    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
                       AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND
                      THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-67

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    73-125                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                        HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
        Wisconsin                        JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas                LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             PAUL D. TONKO, New York
    PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia               JERRY McNERNEY, California
    SANDY ADAMS, Florida                 JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona             TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
        Tennessee                        HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
    E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia            SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       VACANCY
    MO BROOKS, Alabama
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
    VACANCY

                                C O N T E N T S

                             Tuesday, March 6, 2012

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Andy Harris, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    12
        Written Statement............................................    13

    Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Ranking Minority Member,
      Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    14
        Written Statement............................................    16

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Adminstrator, National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................    17
        Written Statement............................................    19

    Discussion.......................................................    27

    Mr. Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Research and Development (ORD)
        Oral Statement...............................................    36
        Written Statement............................................    39

    Discussion.......................................................    44

                 Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Adminstrator, National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration.....................................    53

    Mr. Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
      Research and Development (ORD).................................    79

                 Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

    Mercury News Editorial: ``Don't Reduce Tsunami Alerts''..........   108

                      AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
                       AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND
                  THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGETS
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:27 p.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy
    Harris [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.009

        Chairman Harris. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
    will come to order. Good afternoon. Welcome to today's hearing
    entitled ``An Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency Budgets
    for Fiscal Year 2013.'' In front of you are the packets
    containing the written testimony, biographies, and Truth in
    Testimony Disclosures for today's witness panel. I now
    recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
        I want to welcome everyone to this afternoon's hearing.
    Unfortunately, I have to begin by expressing a matter of
    disappointment. The President's budget request for the Federal
    Government was released more than three weeks ago, but NOAA has
    still not delivered its budget justification documents to
    Congress. This Subcommittee oversees NOAA's $5 billion budget
    and has a responsibility to review and react to the details of
    the President's budget.
        In the absence of budget details, we are simply unable to
    provide a complete assessment of the request. Last week, the
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science
    had to cancel its hearing as a result of that delay. We have
    chosen to go forward with this hearing due to scheduling
    constraints, but I must impress upon you, Administrator
    Lubchenco, that this abdication of such a simple responsibility
    influences the perception on the Hill that the Administration
    is not being a good steward of taxpayer money.
        One of the major themes of the President's fiscal year 2013
    budget request has been the need to make tough choices. Only in
    Washington, as we face an unprecedented fiscal train wreck and
    continue to be forced to borrow 40 cents on the dollar, can a
    requested budget increase of 3.1 percent for NOAA and 1.4
    percent for EPA be characterized as making tough choices. Even
    within these requested increases, the Administration is
    prioritizing its political environmental agendas ahead of the
    core scientific needs of the Nation.
        For NOAA, satellites now comprise 40 percent of the total
    budget request. This is up from 31 percent just two years ago.
    While the Committee applauds the successful launch of the Suomi
    NPP satellite, we continue to have grave concerns with the
    current trajectory of the Joint Polar Satellite System program.
    Even NOAA's own optimistic schedule of a launch of the next
    polar satellite in the early part of 2018--and I say optimistic
    since it took 18 years to get the first satellite off the
    ground--still leaves us with an almost certain gap in data
    availability.
        The limited budget information provided to the Committee
    thus far provides no indication that NOAA has a plan to develop
    a solution that ensures continual, high-quality data for
    weather forecasting. The extreme weather events just last week
    and this week further highlight the importance of this data to
    saving lives and property. Further, the delays and cost over-
    runs so systemic to NOAA's satellite programs is forcing
    significant reductions in the budget for important activities
    such as oceans, fisheries, and weather.
        Another big winner in NOAA's budget request is climate
    research. In the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
    alone, more than $212 million is allotted for climate research,
    a 15 percent increase above last year, whereas less than $70
    million is set aside for research in weather and air chemistry.
    Taken together with the cuts to the National Weather Service,
    the budget indicates the Administration has prioritized
    understanding climate conditions decades from now over
    predicting weather conditions tomorrow. Given the potential for
    innovations in weather forecasting to greatly aid the economy
    and save lives and property, the continued prioritization of
    climate over weather is highly disappointing and should be
    rejected by Congress.
        The Administration's budget request for science and
    technology activities at EPA is similarly concerning. In a
    series of hearings on EPA's research activities, this
    Subcommittee examined in detail the line between politics and
    science at the Agency. While Administrator Jackson has stated
    that ``Science is the backbone of everything we do at the
    EPA,'' it is a very weak backbone struggling to support the
    enormous weight of the Administration's regulatory ambitions.
    The Office of Research and Development represents less than
    seven percent of the $8.3 billion request for EPA. Instead of
    conducting fundamental environmental research, the Agency
    sacrifices sober analysis in favor of the outcome-driven
    science demanded by the President's anti-energy agenda. All too
    often, what passes for peer review of Agency science is a
    rubber stamp by supposedly independent scientific advisors who
    also happen to be recipients of EPA's largesse.
        The President's focus on climate change and the ongoing
    efforts to find a regulatory angle to restrict the shale gas
    revolution comes at the expense of worthwhile R&D. EPA is
    requesting substantial increases for these two areas, including
    more than $240 million for duplicative climate change
    activities and $14 million for work on hydraulic fracturing of
    questionable value.
        Following the sloppy and highly questionable actions of the
    Agency in investigating water concerns in Pavillion, Wyoming,
    and Dimock, Pennsylvania, and the inability to follow its own
    peer review guidelines in the endangerment finding on
    greenhouse gases, I have little confidence in EPA's ability to
    conduct trusted, quality science in this area, and as such
    cannot support the significant expansion of hydraulic
    fracturing research called for in this request.
        I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the
    Subcommittee, and I look forward to a constructive discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Chairman Andy Harris,
                    Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
             U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

        I want to welcome everyone to this afternoon's hearing to examine
    the Administration's fiscal year 2013 budgets for the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
        Unfortunately, I have to begin by expressing my extreme
    disappointment. The President's budget request for the Federal
    Government was released more than three weeks ago. However, NOAA has
    incredibly still not delivered its budget justification documents to
    Congress. This Subcommittee oversees NOAA's five billion dollar budget
    and has a responsibility to review and react to the details of the
    President's request. In the absence of budget details, we are simply
    unable to provide a complete assessment of the request. Last week, the
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science had to
    cancel its hearing as a result of NOAA's delays. We have chosen to go
    forward with this hearing due to scheduling constraints, but I must
    impress upon you, Administrator Lubchenco, that this abdication of such
    a simple responsibility influences the perception on the Hill that the
    Administration is not being a good steward of taxpayer money.
        One of the major themes of the President's FY 2013 budget request
    has been the need to make tough choices. Only in Washington, as we face
    an unprecedented fiscal train wreck and continue to be forced to borrow
    40 cents on the dollar, can a requested budget increase of 3.1 percent
    for NOAA and 1.4 percent for EPA be characterized as making ``tough
    choices.'' Even within these requested increases, the Administration is
    prioritizing its political environmental agendas ahead of the core
    scientific needs of the Nation.
        For NOAA, satellites now comprise 40 percent of the total budget
    request. This is up from 31 percent two years ago. While the Committee
    applauds the successful launch of the Suomi NPP satellite, we continue
    to have grave concerns with the current trajectory of the Joint Polar
    Satellite System program. Even NOAA's own optimistic schedule of a
    launch of the next polar satellite in the early part of 2018--and I say
    optimistic since it took 18 years to get the first satellite off the
    ground--still leaves us with a ``almost certain'' gap in data
    availability. The limited budget information provided to the Committee
    thus far provides no indication that NOAA has a plan to develop a
    solution that ensures continual, high-quality data for weather
    forecasting. The extreme weather events just last week further
    highlight the importance of this data to saving lives and property.
    Further, the delays and cost overruns so systemic to NOAA's satellite
    programs are forcing significant reductions in the budget for important
    activities such as oceans, fisheries, and weather.
        Another big winner in NOAA's budget request is climate research. In
    the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research alone, more than $212.0
    million is allotted for climate research--a 15 percent increase above
    last year--whereas less than $70 million is set aside for research in
    weather and air chemistry. Taken together with the cuts to the National
    Weather Service, the budget indicates the Administration has
    prioritized understanding climate conditions decades from now over
    predicting weather conditions tomorrow. Given the potential for
    innovations in weather forecasting to greatly aid the economy and save
    lives and property, the continued prioritization of climate over
    weather is highly disappointing and should be rejected by Congress.
        The Administration's budget request for science and technology
    activities at EPA is similarly concerning. In a series of hearings on
    EPA's research activities, this Subcommittee examined in detail the
    line between politics and science at the Agency. While Administrator
    Jackson has stated that ``Science is the backbone of everything we do
    at the EPA,'' it is a very weak backbone struggling to support the
    enormous weight of the Administration's regulatory ambitions. The
    Office of Research and Development represents less than seven percent
    of the $8.3 billion request for EPA. Instead of conducting fundamental
    environmental research, the Agency sacrifices sober analysis in favor
    of the outcome-driven science demanded by the President's anti-energy
    agenda. All too often, what passes for peer review of Agency science is
    a rubber stamp by supposedly independent scientific advisors, who also
    happen to be recipients of EPA's largesse.
        The President's focus on climate change and the ongoing effort to
    find a regulatory angle to restrict the shale gas revolution comes at
    the expense of worthwhile R&D. EPA is requesting substantial increases
    for these two areas, including more than $240 million for duplicative
    climate change activities and $14 million for work on hydraulic
    fracturing of questionable value. Following the sloppy and highly
    questionable actions of the Agency in investigating water concerns in
    Pavillion, Wyoming, and Dimock, Pennsylvania, and the inability to
    follow its own peer review guidelines in the Endangerment Finding on
    greenhouse gases, I have little confidence in EPA's ability to conduct
    trusted, quality science in this area, and as such cannot support the
    significant expansion of hydraulic fracturing research called for in
    this request.
        I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the
    Subcommittee, and I look forward to a constructive discussion.

