can’t get 

it right.’’ 

They seem absurdly inaccurate. Almost every single year. Are we 

making any progress in this type of prediction? I mean I know it 

is very difficult to understand these earth systems, but are we 

making progress? 

Mr. TERRILL. Well, I see some eyes looking towards me, so I will 

take a stab at this. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TERRILL. I have actually been involved in hurricane research 

at some level, and so I would like to make some comments that the 

longer range forecasts that University of Colorado used to put out, 

it was a very difficult problem, because of the way that the chaos 

of the system that we are dealing with. 

Where we have seen steady improvements every year is in our 

ability to track forecasting. So if you think about hurricanes and 

the evacuations that you have experienced, some estimates I have 

seen cost about $1 million a mile of coastline to evacuate shorelines. So the more we can improve track forecasts, the better. And 

we are getting there. 

The difficulties we are having right now are in intensity forecasting. And sometimes that threshold of when you evacuate is 

based on what are the strength of the winds, and what will those 

winds be 24, 48 hours out. And the reason our intensity forecasts 

are often lacking is because we don’t have good information about 

the ocean heat content. 

Hurricanes are a thermal engine. They depend on the amount of 

heat that is in the upper ocean available to fuel the storms. By 

being able to have better observations of ocean heat up near the 

surface, it will give us better intensity forecasts, and that has been 

demonstrated. 

But, I agree, those long-range forecasts, that is a gambling man’s 

game to be in. But that shorter term forecast, I think we are making progress. 

Mr. ALTSHULER. Yes, I would like to comment a little bit and add 

to what Dr. Terrill said. 

Probably one of the most successful ocean observing programs 

worldwide is called the Argo Program. And Scripps has a major position in there. Teledyne has a major position. We supply twothirds of what are called profiling floats that measure the heat, or 

the thermal properties of the ocean, down to 2,000 meters. And 

there are some new systems that will go all the way down to 6,000 

meters. Those allow the ocean modeling, which understands the 

21 

heat content, and thus understands the energy budget when you 

have these types of storms. That is one big piece of it. 

The next is more of a tactical piece. And there are some new efforts—again, coming out of NOAA and out of IOOS—called storm 

gliders. So they are looking at underwater autonomous vehicles 

that are put out in front of the storms, still out at sea, still well 

away from the shoreline to—really, to start to understand the 

ocean mixing. Because that is the other piece of this that becomes 

very important, is as the storms come through, the dynamics of the 

ocean become different than in the steady-state environment, and 

that changes how the storm gathers energy, and how the storm intensifies or doesn’t intensify. 

The best example of this is probably looking at the loop current 

within the Gulf of Mexico, and what are called core eddies that 

shed off the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico. These are very 

warm pockets of water. Satellite imagery does not really tell you 

how big they big they are and how deep they go. But as the storms 

go over, if they go over a core eddy, they can grow from a Category 

1 or 2 storm to a Category 5 storm very, very quickly. 

So, it is a very important process to study the—actually, the full 

300 or 3-dimensional heat budget of that ocean to be able to deal 

with those types of models. 

Mr. RICE. As an offshore fisherman, I would look at sea surface 

temperature charts to try to find those eddies, because often the 

fish are in those very eddies. 

So, what I am hearing from you is that we are improving in 

tracking and short-term forecasting, but that, really, there is not 

a whole lot of progress in long-term hurricane numbers, intensity, 

all those types of things. Is that correct? 

Mr. TERRILL. That is correct. The last large science efforts actually came out of the Department of Defense. Office of Naval Research sponsored large programs to study the rapid intensification 

of storms, and developed a lot of these unmanned technologies we 

heard about. And we are making improvements, but what we are 

finding is the ocean is undersampled. So if we have the data points, 

we can actually get those intensity forecasts a lot better, take advantage of some of the hurricane P300 aircraft, putting assets right 

in the path of the storm to get those observations. 

Mr. RICE. The other problem I see with data that is erroneous 

or lacking is in the marine fisheries. I hear a lot from fishermen 

in my district about the fact that fisheries’ seasons are closed, or 

the timelines are shortened, based on erroneous information in— 

that the marine life is plentiful, particularly in the areas being 

closed. 

So, is there any improvement in those areas? Can we look forward to improved data? 

Mr. ALTSHULER. I will try that again, although this is pushing 

a little bit. 

There are a couple of interesting efforts that are underway. Probably one which is—has U.S. content and has Canadian content is 

called the Ocean Tracking Network. And the idea is to tag and 

track fisheries. So, what ends up happening is there is a bottom 

network of sensors that is watching fish moving around through 

22 

certain restricted areas. That is probably the best types of data to 

get. 

