years longed to go beneath the surface and actually get into that 

 three-dimensional realm. In 1990, although there were appropria- 

 tions recommended for the view from above and from the surface, 

 recommended funding for NURP, and thus for getting to know the 

 ocean by getting in the ocean, was zero. 



This attitude is somewhat puzzling, but it may relate to a widely 

 held assumption that earth, including the ocean, is already known. 

 In fact, what we have been able to learn by getting into the sea 

 has, in just the last few years, transformed our understanding not 

 only about the nature of the ocean as a living system but about the 

 creatures there seen in three dimensions instead of squished in 

 nets. 



Some have a view that only beyond the atmosphere of this planet 

 are there significant new discoveries to be made, but, in fact, most 

 of the earth has yet to be explored or even seen for the first time 

 by human beings, if the entire liquid, three-dimensional ocean with 

 its 40,000 kilometers of mountains and more than 90 percent of 

 earth's living space (if you take all creatures into consideration) if 

 that is taken into account. 



What are the costs of our ignorance about the ocean — ignorance 

 that might be dispelled but for the lack of appropriate technology, 

 and appropriate support for NURP? What are the costs of have 

 technology available but idle because of the lack of supporting 

 funds as in the case of NURP's multimillion dollar underwater lab- 

 oratory, Aquarius, intended for use in the Florida Keys in 1991 but 

 beached since its transfer from the Virgin Islands? Perhaps there 

 would be more information concerning the decline of Florida's val- 

 uable coral reefs if research had been conducted there using 

 Aquarius in the midst of the reefs during the past two years on a 

 regular basis. 



A lot of work has been conducted in the Florida keys in recent 

 years, of course, but imagine what could be learned if we had a 

 focal point there dedicated to understanding our own coral reef sys- 

 tems from an on-location laboratory. Also what would be known 

 concerning the decline and loss of oxygen-producing, carbon diox- 

 ide-absorbing seagrass meadows in Florida Bay, Tampa Bay, and 

 elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico if this nation were supporting a 

 vigorous national underwater research program? 



Will we allow more time to pass with no clear understanding, no 

 clear national mandate concerning underwater exploration and re- 

 search while other nations move swiftly forward in terms of access 

 to and understanding of earth's dominant feature? That is a haunt- 

 ingly familiar kind of comment. This may sound like something 

 that we were talking about back in the '50's or '60's, "other nations 

 moving swiftly forward" in another realm — the space race. Many 

 of the same reasons that the United States has given for years in 

 support of development and use of technology to gain effective 

 working access to the skies above and space beyond can certainly 

 be made for access to the depths of the sea. 



Sea-space parallels are wonderfully real, whether seeking an- 

 swers to questions about the origin of life or knowledge of how the 

 planet works, whether in terms of solving technological challenges 

 related to working in environments considered hostile to human 

 beings, or whether we are talking about matters that involve mili- 