        Chairman Harris. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Miller for
    five minutes for an opening statement.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Harris. I also want to
    welcome the witnesses today, Dr. Lubchenco from NOAA, and
    later, Mr. Kadeli from the EPA. I want to thank both of you for
    being here today.
        We are likely to spend much of this hearing discussing two
    subjects these agencies are now tackling, if subcommittee and
    committee hearings in this Congress are any indication at
    least, first, understanding the environmental and human health
    effects of a massive expansion in oil and gas drilling,
    principally fracking; and, second, understanding the nature of
    our changing climate and what effects it will have.
        Those are critical research areas that EPA and NOAA are
    uniquely qualified to undertake. But a discussion limited to
    hydraulic fracturing and climate change ignores the broad scope
    of the scientific activities these agencies pursue and the
    critical role they play in our lives every day.
        From forecasting the weather to protecting public health by
    ensuring cleaner air and water, those roles are too easily
    disregarded and unfairly demonized at times in the fog of
    partisan politics. We must not lose sight of the contribution
    that decades of science and technology research have provided
    to our economy and public health.
        While today we will see areas of agreement and disagreement
    on the appropriate resources and directions for NOAA and EPA, I
    think that we should all agree that good policy begins with
    good science, and that good science is not free.
        We must recognize the value of those programs and work
    together to protect every American's right to cleaner air and
    water and a healthier environment.
        I understand the need to set priorities in times of fiscal
    restraint as we appear now to be in and commend the
    Administration for doing that, but there are aspects of each of
    the budgets that concern me. Despite the challenging economic
    times, it is unwise to sacrifice the services that the public
    relies on such as weather forecasting and our warning
    capabilities, nor should we undermine America's future by
    failing to invest in the next-generation workforce of
    scientists. We can be fiscally responsible while still making
    the necessary investments to keep our country and our
    environment healthy and the American economy competitive.
        It is hard at times to avoid cliches in politics, but I
    try. There is a phrase that is widely used because it is
    frequently apt. We are eating our seed corn. That is my great
    concern about our budget for research.
        Dr. Lubchenco and Mr. Kadeli, as you testify today, please
    explain how the proposed cuts and increases will affect your
    Agency's ability to protect the health and well-being of our
    citizens and communities, and how the President's request will
    move our Nation's science enterprise in the right direction. I
    look forward to working with you both, with all of you, in the
    months ahead.
        I will support the agencies on a lot of things, but I think
    you should get your budget justification in, too. Second, I
    understand the Department of Commerce is now resisting
    documents I am not sure the Committee still wants on the basis
    that they are pre-decisional. I will not support agencies in
    refusing to release documents based upon exceptions to the
    requirements of FOIA. The Congress request, it is not pursuant
    to FOIA. The courts do recognize a limited pre-decisional
    immunity from production, but it is very limited. If there is
    any reason for producing it, the Administration should produce
    it. And there is almost always a reason when Congress asks that
    a document that outlines how the decision--made the decision
    they made--is a sufficient basis for Congress to ask for it. So
    I also urge the Administration, EPA, NOAA, Commerce to release
    documents without regard to whether they are pre-decisional or
    post-decisional.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I do yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Brad Miller

        Thank you, Chairman Harris. I also wish to welcome the witnesses,
    Dr. Lubchenco from NOAA, and later, Mr. Kadeli here from the EPA. Thank
    you both for being here today.
        We are likely to spend much of this hearing discussing two subjects
    these agencies are now tackling. First, understanding the environmental
    and human health effects of a massive expansion in oil and gas
    drilling; and second, understanding the nature of our changing climate
    and what effects it will have.
        These are critical research areas that EPA and NOAA are uniquely
    qualified to undertake. However, a discussion limited to hydraulic
    fracturing and climate change ignores the broad scope of the scientific
    activities these agencies pursue and the critical role they play in our
    lives every day.
        From forecasting the weather to protecting public health by
    ensuring cleaner air and water, these roles are too easily disregarded,
    and unfairly demonized, in the fog of partisan politics. We must not
    lose sight of the contribution that decades of science and technology
    research have provided to our economy and public health.
        While today we will see areas of agreement and disagreement on the
    appropriate resources and directions for NOAA and EPA, I think that we
    should all agreee that good policy begins with good science, and that
    good science is not free.
        We must recognize the value of these programs and work together to
    protect every American's right to cleaner air and water and a healthier
    environment.
        I understand the need to set priorities in times of fiscal
    restraint and commend the Administration for doing so; there are
    aspects of each budget that concern me.
        Despite the challenging ecomonic times, it is unwise to sacrifice
    serivces that the public relies on, such as weather forecasting and
    warning capabilities. Nor should we undermine America's future by
    failing to invest in the next-generation workforce of scientists. We
    can be fiscally responsible while still making the necessary
    investments to keep our country and environment healither and the
    American economy competitive.
        It is hard to avoid cliches in politics, but I try. There is a
    phrase that is widely used because it is frequently apt: we are eating
    our seed corn. That is my great concern about our budget for research.
        Dr. Lubchenco and Mr. Kadeli, as you testify today, please explain
    how the proposed cuts and increases will affect your agencies' ability
    to protect the health and well-being of our citizens and communities,
    and how the President's request will move our Nation's science
    enterprise in the right direction.
        I look forward to working with you all in the months ahead. I yield
    back.

        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. If there
    are Members who wish to submit additional opening statements,
    your statements will be added to the record at this point.
        At this time I would like to introduce our witness for the
    first panel. The Honorable Jane Lubchenco is the Administrator
    of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at the
    Department of Commerce. She is a marine ecologist and
    environment scientist by training with expertise in oceans,
    climate change and interactions between the environment and
    human well-being. She received her M.S. in zoology from the
    University of Washington and her Ph.D. in ecology from Harvard
    University.
        Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee today. As
    you should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes,
    after which the Members of the Committee will have five minutes
    each to ask questions, and I now recognize you as our witness
    for the panel, Dr. Lubchenco.