From—other than that, it is a really hard problem to go and try 

to understand. Again, because it is a three-dimensional problem in 

the ocean, and we really don’t understand much below the surface 

of the ocean. 

Mr. RICE. Well, and it is unfortunate, because we are dealing 

with people’s livelihoods. And when you do things like close the 

black sea bass fishery off South Carolina, and the fishermen can’t 

catch anything else, because every time they put their line down 

they catch a black sea bass because there are so many of them, it 

is obviously based on erroneous data. And if there is any way we 

can improve that. 

Has anybody here studied the long-term effects of the Deepwater 

Horizon incident? I am curious about that. No? The—you know, 

there is talk of significant oil and gas reserves off of the shores of 

South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia. And there is pushback on 

doing the testing required. The only charts that they have were 

done 30 years ago, based on antique technology, and they are talking of doing sonic testing off the shores to determine, with new 

technology, whether or not these reserves exist. 

But there has also been pushback because it would damage marine life. Can you describe—can anybody here describe the process 

of this testing, and how it damages marine life? No? 

Mr. MOORE. I can take a stab at it. 

Mr. RICE. OK. 

Mr. MOORE. At risk of error. In the aftermath of the BP oil spill, 

there was prospect or promise of funding regional centers using 

some of the settlement money—State centers, if you will, for excellence, that would be doing various research efforts to study the ecosystems within their local environs. That funding really hasn’t arrived at the centers yet. So there has been, basically, a stall in actually doing—going forward. 

There is another body of funding that has been funding consortiums from different States in the area that is very research-oriented. That funding has started to flow, and there has been programmatic efforts going on. But from my—I don’t have direct 

knowledge of what progress they have made in actually identifying 

the impact, long term. 

Mr. RICE. Has anybody here been involved in any of this sonic 

testing at all? 

Mr. MOORE. Our sensors, our equipment, our—— 

Mr. ALTSHULER. So—and I can add to that. So, I think from the 

standpoint of the surveys, it is what is called a seismic survey, 

where they use large vessels that have streamers, they have hydrophone arrays that stream back behind the ships, and then they 

use—right now the current technology is an airgun to acoustically 

activate the water, and put seismic energy into the subsurface to 

look for what is called top salt. It is the layer where the potential 

oil is underneath. 

And there are concerns—it is used a lot, but there are environmental concerns relative to that. The type of energy that is put into 

the water column currently—just to give an idea of technology development, there are—there is a consortium of oil companies, and 

23 

a program that is being led out of Texas A&M University at the 

environmental station down at Texas A&M University to look at 

other types of technologies, to put energy into that sublayer that 

has less environmental issues. That would change how you do the 

surveys. 

And then, you propagate to what Mr. Moore has been talking 

about, which is, once you are there, it is the environmental monitoring. And the things that didn’t exist in Deepwater Horizon was 

the response capability to understand when or if you have that 

type of an accident, how you respond and how quickly you can understand the oil moving into the water column. Because that oil 

was moving in at 1,200 meters. And that is—again, as I have said 

earlier, it is very hard to sample down that deep, and only a few 

types of systems can actually do good measurements there. 

Mr. TERRILL. As you mentioned, the sonic testing is using 

airguns. And I think you referred to them as ancient technologies. 

And at those times I don’t think we had a good understanding of 

the impacts to marine mammals. Since then, with the advent of 

U.S. Navy sonars, and all the testings and investment of research 

that have gone into them, they have started to put criteria, in 

terms of the amount of sound that can be put in the ocean with 

potential damage to the marine mammals. 

Mr. RICE. But—— 

Mr. TERRILL. But there are some mitigating tools now, I think, 

coming out. Using electromagnetics is one area that oil companies 

are beginning to use that aren’t impactful to the marine life, that 

provide alternatives to oil exploration. 

Mr. RICE. I am way over my time, but thank you very, very 

much. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HUNTER. When only two or three people show up to the hearing, you are allowed to go over your time. That is the rule. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HUNTER. I have a question. Just if you could, go down the 

line and give me an example. PortVision is easy to understand. 

Right? I got that, right? I understand how that is applicable, why 

it should be used, what it provides. 

But in practical applicability, to what different agencies should 

be using right now to make their lives easier, or to save money, or 

to save lives, or to be able to do something that they can’t do right 

now, could you just kind of give me, each of you, what do you think 

we should be using, any Government agency, not—you know, Coast 

Guard, NOAA, Navy, whatever—what should we be using or seeing 

that we are not, for whatever reason? Practically, a real example, 

if you could. 

