56 



Rather, I will focus on the positive effort a year ago to help secure more than a catch-as - 

 catch -can budget for NURP -the "National Undersea Research Program Act of 1992," 

 introduced by the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and passed the House. The 

 bill was an earnest effort to put knowledge of our underwater assets firmly on the balance 

 sheet, but was not approved by the Senate, so this year, once again, the question is before 

 you — and before the nation: Will this country have a continuing nadonai commitment 

 for civilian underwater research and exploration? 



I do reflect, sometimes, on what might have been accomplished if NURP and its 

 predecessor, Manned Undersea Science and Technology (MUST) had been appropriately 

 supported over the years, and try to imagine what we might now know about the nature of 

 the planet and about how much better prepared we could be to cope with the global 

 environmental changes that are now taJdng place. Instead, NURFs mission — to 

 conduct underwater research and use appropriate technology to develop an understanding 

 of the physical, biological and chemical processes in the ocean and large lakes that are 

 fundamental to wise use of these systems ~ has been n^lected at precisely the time that 

 costly questions be^ to be answered. 



An example of this neglect was apparent soon afler I joined NOA A as Chief Scientist in 



1990. Budget recommendations at the time included significant sums for ocean research 

 from satellites that would look at water masses from high above and for fleet 

 modernization so that the ocean could be more effeaively explored from the surface 

 Recommended funding for NURP -- and thus for getting to know the ocean by getting IB 

 the ocean -- was zero.. 



The attitude is puzzling, but may relate to a widely held assumption that earth, including 

 the ocean, is already lotown, that what is out of sight, underwater, is not vciy important 

 to non-military human affairs — and that only beyond the atmosphere of this planet are 

 there significant new ^scoveries to be made. In fact, most of earth has yet to be 

 explored - or even seen for the first time by human beings, if the entire liquid three 

 dimensional ocean realm, with its 40.000 kilometers of mountains and more than 90 per 

 cent of earth's living space (all creatures considered) is taken into account 



What are the costs of our ignwance ^^xxit the ocean — ignorance that might be dispelled, 

 but for lack of af^xopriate technology? What are the costs of having technology 

 available but idle because of lack of supporting fiands - as in the case of NURPs multi- 

 milhon dollar underwater laboratory, Aquarius, intended far use in the Florida Keys in 



1991, but beached since its transfer from the Virgin Islands.. I^erhaps more would be 

 understood concerning the decline of Florida's valuable coral reefs had teams of scientists 

 been conducting research in ttieir midst for the past two years. What might be known 

 concerning the decline and toss of oxygen-producing, carbon-dioxide absortnng 

 seagrass meadows in Florida Bay, Tampa Bay, and elsewhere in the Gulf of Mexico -- 



if this nation were supporting a vigorous nahonal underwater research program ? 



Will we allow nune time to pass with no clear national mandate concerning 



underwater exploratioa ana research while other nations move swiftly forward in terms of 



access to and understanding gf earth's dominant feature? 



Concern about "other nations moving swiftly forward'has a hauntingly familiar ring, 

 reminiscent of the space race. Many of the same reasons that the United States has for 

 years supported development and use of technology to gain effective working access to 

 the sides above ~ and space beyond — can be made for access to the depths of the sea. 