            STATEMENT OF DR. JANE LUBCHENCO, ADMINISTRATOR,

            NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

        Dr. Lubchenco. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller,
    Members of the Committee, thank you for your leadership and
    your continued support of NOAA. I would like to start by
    extending NOAA's condolences to the families who lost loved
    ones in last week's tornados. Our local forecasters in the
    affected communities know the pain and the long road to
    recovery these destructive storms create. They also know the
    resilience of these communities.
        As home of the National Weather Service, NOAA is proud to
    be the Nation's first line of preparedness against severe
    weather. The March 2 outbreak was classified as a major
    outbreak. 2012 now ranks in the top five years for the number
    of tornados from January 1 through March 2 since detailed
    records began in 1950.
        These events highlight the importance of everyone being
    ready for severe weather. That is why NOAA is making a Weather-
    Ready Nation a top priority. Last week our forecasters were
    able to give communities three days to prepare for Friday's
    storms, and as tornados were bearing down, lifesaving warnings
    were issued an average of 16 minutes prior to each tornado
    striking. Our towns will rebuild, and NOAA's National Weather
    Service will continue to deliver the lifesaving services our
    Nation relies upon.
        I am honored to be here today to discuss the President's
    fiscal year 2013 budget request. Just as families and
    businesses have made tough choices with tighter budgets, NOAA
    has prioritized our activities. We have proposed targeted
    investments while looking for efficiencies in our operations
    and in some cases, terminating or severely reducing activities.
    We have put forward a budget that reflects our dedication to
    providing some of the most critical lifesaving jobs and job-
    supporting services that America's businesses, individuals and
    communities rely upon.
        We sincerely apologize for the delay in sending NOAA
    Congressional justification to Congress. Staff producing the CJ
    are working hard to complete the product as quickly as
    possible. As you know, the majority of the CJ lays out the
    justification for funding changes in the base. The major reason
    for the delay was that the fiscal year 2012 spend plan was not
    finalized until a few days ago, which kept the base levels of
    many programs in flux. Furthermore, adjustments that were made
    as the fiscal year 2012 spend plan was being finalized also led
    to late changes in the fiscal year 2013 funding levels. The
    result was uncertainty surrounding many of the numbers,
    affecting a large portion of the CJ until very recently. We
    will deliver the NOAA CJ to you by March 14. We are committing
    to reviewing the process for the CJs to ensure timely delivery
    in the future. In the meantime, we hope the budget in brief
    that was available provided some critical information, and we
    are happy to provide more briefings now that more information
    is available.
        Turning to the fiscal year 2013 request, our request which
    totals $5.1 billion is an increase of $153 million, 3.1 percent
    above the fiscal year 2012. To construct this budget, we sought
    administrative savings and made very tough choices to enable
    our top priorities. NOAA anticipates reaching our fiscal year
    2012 target of $68 million in administrative savings. An
    additional $16 million is targeted for 2013. While we take
    significant steps to help reduce government spending, key
    investments are necessary to meet the growing demand for NOAA's
    science and services.
        One of the greatest challenges that NOAA faces is the
    continuity of our satellite operations. We appreciate the
    broad, bipartisan Congressional support these programs received
    last year. Sustained funding for these satellites is important.
    The JPSS, the Joint Polar Satellite System, and the
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series
    programs are two of our highest priorities. Together they will
    inform what we need to keep people safe. We have done
    everything possible to contain costs in these satellite
    programs. Funding is critical to keep the programs on track and
    minimize the duration of the expected gap between the recently
    launched Suomni NPP satellite and JPSS. Without full funding,
    the risk that there would be a more significant gap increases
    greatly.
        2011 rewrote the record book on extreme weather and
    provided a sobering reminder of our vulnerability. In response,
    the National Weather Service launched an initiative called
    Weather-Ready Nation. The 2013 budget requests $972 million to
    produce and deliver forecasts and services and improve the
    economic value of weather, water, and climate information.
        Our coastal communities are major contributors to the
    economy, and our budget supports those in numerous ways.
    Vibrant coastal communities depend on healthy oceans and
    thriving maritime commerce. NOAA's request includes $478
    million for the National Ocean Service.
        In conclusion, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before you today, and I look forward to your questions today as
    well as continuing discussions as you make decisions on this
    very important budget. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator,
                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.017