Mr. ALTSHULER. So I will start with a product we make that has 

been successfully used in the ocean. It is relatively new. There are 

approximately 500 that we have sold. And that is called an underwater glider. And what it uses is a very slight change in the— 

whether the glider floats or sinks. It is a buoyancy engine to move 

up and down through the water column. And it is used to do everything from naval operational ISR to core science—and I mentioned 

storm gliders—including looking at storms. 

24 

This is probably one of the core components to both coastal and 

deep ocean observation at the first 1,000 meters of the ocean. It is 

a core element to the ocean observatory’s initiative. It is—we see 

it being used worldwide by academic organizations and internationally. But it is at its fledgling stage. I think that we will see that 

technology adopted, or we should see that technology adopted over 

the next 10 years. It will change how we understand the ocean. 

And as you go down the group of gentlemen here, and we talk 

to even some of the other committees, it is really just a truck to 

take the sensors into the ocean to allow us to understand the bits 

and pieces of it. 

Mr. BENTON. Automatic identification systems, you know, the 

traditional ones are very successful. And all of the benefits that 

come out of that also apply to small vessels, when you start enabling them. 

So, from the Coast Guard perspective, just being able to track 

where vessels are, support search and rescue, et cetera, all of that 

is supported. From Custom and Border Protection perspective, a 

boat coming over from the Bahamas, gets the cell phone wireless 

network and lights up, and they can start the clearing process. 

Also, the whole Internet use of the wireless Internet to support 

maritime stuff is equally applicable for spots like the Arctic. The 

architecture that we are using to support the recreational community fits right into the e-navigation concepts that IMO is looking 

at. So, the ability to take traditional large vessel bridge information, such as AISA Class A and B, repackage that, and bounce it 

off an Iridium satellite into a network architecture, enables a whole 

lot of stuff to start happening to support Arctic operations without 

putting a whole lot of money into building new infrastructure. 

Mr. MOORE. We need his truck. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MOORE. So, the—if we are going—— 

Mr. HUNTER. If I could—I mean I have been—I have seen a lot 

of autonomous underwater, nonmotorized vehicles, right, that have 

that—they use the swell and kind of like the wings that the surfboard—the liquid robotics guys use up in Silicon Valley, or whoever. We had some guys in San Diego that have their own autonomous vehicle that is kind of self-propelled. But I have seen that. 

So, I mean, that is going to be there. 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. And by deploying those, we can address a lot 

of the problems that have come up in the question and answer period, including better fisheries management, the ability to get the 

heat—vertical heat transfer in the upper water column for storm 

prediction of intensity. These types of problems can be addressed 

using that type of mechanism. And it, right now, seems among the 

most efficient and cost-effective—and actually using on a widespread capacity, so—— 

Mr. ROSENBERG. Yes, I think, from our perspective, improving efficiency of commercial vessel movements. 

So, at the Army Corps of Engineers, improving predictive forecasting and collaboration around show points on inland rivers, lock 

management and the ability to support more efficient queuing in 

and around locks to be more predictive in transit times. 

25 

For Coast Guard and Customs and DHS, again, the frontline personnel giving what we call portable MDA or portable maritime domain awareness into the hands of those who have to do boarding, 

those who have to do incident investigations, and other things that 

are outside of the command center. And then the other things that 

I talked about earlier. 

Mr. HUNTER. Just really quick, can you do—I mean do you know 

right now—do they write algorithms that can queue them, the 

Coast Guard or Homeland Security, off of the information of where 

the ships are coming from and where they are going to, and that 

kind of thing? 

Mr. ROSENBERG. So, I mean, there are notices of arrival, and 

there is data around that. It is not typically used for what I call 

berth rotation scheduling, or for actually improving the efficiency 

of once a vessel gets to the sea buoy and it moves up to its other 

activities in and around the port. 

There was a funded initiative called LOMA at the Army Corps 

of Engineers. I believe that that has been defunded, but I am not 

certain. And that was a home-grown system for doing some lock 

automation and lock management. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. 

Mr. SLAYTON. I will talk both for general oceans applications as 

well as High North, in order, for infrastructure. 

Again, applaud the efforts of the Army Corps recently, and the 

combined efforts of looking at both Port Clarence and Nome for 

port expansion. I have heard both from State representatives, as 

well as the local municipal leaders, about looking at some out-ofthe-box applications for expanding the capacity and capability of 

both those port facilities, where some of these proposed floating 

platforms, particularly based on the geography, and based on the 

weather, and based on the changing environment, may be extremely beneficial in the High North going forward. 

Next, I think as you have heard from all the panelists, the increase in communications capability across the board is required, 

and no more so than in the High North. So I think a strong look 

at how some additional fiber can be laid in to support the communications and bandwidth infrastructure in the High North is definitely warranted. 