        Chairman Harris. Thank you, and I want to thank you for
    your testimony. The round of questionings will begin, and I
    will recognize myself for five minutes to begin that.
        Doctor, your testimony stated that despite the substantial
    increase in funding for satellites in the budget request that
    we are almost certain that a gap in polar observational
    satellite data will occur. I understand that the GAO and the
    National Academies have actually have even been a little more
    pessimistic about the length of that gap.
        Setting aside any questions about, you know, who is to
    blame for it, what is NOAA doing to explore alternative means
    of getting that information? Is there another plan to get that
    information in the gap?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Mr. Chairman, we don't believe there are any
    viable alternative options at this point, which is why we are
    very aggressively pursuing staying on track and on the budget
    that is projected. As you know, when I came into this position,
    there had been a considerable history of budget cost overruns
    and delays. We made a commitment to turn that around, have
    restructured this new program, JPSS, and I believe we are on
    track as long as we obtain the funding that we need this year
    and next year. And I believe that the success of the programs
    to date are bearing that out.
        Chairman Harris. Has NOAA considered conducting an
    observing system simulation experiment in order to inform the
    development of future operating systems?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure exactly what you
    are asking.
        Chairman Harris. OSSE? We will submit it in writing, and
    you can talk to staff about it then.
        Dr. Lubchenco. Okay.
        Chairman Harris. One of the few reductions in your request
    is to discontinue the National Air Quality Forecasting
    Capability, which, of course, forecasts ozone and particulate
    matter levels, and of course, that capability allows EPA and
    local agencies to issue their air quality health alerts for the
    public.
        Now, the National Weather Service states that this
    discontinuation was to ``fund higher priority items.'' But the
    decision seems at odds with what the EPA Administrator has
    said. Administrator Jackson last year said, ``We are actually
    at a point in many areas of this country where, on a hot summer
    day, the best advice we can give you is don't go outside. Don't
    breathe the air. It might kill you.'' In September, Ms. Jackson
    stated that, ``If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy
    levels, it would have the same impact as finding a cure for
    cancer.'' Obviously it seems like EPA thinks this might be
    important information. How can you explain the disparity
    between NOAA and EPA and the priority of developing the ozone
    and particular matter level warnings?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is any
    disparity in terms of the importance of measuring particulates
    and ozone. As we looked at our budget and made decisions, we
    really focused on areas that were core to our particular
    mission and areas where we had the greatest immediate
    responsibility to the citizens of this nation. The ozone and
    particulate programs have been relatively small and are less
    core to our immediate mission than are many of our other
    programs.
        Chairman Harris. Well, let me move onto that because, you
    know, a lot of Americans, I think, would say, you know,
    forecasting the weather, the National Weather Service is
    important, but the budget actually, a budget that increases by
    3.1 percent, actually has a decrease in National Weather
    Service.
        How do you explain and where do you prioritize? I mean,
    obviously, climate change got a large increase, climate
    research, Weather Service gets a decrease. Why?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Mr. Chairman, the ability for us to deliver
    quality weather forecasts and warnings depends on a variety of
    activities within NOAA. First and foremost are weather
    satellites. You see a significant increase in our satellite
    programs this year, and that is due directly to the importance
    that those weather satellites play. Over 90 percent of the data
    that go into our numerical weather models come from satellites.
        The decreases that you see in the Weather Service program
    are ones that we believe represent mostly administrative
    efficiencies where we can provide the same or better level of
    service at a lower price, if you will. So overall, we have put
    saving lives and property at the very, very top level of our
    budget, and I think that is reflected in the combined satellite
    and Weather Service line items.
        Chairman Harris. Just to follow up, why not take it from
    climate research instead of the Weather Service? I mean,
    Weather Service gets a hit in funding to fund satellites, but
    climate research doesn't. I mean, is that the priority of the
    Administration, that climate research--again, you have
    testified before. This is looking at decades in the future is
    more important than looking at a week into the future? I would
    say some people in the Midwest might disagree with that.
        Dr. Lubchenco. The investment in understanding how the
    climate system works influences directly our ability to provide
    outlooks, for example, with drought, severe weather such as
    heavy precipitation events, heat waves, those kinds of things.
    So there is a direct connection between our better
    understanding of how the climate system works and our ability
    to deliver information to help communities and people and
    businesses prepare, even in the months to years ahead, not just
    decades from now.
        Chairman Harris. Just a very brief, clarifying point.
    Wasn't your testimony before the Committee that climate
    research is looking years ahead? It is not months, not weeks,
    not days?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Climate research is designed to help us
    understand how the climate system works. That helps us
    understand what will happen months ahead, years ahead and
    decades ahead, all of those.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, and I recognize Mr.
    Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lubchenco, I also
    have a question about the polar orbiting satellites, the
    geostationary satellites, the next generation, because the
    NPOESS system was one of the most snake-bit projects the
    Federal Government has ever been involved with. This Committee
    has had many hearings on polar orbiting satellites, and GAO has
    taken a great interest. And they earlier estimated what it
    would take to complete the JPSS system at a couple billion
    dollars more than the $12.9 billion that your budget suggests
    will be sufficient. Lowballed estimates are a problem because
    it may help get programs through initially, and then it may be
    that Congress is reluctant to pull the plug on a program once
    begun, but it leads to undermining confidence by Congress and
    the Agency, it undermines confidence of the American people if
    there are cost overruns, and it would be very useful to begin
    with a pretty realistic estimate.
        Why do you believe that the program would cost less than
    GAO estimated, and will the requested funding level be enough
    to develop the instruments and to meet the scheduled launch
    dates?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, when I first took this
    position, I was told in no uncertain terms by Members of
    Congress that the NPOESS program was a national embarrassment,
    had been problematic for far too long and absolutely needed to
    be fixed. And I took that very seriously.
        Mr. Miller. As you should have.
        Dr. Lubchenco. Which is what led to the significant
    restructuring of that program. And the creation of the Joint
    Polar Satellite System is a result of that. It has benefitted
    from intense internal and external scrutiny. We had the benefit
    of many outside experts advising us on this, learning from the
    lessons of NPOESS, and committing to not repeating them.
        In constructing our budgets, we have committed to capping
    the costs of JPSS at this $12.9 billion level. That will indeed
    entail the loss of some of the sensors that we had originally
    envisioned to fly on those satellites, but we are in fact
    committed to staying with that cap. I think that the success
    that we are having now with the Suomni NPP satellite, the
    instruments that are on it, our good partnership with NASA in
    that regard, and all of the activities we have engaged in with
    the JPSS program to date suggests that, in fact, we have turned
    this around, we are on track. We will be watching it very
    closely as I am sure you will be and should be. But I think
    these satellites are too important to not be on the path to
    success, and we are committed to that end.
        Mr. Miller. Climate research. I understand that NOAA is
    involved, should be involved in all aspects of climate
    research, observations, data management, modeling and those
    various activities advance what you call the NOAA climate goal.
    There are other agencies that are also involved in climate
    research. What is the climate goal and how does that goal
    benefit the mission of the Agency and the needs of Americans
    and is that research duplicative of what is going on in other
    agencies?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you, sir. Good questions. Within NOAA,
    there are activities across many different parts of NOAA, what
    we call line offices, that touch on our climate goal. And so it
    is appropriate for us to have a mechanism of integrating across
    the different units within the Agency. That is what the climate
    goal does. It pulls from the different units and has a more
    overarching integrated nature. By the same token, there is a
    mechanism to integrate research across the different federal
    agencies that are engaged in climate research through the
    program called the U.S. Global Change Research Program. That is
    the mechanism by which we ensure that there is not duplication,
    that there is coordination, collaboration across the different
    agencies. So each different agency that does have some element
    of climate research coordinates through the Global Change
    Research Program. For example, there are different types of
    modeling efforts under way that are complementary, and this is
    a mechanism of keeping each other in formed and making sure
    that we don't have duplication.
        Mr. Miller. My time has expired.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
    California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is kind of
    an interesting distinction here that you are making with the
    climate versus weather. I am sure that there is that
    delineation that is made in academe as well as in government
    offices.
        The recent Government Accountability Office report found
    that 40 percent of the weather stations used for the U.S.
    Historical Climatology Network do no not meet NOAA's own
    sitting standards which require, for example, that weather
    monitor stations not be located too close to paid services or
    in areas that, of course, would interfere with the correct
    assessment of the temperature, et cetera. The report also found
    that NOAA does not centrally track whether or not these
    stations adhere to the actual standards, nor does it have an
    agency-wide policy regarding these stations. So I guess it is
    saying that you have 40 percent of the weather stations used
    for this U.S. Historical Climatology Network don't meet NOAA's
    own standards, is that correct?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, I don't know the actual figure.
    I can tell you that through time, many stations that were
    originally put in one place, the circumstances around them have
    changed, and that when we collate all that information, we take
    that into account and often make adjustments accordingly. We
    are in the process of sort of looking across all of those
    weather stations to make sure that they give us the best kind
    of information and we are----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, it is pretty hard to adjust
    something if you don't know what the real recording is. I mean,
    it is one thing to say where you justify some average of what
    has happened in the past. That doesn't count if you think there
    is changes going on.
        Now, I understand that there is a request for $28 million
    to increase climate research. Does any of that money that the
    $28 million requested would go to perfecting these stations so
    you will know how to judge the climate by accurate weather
    assessments?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, there are multiple different
    ways that we take data about temperatures, for example, and
    those ground stations are one of them. They are complemented by
    a number of other mechanisms that overlap. So we have satellite
    information, we have ground-based information, we have tall
    towers, we have buoys.
        And so our information about changes does not rely on any
    one type of network. It relies on the sum total of those.
        The climate research program that is in our budget is
    focused on not the monitoring per se but understanding the
    mechanisms, you know, how the Earth system works, what is the
    role of aerosols, what is the carbon cycle like, what is the
    role of black carbon, for example.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, if you have a lot of, I mean, 40
    percent of the stations not meeting the standard certainly
    seems to me that before you want to go into all these other
    calculations, you are going to want to fix that problem. And I
    guess what I am hearing is no, you are not going to go after
    those stations, and that money that has been requested to
    increase climate research will have to just work around those
    figures that may or may not be accurate.
        Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, let me get back to you with
    respect to that figure and what we are doing to address that
    need because I would like to give you accurate information on
    this.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. It is the Government Accounting Office's--
    --
        Dr. Lubchenco. I understand.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note, in Orange County, where
    I come from, I grew up there as a boy and my dad was a marine,
    and we were at El Toro, and all around us were orange groves as
    far as you could see.
        Dr. Lubchenco. Right.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And there were some weather stations
    there, and I will tell you right now, to think that those
    weather stations, it is a totally different world now where
    those weather stations are located. They are located in a bunch
    of concrete and buildings, and it is a totally different
    environment. So I think that when we are trying to find out
    what is accurate in terms of what those instruments are
    recording, we do have to take into consideration those type
    changes, and it doesn't look like we have paid enough attention
    to that. But thank you very much. I will be hopefully getting
    maybe a couple of paragraphs back from you on how we are
    handling that.
        Dr. Lubchenco. I can tell you that we are, in fact, aware
    of the changes in many of these places, and in some areas, we
    are creating new stations and having, you know, in areas that
    are not likely to change through time such as you mentioned.
    But what the number is and exactly the rate at which we are
    fixing them, I am happy to get back to you on.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes
    the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, for five minutes.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, and I am pleased to be
    here. Some of my questions have already been asked, but I did
    share with our witness a copy of an editorial that appeared in
    the San Jose Mercury News a couple of weeks ago relating to the
    tsunami alerts and the proposed $4.6 million that affects the
    early warning system.
        I would like to note that San Jose, which is within my
    congressional district, is not on the coast, and we would not
    be impacted by a tsunami in any way. We have even done the
    modeling. Even on the bay, there is no way that a tsunami could
    impact us according to the computer modeling. So this is not
    from a parochial point of view.
        But I do have a concern. I have read the analysis that a
    degradation of this system--which I think inevitably will
    result, I mean, if we are not able to repair these buoys. Some
    will go dark and we will not be able to reach them without the
    funding. This could have a public safety impact, and obviously
    you have constraints that were placed upon you. We recognize
    that. But I am concerned as we think about this tsunami, the
    devastating tsunami that hit Japan, certainly the possibility
    of a devastating impact somewhere along the West Coast, whether
    it is, you know, Washington or L.A., needs to be considered.
    And I am wondering if this is really something that we want to
    stick with in terms of reduction. Could you address this
    subject at all?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Certainly, and thanks for the questions,
    Congresswoman. Tsunamis are very, very serious, obviously, and
    we take our responsibility to warn our citizens very, very
    seriously.
        We saw with both the Chile, and then the Japanese, tsunami
    how devastating they can be. Our tsunami warning system was
    active in both of those instances and in fact prevented
    considerable damage that might otherwise have occurred. For
    example, both places along the West Coast, Crescent City for
    example, but also in the Hawaiian Islands and other Pacific
    places, territories----
        Ms. Lofgren. Santa Cruz?
        Dr. Lubchenco. And Santa Cruz, absolutely. Santa Cruz was
    seriously affected. Our warning program before this year had
    benefit of both appropriated funds as well as funds from the
    2005 Deficit Reduction Act. And this year, that act expires. We
    will no longer have funds from the Warren Act to help
    supplement our tsunami programs, which is why you see a
    reduction in this year's program compared to last year.
        Nonetheless, we will be able to continue to have two very
    active tsunami warning centers in Alaska and in Hawaii. The
    dart buoy systems that give us very important information as
    the tsunami is moving across the Pacific will remain in place.
    The decreased funds mean that we will be unable to go out and
    fix those dart buoys when they become disabled as frequently as
    we would like to or as frequently as we have to date. So the
    system will be up there. We just are not able to maintain it at
    the pace that would be necessary.
        Ms. Lofgren. May I ask you a question, because oftentimes
    we think about, you know, the West Coast of the United States
    as being the recipient of a tsunami from the earthquake in
    Asia. But certainly there is the potential of a very large
    earthquake, certainly along the State of Washington given
    historic events. And so actually, the Hawaiian Islands could be
    at risk as well as the coast along the United States.
        Have we thought about the impact of letting these buoys go
    dark from that kind of an event?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Absolutely. The dart buoy system was
    designed to function regardless of where in the Pacific Rim the
    earthquake was happening. And you are right to focus on
    Washington but Oregon as well as places where there in fact may
    be an event. The dart buoys do not enable those warnings to
    happen. When there is a seismic event, that information is
    received immediately by our tsunami warning centers, and they
    send out a model.
        Ms. Lofgren. If I may, I think I misspoke. I am talking
    about the buoys that aren't working and can't be repaired in a
    timely fashion.
        Dr. Lubchenco. Warnings don't depend on those buoys.
        Ms. Lofgren. Okay.
        Dr. Lubchenco. Warnings happen first, and we are still able
    to do those. And then the buoy picks up the tsunami as it is
    moving across the ocean, and that enables us to fine tune the
    warnings. So if there is a buoy that is out, we will still have
    a general warning. It won't be as specific as might be useful,
    but it is not as if we won't have any warning system at all. I
    agree it would be nice to have all those buoys up and running.
    We just don't have the money.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would ask unanimous consent to put the
    editorial in the record and just note that I understand your
    constraint, but it seems to me not maybe the best place to
    economize. And if you over-warn, then people don't take it as
    seriously. And we have seen that in California where people
    show up to look. And if it were a big event, that would not be
    a smart thing. If it is targeted, people take it more
    seriously. I know my time is up.
        Chairman Harris. Without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Harris. We will include that in the record.
        [The information may be found in Appendix 2.]
        Chairman Harris. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    California, Mr. McNerney, for five minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lubchenco, I
    want to thank you for your testimony, and also for recognizing
    the disaster that occurred last week in the Midwest. I know a
    lot of families are going to be grieving a long time about
    that. Could you elaborate on the importance of the Weather-
    Ready Nation initiative? Be a little specific here. How is the
    money going to be used to help warn people of these events?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, we have invested a significant
    amount of research over the years in doing better and better at
    making more and more accurate forecasts with longer lead times,
    for example. And we have made some very significant strides in
    that direction. We will continue to do that as well as have the
    satellites give us the basic information that allow much of
    that to happen.
        However, many of our warnings often happen, and people
    don't necessarily know what to do, or they don't know how to
    interpret the information. And so the Weather-Ready Nation is
    an initiative to work with local communities, with emergency
    managers, with social scientists, with others, to help better
    understand what people hear when they hear a warning, and if
    they are hearing what we think we are trying to tell them and
    if they know what to do, to take cover, to be safe. So it is
    acknowledging the very real human dimension in responding to a
    weather disaster warning. So we will again on parallel tracks
    make sure that our satellites are on track to give us the basic
    information, have our weather forecast disaster warnings as
    accurate and as good as they can be but also pay attention to
    increasing the ability of individuals, community leaders,
    emergency managers in responding appropriately when there is
    something bad coming.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. As a mathematician, I strongly
    understand the importance of STEM education, and I see there is
    a reduction in funding for the Office of Education. How do you
    feel that is going to affect the training of a generation of
    scientists or potential scientists?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, that is one of the most painful
    parts of this budget for me this year. STEM education is
    vitally important, and the role that NOAA's education programs
    have played I think has been outstanding. We simply did not
    have enough funds to do everything and made saving lives and
    property and managing fisheries, other really important things,
    the highest priorities. And what that meant is that there are
    some very important things we are not able to do, and it is
    very, very painful for me.
        Mr. McNerney. I understand. Another subject that I have
    personal interest in from my past life is wind energy. I spent
    a career there, and I see you have $855,000 in the budget for
    wind boundary research, and that is going to help the industry
    maybe some day. Could you tell me a little bit about that
    program and what exactly are they planning to do with that
    money?
        Dr. Lubchenco. I can give you a high-level description of
    it, and if you want more detail, I am happy to provide that as
    well as a follow up.
        Much of the challenge is in understanding what is happening
    at the level where the turbines are and understanding better
    the boundary layer conditions and what is happening at
    different altitudes above the ground and how that changes when
    you are on a ridge top or a valley is part of the research that
    is anticipated in this area. So it is understanding better what
    are the conditions that result in different patterns of wind
    and to what extent we can predict under certain circumstances
    what the patterns will be under different circumstances.
        Mr. McNerney. So you would be looking at the shear effects?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Yes, exactly.
        Mr. McNerney. And there are a couple of ways to do that.
    One is to try and map it out by location. Another is to try to
    understand the sort of atmospheric effects that are happening
    due to climate situations. Are you focusing on one of those two
    or both?
        Dr. Lubchenco. It is a combination of those, but I can't
    tell you precisely what. You know, we know that any particular
    place is not static through time. You know, there are very
    different conditions, if it is an El Nino versus a La Nina
    year, it depends on where the jet stream is, it depends on all
    sorts of other kinds of things, and having a better
    understanding of what are the circumstances that result in a
    particular pattern of winds is where we are trying to be.
        Mr. McNerney. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Lubchenco, thank you
    for joining us today and for your testimony. The proposed
    budget for the National Weather Service has several reductions
    that are of real concern. This Committee has opposed past
    attempts to eliminate the Wind Profiler Network. I understand
    the data from this network are utilized for forecasting
    tornados. We are experiencing an increase in tornado outbreaks.
    In fact we witnessed just recently what happened in Tornado
    Alley as it is often referenced, and I saw unusual weather
    elements this past last summer in my own district, in the 21st
    in New York, which included a tornado in my hometown area.
        Why is the Administration proposing to eliminate this
    network?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, it is my understanding that we
    believe that we can get similar information through other
    mechanisms and that eliminating these profilers will not impair
    our ability to forecast the tornados.
        Mr. Tonko. It may not limit the ability but are we likely
    to experience degraded forecast accuracy?
        Dr. Lubchenco. I don't believe so. Part of what we are
    doing is focusing on converting our Doppler radar systems into
    what is called dual polarization radar, and that is giving us
    very good ability to have more precise information about
    conditions conducive to tornado formation.
        Mr. Tonko. I am also concerned about the proposal to
    eliminate the information technology officers at each weather
    forecast office. My understanding is that these professionals
    serve as both meteorologists and IT specialists and that many
    forecast offices develop specialized programs tailored to local
    conditions to improve their forecasting.
        How is a central system going to do this effectively?
        Dr. Lubchenco. We believe that we have had significant
    improvements in IT technology that will enable us to reduce the
    number of these IT positions and to fulfill the activities that
    they supply more regionally as opposed to individual stations,
    and we believe we can do that without any significant
    degradation of the services provided.
        Mr. Tonko. So has this concept been tested? Are we simply
    doing the experiment and the implementation simultaneously?
        Dr. Lubchenco. It is my understanding that it is comparable
    to an analogous situation that happened earlier on with the
    Weather Service that was the result again of technology
    enabling more effective provision of service but at a lower
    cost. So we are actually learning from that experience and
    folding that into this design.
        Mr. Tonko. You know, this is a public safety issue in my
    opinion, and your own agency's press release indicated we had
    another record year for weather-based natural disasters. You
    made mention of it today in your testimony.
        Beyond the IT abilities, are there other bits of rationale
    for this cut?
        Dr. Lubchenco. We take the public safety issues extremely
    seriously. That is really the highest priority that we have for
    the Weather Service, and we believe that we can achieve
    administrative efficiencies with this proposal with no threat
    to public safety, no degradation of the services that are
    provided. Otherwise, we wouldn't be doing this.
        Mr. Tonko. And also, Dr. Lubchenco, does the request for
    fiscal year 2013 include funding for the Integrated Water
    Resources Science and Services initiative that NOAA is working
    on with the Army Corps and USGS?
        Dr. Lubchenco. Congressman, I don't have that number on the
    top of my head. I am happy to get it and get back to you on
    that. You are right, that IRIS program that is a joint one is
    very important to us. It is at a small scale. We think there
    are a lot of efficiencies in combining with the other agencies,
    as you and I have discussed, but I don't remember exactly what
    is in the budget for that. But I will get back to you on that.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And as I stated, you know, my
    district has experienced a lot of impacts from Mother Nature
    this past summer and fall, including terrible flooding problems
    last year. And I believe that this program would be very
    helpful in addressing water resource issues which have got to
    be a primary focus, I believe, from a federal perspective.
        Dr. Lubchenco. I agree.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much.
        Dr. Lubchenco. Thank you.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. Dr. Lubchenco, I
    thank you very much for your testimony, the Members and their
    questions, I want to again thank you for your patience while we
    came back from voting. The Members of the Committee may have
    additional questions for you, and we ask you to respond to
    those in writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for
    additional comments from Members. We are looking for those
    budget justifications, so don't forget us on that. The witness
    is excused, and we will move to our second panel with Mr. Lek
    Kadeli.
        Thank you very much for your patience again. We apologize
    for the delay while we were voting. I want to welcome Mr.
    Kadeli, who is the Acting Assistant Administrator from the
    Office of Research and Development at the EPA. He has over 29
    years of management experience in both government and the
    private sector. He joined EPA's Office of Research and
    Development in 1993 to serve as Chief of Resource Planning and
    Program Coordination, and in 1998 served as the Acting Deputy
    Director of ORD's National Exposure Research Laboratory in
    North Carolina. He previously served as the Acting Assistant
    Administrator for the Office of Research and Development from
    January through December of 2009. As our witness should note,
    spoken testimony is limited to five minutes after which the
    members of the committee will have five minutes each to ask
    questions, and I now recognize you for your testimony, Mr.
    Kadeli.