We have also heard a lot about the monitoring, and I think that 

is the key. Congressman Rice said—had mentioned about the lack 

of forecasting ability for the oceans. You go up to the High North, 

it is one-third. There is a reason why they say if you don’t like the 

weather in Alaska, wait 5 minutes. It is because it is very unpredictable. 

And, again, the more we monitor, the more sensors we put into 

the environment, the better those forecasts are going to be. And 

that has a direct effect in risk reduction for the folks that are out 

there trying to make a living on the ocean. And that is going to 

make us more efficient and a better economy, going forward. 

Again, applaud the efforts of the unmanned side, both for the 

surface, the underwater, as well as the aerial. And, again, I look 

at the high-endurance, long—high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs 

to fill as a space-based gap filler, until we do get some additional 

satellites to cover some of those areas. And there is plenty of platVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:35 Oct 28, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\CG&JOI~1\5-21-1~1\87964.TXT JEAN
26 

forms out there, trucks, that can fill that role right now to bring 

that capability to pass. 

That is all I have. Thank you. 

Mr. TERRILL. A couple of points I would like to make is, first, I 

think one activity this subcommittee could be involved in is giving 

a little more legs to the U.S. Coast Guard R&D facility to more 

closely interact with the Naval Research Enterprise and other Government agencies that are directly involved doing this whole MDA, 

maritime surveillance process. Coast Guard R&D would be a quick 

study to get up to speed on all those types of activities, and be able 

to leverage that at a significant cost savings to the taxpayer. 

That would also include demonstration activities, so that we can 

work in a spiral development world, where we aren’t placing large 

sums of resources into making bad mistakes. We can make bad 

mistakes with small investments, and learn lessons from those. So 

that would be one point I would make. 

The other is what I talked about earlier with high-frequency 

radar, and how that is used for all the ocean science applications, 

as well as the MDA applications of them. And we are running into 

a little bit of a tragedy where every agency thinks the other guy 

is going to pick up the tab for it. Right now we have got NOAA 

stepping to the plate. They have been paying for 50 percent of that 

system, and it is used by a lot of other agencies. So getting some 

legs into those budgets that support those systems that are cutting 

across a lot of agencies—I don’t know how to solve that problem, 

but that is one I will point out there. 

And the last point would be that I think the long-term investment in ocean technology—specifically STEM—having science technology, engineering, mathematics efforts to support the future 

MDA workforce, future naval workforce, is only going to benefit 

this country. So I would encourage that. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNTER. That is it for me this morning. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I want to thank the witnesses. Fascinating, very 

interesting. Very, very important. 

It seems to me that there are a couple of things that—well, I 

have got a bunch of questions. I think I would like to submit them 

to you gentlemen, and you comment if you care to. We can’t force 

you to, but I think it would be helpful. One of them has to do with 

all these UAVs and the security of them. Who can hack into them? 

What happens if they do, and suddenly the ship is headed for San 

Francisco, instead of San Diego? We looked at that when we were 

looking at an L&G terminal off the coast of Malibu, and what 

would happen if we missed the location of the ship. Anyway, I 

would like to look at those kinds of things. 

Also, this issue has been raised, the chairman has been all over 

this forever and a day, and he ought to stay with it, and that is 

a lot of work is being done by independent researchers, university 

researchers, and the private sector, and attempting to be replicated 

by, in this case, the Coast Guard. The use of PortVision, wherein 

the Coast Guard would contract for that with PortVision, rather 

than building their own system. So we need to look at that across 

the board and to better utilize the private sector’s work, and integrate that into the military. 

27 

I was taken by the testimony that you made. I asked about the 

integration of your Arctic program with the U.S. Navy and you 

said, ‘‘Not so much.’’ 

We are out of time, so I am just going to say I am going to let 

it hang there. And when the opportunity arises to meet with the 

Navy and—I am going to ask them what they are doing in working 

with other organizations, and not invent-it-here mentality that exists everywhere—and I suspect in your own organizations also. 

I will let it go at that. We will submit to you a series of questions. If you care to answer, it would be helpful to us. Thank you 

very much for the testimony. 

Mr. HUNTER. I just want to say thanks for coming out. Thanks 

for coming out and kind of making—one of the reasons we do this 

is to simply raise the observation and raise awareness that you are 

out there, and that there is a blue economy, and there is this sector 

of the economy that is kind of—people don’t really pay attention to. 

And especially in southern California, people had no idea the impact, the good jobs, what it means for San Diego, you know, for 

maritime. So we are trying to just raise awareness. 