                      STATEMENT OF MR. LEK KADELI,

                    ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,

                  OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Kadeli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon
    Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Miller and other Members of the
    Subcommittee. My name is Lek Kadeli, and I am the Acting
    Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Research and
    Development, and it is my pleasure to be before the Committee
    to present the President's 2013 request for our budget.
        The 2013 research budget demonstrates EPA's commitment to
    providing the best science and technology for its core mission
    of protecting human health and the environment for American
    families while recognizing the challenging realities of this
    current climate. The fiscal year 2013 budget is the result of
    EPA's ongoing efforts to carefully consider potential
    efficiencies in a responsible manner while supporting
    innovative approaches that are essential to understanding and
    addressing environmental challenges and protecting human
    health.
        It has taken a lot of hard work and difficult choices to
    reach this balanced approach, and while we had to make
    sacrifices, we have maintained our commitment to the priorities
    of this Agency and ensuring the protections the American people
    expect and deserve.
        ORD conducts intramural and extramural research across the
    broad spectrum of disciplines necessary to support the mission
    of EPA. In addition to the science that we have traditionally
    pursued, we are investing in research on innovative approaches
    and technologies along with promoting synergies between
    environment and public health protection in a context that
    reflects broader community interests and needs.
        I would like to highlight a few examples of the innovative
    solutions that we are pursuing and that I believe would be of
    interest to the Committee.
        First, EPA is collaborating with the National Institutes of
    Health and the Food and Drug Administration to bring
    complementary expertise together to develop faster predictions
    of how chemicals could impact human health and the environment.
    The intergovernmental partnership called TOX 21 is using
    robotically enabled high-speed screening to test the potential
    toxicity of 10,000 different chemicals. This will help us more
    efficiently prioritize chemicals for in-depth testing, over
    time will reduce animal usage in testing and reduce the cost,
    and most importantly will provide data that will enable us to
    better predict whether a chemical exposure triggers changes
    that increase the potential for human health or environmental
    impacts.
        Secondly, we are collaborating with five large U.S. cities,
    Cincinnati, Dallas, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco,
    to investigate solutions to security issues at water utilities.
    These cities are evaluating software developed by the Office of
    Research and Development which is a key component of a
    contamination warning system that rapidly detects hazardous
    contaminants in drinking water systems and is a critical
    technology for the detection of terrorist attacks on drinking
    water systems.
        EPA is also in collaborative efforts with municipalities to
    improve and achieve more resilient storm water management
    approaches by sustainably addressing storm water and septic
    runoff overflows. At a time where we face critical challenges
    in maintaining and upgrading our existing water and wastewater
    infrastructure, we need resilient and affordable solutions that
    meet many objectives at once. For example, we are supporting
    research and implementation of green infrastructure approaches
    which provide diverse economic, water quality and community
    benefits.
        EPA's 2013 budget request proposes $807 million for the
    science and technology account. This request includes $576
    million for research, including $81 million in research grants
    and fellowships that will be awarded to scientists and
    universities throughout the country to conduct targeted
    research as part of the Science to Achieve Results program.
    Building upon ongoing research and collaborating with the
    Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey, a total of
    $14 million is being requested to increase our understanding of
    the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on air quality,
    water quality, and ecosystems. Six million dollars of the $14
    million requested is necessary to complete the commitment to
    deliver on the fiscal year 2014 report on the potential impacts
    of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The report
    will be peer reviewed by the experts and a range of
    stakeholders.
        In conclusion, we have a strong tradition of scientific
    excellence at EPA which this budget builds upon. I look forward
    to working with the Committee to address current and emerging
    environmental problems and seek innovative solutions that will
    help our Agency protect the environment and human health. Thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kadeli follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Lek Kadeli,
                        Acting Assistant Administrator,
                      Office of Research and Development,
                        Environmental Protection Agency

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.022

        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. I thank you for your
    testimony, reminding Members of the Committee rules, limit
    questioning to five minutes. The Chair will at this point open
    the round of questions. I recognize myself for the first five
    minutes.
        Mr. Kadeli, two weeks ago the President gave a speech on
    gas prices, certainly foremost on a lot of Americans' minds in
    which he stated, ``I have directed my Administration to look
    for every single area where we can make an impact and help
    consumers in the months ahead.''
        My first question to you is do you, as one of the leaders
    in an area of the Administration, do you know when you are
    expected to report back to the President? Was there a report
    date that the President suggested or is passed down through the
    Administration? I mean, he said he wants to look in every
    single area in the months ahead. Is there a report date for
    this where you can help lower gas prices or make suggestions?
        Mr. Kadeli. Congressman, Mr. Chairman, I am going to have
    to respond for the record on that. I don't have the information
    on that.
        Chairman Harris. Okay. Thank you very much. In that mind,
    do you know if the EPA has considered abandoning the Tier 3
    rule-making or greenhouse gas regulations for refining, both of
    which are entirely optional policies that are guaranteed to
    raise gasoline prices even higher than they are? I mean, is
    there any move afoot at the EPA to actually do what the
    President said in the speech?
        Mr. Kadeli. Again, I think I will need to provide that
    response for the record. I will go back to my colleague, the AA
    for the Office of Air and Radiation, and get a response.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you. I would appreciate that and
    would love to know what that deadline is. Now, last week
    Administrator Jackson claimed that the $45 million multi-agency
    study, which I think you alluded to in your testimony of air,
    ecosystem and water quality effects of hydraulic fracturing
    ``really isn't an expansion of the congressionally mandated
    study.'' I mean, that is what your administrator said, it
    really isn't an expansion. But the language in the fiscal year
    2010 appropriations report was pretty clear. It urged the
    Agency to carry out a study of the relationship between
    hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. So what is the origin
    of the $45 million effort which, by your own testimony,
    includes things like air quality? That wasn't part of--and I
    won't use the word mandate because of course, you know, the
    budget language of 2010 was no mandate. Instead of asking for
    that two percent increase and I will just, you know, make a
    comment, you know, you used the word make sacrifices. Most
    American families think making sacrifices means you do more
    with less, not more with more. A budget increase is a budget
    increase. American families don't think of sacrifices as the
    government coming back and saying give us more money. That is
    our sacrifice.
        So the Agency doesn't have to do this study. There is no
    mandate. It not only took the original study. Now it has
    expanded the study and coming back for even more money. So can
    you walk us through the origin of why this is now a $45 million
    effort that has expanded well beyond what even the non-
    mandatory language of the fiscal year 2010 has called for?
        Mr. Kadeli. Mr. Chairman, I think we all recognize the
    importance of this resource for this country, whether from a
    national security standpoint, whether from an environmental
    standpoint, whether from an economic standpoint. I myself have
    traveled to parts of this country, whether Eastern Ohio,
    Western Pennsylvania, New York, and other parts of the country
    that have been hit very hard with regard to the economic
    challenges.
        So clearly this offers a lot of opportunity for people in
    these parts of the country but also offers opportunity for us
    to address a real need on the energy side of the equation.
        When we started down the path of looking at what are some
    of the questions and uncertainties around hydro fracturing, it
    was done with the encouragement of Congress, and I recognize
    report language is perceived in various ways, depending on
    where you sit. But clearly there are a lot of questions and
    have been a lot of questions, and as part of our commitment
    to--and the President himself has said, members of the industry
    have said, Members of Congress and others have said that it is
    important to do this right, and I think there are a lot of
    questions out there that it would be good to bring a lesser
    degree of uncertainty to addressing those questions.
        So that is our intent with the study. That is our intent as
    we look at a number of questions around, not just the drinking
    water issues but the water quality issues and potentially air
    issues. I would also add that there have been concerns raised,
    and I think at the end of the day, we have a responsibility to
    the public, to the American people, to address those concerns
    with the facts as opposed to what sometimes is a lot of energy
    and passion and emotion around some of these issues.
        Chairman Harris. You know, I couldn't agree more. Again, I
    take it that you have agreed I guess with my two main points.
    One is it is not originally a mandated study because perception
    aside, we know the budget language is not law. We know it is
    not binding. We know it doesn't require an appropriation, much
    less an expenditure and second of all that this really is an
    expansion and that the expansion is taken not at Congress'
    determination but internally in the EPA. Someone at the EPA
    just decided that we are just going to expand the scope of
    this, and we are just going to increase our budget. We are
    going to make the sacrifices again, the American people
    watching, the American people hearing. This is what Washington
    thinks of as a sacrifice, not what you think of as a sacrifice
    in your home. They think of a sacrifice as increasing in your
    budget, and that is not what most Americans think.
        Anyway, I would recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller,
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Kadeli. This Committee has been
    interested, and I have been interested personally, in the IRIS
    program for some time. It is perhaps not the embarrassment the
    NPOESS satellite system, but it has not been one of our
    government's more successful programs and it appears in part to
    be because of an intentional effort to keep it from doing its
    job, to hobble it in its mission. We obviously need a list, a
    reliable assessment, of the public health effects of exposure
    to various chemicals and the IRIS system was producing two
    assessments a year when 600 new chemicals are coming on the
    market every year? And I have been skeptical about some of the
    calls for more analysis, more reviews as an intentional effort
    to impose paralysis by analysis, and the program has been
    entirely too easily influenced in the past. I know that this
    Administration is trying to improve upon that by the industries
    that manufacture chemicals and by the industries that use
    chemicals and by the agencies of the government that use
    chemicals.
        But GAO and the National Academies have also criticized the
    IRIS program for not having rigorous peer reviews. Many have
    suggested reforms. Your budget proposal does shift resources to
    the EPA Science Advisory Board for additional IRIS assessment
    reviews. How will that money be used? How will you use that
    money? Will there be rigorous peer reviews as GAO and National
    Academies have suggested?
        Mr. Kadeli. Congressman, as a science organization, one of
    the important ways that we ensure the work we do is of the
    highest quality and meets the standards that is expected by the
    President and by the administrator is we invite independent
    peer review of the work that we are doing. And this is not just
    unique to our agency but is typical of the scientific culture.
    It is not only how we get our work done but how we ensure that
    the American public are getting the best possible work done.
        I must say there are times where we have enjoyed the
    feedback that we have gotten from these independent scientists,
    and some of the feedback has been challenging. The National
    Academy, in their review of our formaldehyde assessment, had a
    number of observations that related to that particular
    assessment, but we have recognized that the importance of
    taking that feedback and enhancing the assessments that we do
    as a result.
        I will say the focus of their comments with regard to that
    particular assessment, particularly as we try to address them
    in the short term, had to do with the transparency of the data
    as far as how we captured them in charts, how we captured them
    in graphs as opposed to being lost in the text, bringing
    clarity to the important studies that were driving some of the
    conclusions that were made.
        So let me end by saying peer review is important. I
    actually think that what we do with peer review is of the
    highest standards, but I also continue to welcome the type of
    feedback that we get, which is a normal part of our process, to
    ensure that we are providing quality products.
        Mr. Miller. Earlier in your prepared testimony you spoke of
    the TOX21 system that you are working with NIH and FDA on to
    develop a high-speed toxicity testing screening project for
    10,000 different chemicals. Can that TOX21 high-speed testing
    capability help the assessment of chemicals? I am worried about
    the lack of productivity by the IRIS program with completing so
    few assessments. I mean, it would be great to produce a perfect
    assessment, but if there are 600 chemicals coming on the market
    and getting into widespread use and people are being exposed to
    those chemicals and we are only producing two assessments a
    year, even if they are perfect assessments, there is a problem
    there.
        Can the TOX21 system be used within the IRIS program and
    are some of the chemicals being assessed both by IRIS and by
    TOX21?
        Mr. Kadeli. This is one of the exciting areas of work going
    on in ORD and as we collaborate with other federal agencies,
    Congressman. Obviously, we have a challenge. If we are doing
    assessments on a chemical-by-chemical basis, which we are
    doing, the National Academies did a study a few years ago that
    was titled Toxicology for the 21st Century where it pointed to
    a number of advancements that have come about in a number of
    other industries including the pharmaceutical industries, that
    provide opportunities for us to apply the lessons learned, the
    technologies, the incredible increases in computational powers
    to some of these questions. We have made significant strides,
    and I would offer a briefing to the committee because of the
    opportunities that this offers in addressing some of the
    challenges that we have had historically with the IRIS program
    and the incredible number of chemicals that the industry
    continues to develop as part of commerce.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. I recognize the
    gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
    it behooves all of us when we discuss the EPA and other
    endeavors of government that combine both government and
    science that President Eisenhower warned us, very dramatically
    warned us, of a military-industrial complex which most of us
    have forgotten the first warning that he gave us right before
    he warned us of the military-industrial complex. With equal
    seriousness, President Eisenhower warned us against an unholy
    alliance between science and government in which science would
    be mobilized to achieve political ends and thus actually
    compromise the standards of scientists and compromise the well-
    being of the American people. We might go back and look at that
    good farewell address.
        And I think that nowhere is that more apparent than perhaps
    in some of the things that we have been worrying about with the
    EPA lately and this whole hydro fracturing issue is very much
    of a concern because we realize that the initiative the EPA is
    now operating on was not something that actually came
    internally from the EPA but, correct me if I am wrong, instead
    Congress--I think it was a time when another party may have
    dominated the House--tasked the EPA to move forward on this,
    and perhaps this is the unholy relationship that Eisenhower was
    warning us against because what we have now is clearly an
    initiative that you are moving forward with that seems to be
    totally politicized. And when someone comes before us and
    basically, when we have analyzed what you and others from the
    EPA have come here to tell us, Mr. Chairman, it always seems
    that they are basically saying we are looking for something
    that we can grab onto with hydraulic fracturing. We are looking
    for that. We are seeking it out. And just the answer to the
    Chairman's questions again verified that for me that what we
    have here is there is no specific evidence that has led to the
    type of expenditure of limited tax dollars for this project,
    but instead, the EPA is going out because it has been tasked, I
    think politically, to achieve this rather than scientifically.
    And your answer to the Chairman's question did not undo that
    fear that I had of what was really going on here.
        To put it bluntly, I think for political purposes, the EPA
    is targeting and has been directed to target hydraulic
    fracturing to put a stop to it because there is a radical
    element in the environmental community that does not want us to
    have any more gas or oil energy in this country because they
    believe that oil and gas creates a carbon footprint which is
    changing the climate. And so they are going to save the world
    by preventing America from having any more oil and gas, and the
    EPA is going to be the vehicle in which they are going to
    prevent that scenario.
        So I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. Now,
    I would like to ask you specifically this question. Your
    Scientific Integrity Policy applies to all grantees, the EPA's
    Scientific Integrity Policy. Peter Glick of the Pacific
    Institute in California recently admitted that he had falsely
    impersonated a border member of the Heartland Institute in
    order to steal budget documents from that institute. Now, I
    understand that while this individual served as President of