You know, we don’t know if there is going to be a lot of funding 

for this type of stuff going forward. But what it means is, like Mr. 

Garamendi just said, it is not just the Coast Guard that could benefit, or the Navy that could benefit, or NOAA, or the weather folks. 

It is everybody, because everybody touches the ocean in some way, 

and maritime touches everybody. 

And so, if there is a way to make sure that anybody that has got 

a stake in this game realizes that they have a stake in the game, 

kind of like the icebreaker for the Arctic, no one entity is going to 

pay for that. It is going to be a lot of agencies are probably going 

to have to help pay for that, if they see it as a priority, and that 

kind of goes along the entire section here of maritime technology. 

So, I just want to say thanks for coming out. Thanks for talking 

with us. And thank you, witnesses. The subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

28 


Insert offset folio 5 here 87964.005
29 


Insert offset folio 6 here 87964.006
30 


Insert offset folio 7 here 87964.007
31 


Insert offset folio 8 here 87964.008
32 


Insert offset folio 9 here 87964.009
33 


Insert offset folio 10 here 87964.010
34 


Insert offset folio 11 here 87964.011
35 


Insert offset folio 12 here 87964.012
36 


Insert offset folio 13 here 87964.013
37 


Insert offset folio 14 here 87964.014
38 


Insert offset folio 15 here 87964.015
39 


Insert offset folio 16 here 87964.016
40 


Insert offset folio 17 here 87964.017
41 


Insert offset folio 18 here 87964.018
42 


Insert offset folio 19 here 87964.019
43 


Insert offset folio 20 here 87964.020
44 


Insert offset folio 21 here 87964.021
45 


Insert offset folio 22 here 87964.022
46 


Insert offset folio 23 here 87964.023
47 


Insert offset folio 24 here 87964.024
48 


Insert offset folio 25 here 87964.025
49 


Insert offset folio 26 here 87964.026
50 


Insert offset folio 27 here 87964.027
51 


Insert offset folio 28 here 87964.028
52 


Insert offset folio 29 here 87964.029
53 


Insert offset folio 30 here 87964.030
54 


Insert offset folio 31 here 87964.031
55 


Insert offset folio 32 here 87964.032
56 


Insert offset folio 33 here 87964.033
57 


Insert offset folio 34 here 87964.034
58 


Insert offset folio 35 here 87964.035
59 


Insert offset folio 36 here 87964.036
60 


Insert offset folio 37 here 87964.037
61 


Insert offset folio 38 here 87964.038
62 


Insert offset folio 39 here 87964.039
63 


Insert offset folio 40 here 87964.040
64 


Insert offset folio 41 here 87964.041
65 


Insert offset folio 42 here 87964.042
66 


Insert offset folio 43 here 87964.043
67 


Insert offset folio 44 here 87964.044
68 


Insert offset folio 45 here 87964.045
69 


Insert offset folio 46 here 87964.046
70 


Insert offset folio 47 here 87964.047
71 


Insert offset folio 48 here 87964.048
72 


Insert offset folio 49 here 87964.049
73 


Insert offset folio 50 here 87964.050
74 


Insert offset folio 51 here 87964.051
75 


Insert offset folio 52 here 87964.052
76 


Insert offset folio 53 here 87964.053
77 


Insert offset folio 54 here 87964.054
78 


Insert offset folio 55 here 87964.055
79 


Insert offset folio 56 here 87964.056
80 


Insert offset folio 57 here 87964.057
81 


Insert offset folio 58 here 87964.058
82 


Insert offset folio 59 here 87964.059
83 


Insert offset folio 60 here 87964.060
84 


Insert offset folio 61 here 87964.061
85 


Insert offset folio 62 here 87964.062
86 


Insert offset folio 63 here 87964.063
87 


Insert offset folio 64 here 87964.064
88 


Insert offset folio 65 here 87964.065
89 


Insert offset folio 66 here 87964.066
90 


Insert offset folio 67 here 87964.067
91 


Insert offset folio 68 here 87964.068
92 


Insert offset folio 69 here 87964.069
93 


Insert offset folio 70 here 87964.070
94 


Insert offset folio 71 here 87964.071
95 


Insert offset folio 72 here 87964.072
96 


Insert offset folio 73 here 87964.073
97 


Insert offset folio 74 here 87964.074
98 


Insert offset folio 75 here 87964.075
99 


Insert offset folio 76 here 87964.076
100 


Insert offset folio 77 here 87964.077
101 


Insert offset folio 78 here 87964.078
102 


Insert offset folio 79 here 87964.079
103 


Insert offset folio 80 here 87964.080
104 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 81 here 87964.081