    the Pacific Institute, that organization received nearly
    $500,000 in grants from the EPA. How does the new Scientific
    Integrity Policy address the circumstances associated with Dr.
    Glick? Does any policy limit any future grants to Glick or to
    any institute that he is involved in providing leadership?
        Mr. Kadeli. Congressman, I am not as familiar with the
    circumstances of the grants, the type of grants, et cetera. I
    think this is one where I will need to provide your response
    for the record so I have all the facts correct.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I
    would hope that this breach of professionalism of Peter Glick
    and the Pacific Institute is not just swept under the rug like
    so many of these other violations that we have seen. And quite
    frankly, and I am sorry this is a political thing, my
    observation is any time a Republican does anything like this,
    you know, all of a sudden there is an uproar. But you can have
    all kinds of emails between people talking about hiding the
    real facts and trying to prevent other people from actually
    publishing their findings scientifically which of course
    violates every scientific principle, and they just get away
    with it. But I think it is time for us to quit ignoring these
    violations by radical environmentalists.
        Mr. Kadeli. Congressman, if you have the specific details,
    that would be helpful as I go back, sir.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thanks so much.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes
    the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for five minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
    testimony there for my colleague from California.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring your attention to the
    fact that whether the majority party likes it or not, there is
    a growing public apprehension and alarm with potential negative
    impacts of hydraulic fracturing. I hear about it all the time.
    But regardless of whether the alarm is justified or not, the
    best way to proceed in this situation is to improve
    transparency, which is what my opinion about this budget is
    trying to achieve. Let the scientists do their job, and we will
    most likely benefit both in terms of helping to reduce the
    public fear and developing additional technologies that will
    improve the hydraulic fracturing itself, which everybody wants
    to see move forward.
        But onto the witness, Mr. Kadeli, I see that there is an
    estuarine ecosystems comp under the budget. Are you familiar
    with that?
        Mr. Kadeli. Our communities program has a significant
    ecosystems research component, and a portion of that addresses
    various types of waterways, yes.
        Mr. McNerney. This is important to me because I have the
    deltas in my district. Is there any amount that is dedicated to
    that particular ecosystem?
        Mr. Kadeli. Sir, I probably would want to get back to you
    for the record, just so I get that information correctly. I am
    not aware of that, but I can't say for certain. So let me
    respond to your question for the record.
        Mr. McNerney. Okay. I would like to know that because a lot
    rides on what understanding there is of water shipments from
    that particular estuary. So I would appreciate your detailed
    response on that.
        Mr. Kadeli. Yes, sir.
        Mr. McNerney. You clearly outlined your efforts to improve
    efficiency in this country, which--efficiency is the low-
    hanging fruit in terms of energy usage. For every dollar that
    we spend in increasing efficiency, we get a much better rate of
    return. Could you elaborate a little bit on what the Department
    is going to be doing in that regard?
        Mr. Kadeli. Well, the efficiency that I was speaking to
    with regard to our request had to do with how we do some of our
    work. So for example, I shared what we were doing with the
    program called TOX21, allowing us to take advantage of
    computational power of robotics that has significantly enhanced
    the through-put of a number of chemicals that we can run
    through these many tests and has significantly reduced the
    costs associated with them.
        This is one of those programs, sir, that as you look for
    places--and I must say, when I visit where we have laboratories
    and I talk to people, I sometimes introduce myself as being
    from Washington and being there to help. I suspect you all can
    understand that sometimes that always doesn't get a welcomed
    response. But it allows me to talk about the many good things
    that are going on that their tax dollars are paying for. And
    this TOX21 program is one of those places where as a result of
    our--with other federal agencies and industry, there were some
    significant enhancements that are being made that are going to
    benefit our ability to understand potential impacts and effects
    of chemicals.
        So significant reductions in costs, significant gains in
    numbers of chemicals that we can run through a large suite of
    tests quickly.
        Mr. McNerney. Have you been successful so far?
        Mr. Kadeli. Actually, very successful, and there have been
    a number of journal articles that have been in the peer review
    press, and there is more to come, sir.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I will yield back.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan, for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Kadeli,
    thank you for being here. Last I remembered, basic biology,
    chemistry and science said that my body depends on oxygen to
    survive as well as being able to get that even through the
    composition of H2O. It is nicer when there are no
    other chemicals or elements that are associated with
    H2O when you start talking about being able to--the
    body, and I think this notion of when it became cool not to
    have clean air or clean water, I just don't understand where
    that came from or quite honestly why we fight about that here.
    Those are basic staples that we should be looking at
    protecting, and at the same time, we could still have a strong
    economy. So I very much appreciate the R&D aspects of what your
    responsibilities entail with making sure that we still have
    access to that important quality when I talk about
    H2O.
        With that being said, Mr. Kadeli, you mentioned in your
    written testimony that the Office of Research and Development
    has organized a trans-disciplinary program around safe and
    sustainable water research. As you know, ensuring the
    availability of water in the Southwest is challenging,
    especially in states like New Mexico that experience drought.
    Water resources become scarce and we have impending problems
    inherently related to that. In my district, tribal communities
    continue to struggle for access to clean drinking water, and
    rural communities face challenges in developing waste water
    treatment infrastructure.
        Can you elaborate a bit on drinking water technologies that
    you are establishing at ORD and how they might provide safe
    drinking water to our most rural communities?
        Mr. Kadeli. Yes, sir. One of the areas of cooperation that
    is springing out of discussions that we have had with the
    academic community, with the business community and with state
    and local government officials and also the federal sector,
    there is a cluster of activity that is happening around our
    laboratory in Cincinnati, and it involves Cincinnati, Kentucky,
    Northern Kentucky and Southern Indiana.
        Some of the work that they are doing, for example, is
    looking at some of the drinking water technologies that can be
    used for small water systems, and the particular aspect that
    they are trying to address is energy consumption. Our drinking
    water and in cleaning drinking water, there is a significant
    investment of energy that is necessary to do that process. So
    they are looking at the application of various approaches in
    technology that can be applied with significant reductions in
    technology in energy use, with a particular focus on
    applications toward small systems. Clearly, large cities and
    jurisdictions have a larger tax base to pay for these
    enhancements, and one of the areas that we clearly have heard
    from a number of places is the importance of providing
    innovative approaches to help address the needs of smaller
    communities, of rural communities, et cetera.
        Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that, Mr. Kadeli. There was a
    project in my district where they asked students where water
    came from, and most of the students drew pictures of water
    faucets and hoses and where that water would come out with the
    wells and whatnot. There was a group of Navajo students that
    drew pictures of pick-up trucks with water tanks in the back,
    pictures of their grandparents or their parents carrying water
    in buckets to their homes. And with the deteriorating system
    that we have around the country, it is important that we have
    places like that right here in America, right here in our
    backyard, that we need to make sure that we can never forget
    about.
        Related to that, as we talk about areas where there maybe
    is some infrastructure as well, with the drought that we are
    experiencing in parts of the country, crumbling infrastructure,
    I am worried that the intersection of these two problems is a
    pending catastrophe. What kind of research does EPA conduct to
    deal with critical issues if we talk about crumbling
    infrastructure as well as drought?
        Mr. Kadeli. This is an area where we have seen some
    significant strides made in leveraging the ecosystems to do one
    of the jobs that they were created to do. I can remember
    visiting a Member of Congress in their district, and they
    proceeded to take about 10 minutes to educate me on the
    challenges of cities, particularly in dealing with wet water
    flows and combined sewer overflows and the need to make
    significant great infrastructure investments.
        So after about 10 minutes of greatly impassioned comments
    directed toward me as a representative of the Federal
    Government at the time, it actually provided me a great
    opportunity to talk about some of the green infrastructure work
    that we were doing that provides lower cost approaches to
    achieve some of the same effects. And there are also additional
    ecosystems benefits that occur as a result of taking these
    types of approaches. But this is one of those places where
    science and research is playing a significant role so that
    decision-makers have the information necessary to make
    decisions on the types of approaches and the more economic and
    beneficial approaches. That can be taken, complementing the
    gray infrastructure types of investments that need to be made,
    too.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much, and I just have a
    couple very brief questions, and then I will yield an equal
    amount of time to the Ranking Member's designee.
        Mr. Kadeli, Dr. Anastas, when he testified here, said that
    when you are going forward with the hydro fracturing study that
    in fact interested parties would be allowed to accompany the
    testing of the sites and to actually take samples, shadow
    sampling. But my understanding is since then the EPA may have
    reversed that position. You know, obviously, reproducibility
    and transparency is very important. Do you have an objection to
    that being done while you are undertaking that study?
        Mr. Kadeli. Congressman, to the best of my knowledge,
    nothing has changed as far as our collaboration with the
    companies who are a part of this study. So I am not aware of
    any changes, but I will go back and ask that question and
    provide a further response for the record.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. And as kind of a
    comment, maybe a question to you, you had suggested that while
    there are concerns about hydro fracturing and gee, what could
    the Agency do except study it, why couldn't you have gone out
    and said, you know, there are 1.2 million applications of hydro
    fracturing. The only thing it seemed to have done is to have
    the price of natural gas--while of course the price of gas has
    doubled under this Administration, the price of natural gas now
    1/2 of what it is, and it seems to be safe. Wouldn't that be
    reason to say, you know, to reassure the American public,
    actually it has been done 1.2 million times, and it seems like
    it is pretty safe, instead of kind of setting up what could be
    characterized as fear mongering to some extent? Wouldn't that
    have been a reasonable alternative for a scientific agency in
    retrospect to say, you know, 1.2 million, kind of safe?
        Mr. Kadeli. Well, sir, we are careful to make definitive
    statements until we have the information that allows us to make
    those statements. Again, I will say what I said earlier which
    is the President, those in industry, those here in Congress, I
    think there is a place of agreement. This is an important
    resource. We just want to make sure that it is done right, and
    at the end of the day, I think that is in everybody's
    interests, sir.
        Chairman Harris. And 1.2 million, it seems like it is being
    done right.
        Anyway, I yield two minutes to the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been a
    suggestion for almost a decade now that EPA's research could be
    more integrated, more coordinated within the EPA if there was a
    top science official. The National Academy said that the lack
    of a top science official is a formula for weak scientific
    performance of the agency, and they and others have suggested
    that Congress create a new position of Deputy Administrator for
    Science and Technology with the responsibility of coordinating
    and overseeing agency-wide scientific policy, peer review,
    quality assurance. Probably the last thing we need is another
    position not to be confirmed by the Senate. But does ORD have
    an opinion on that? Would the head of ORD become an obsolete
    position if Congress created a deputy at the administrator
    level, assuming that somebody could actually fill that position
    as a temporary or as a recess appointment?
        Mr. Kadeli. Well, sir, I think this is something that has
    come up. It seems to be a cyclical issue that is raised. It has
    merit. I believe that the best I can do on a response is offer
    you something for the record, sir, and that is definitely in
    more the political realm. So let me some back to you with
    response for the record, sir.
        Mr. Miller. I will yield back 31 seconds.
        Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. I want to thank Mr.
    Kadeli for his valuable testimony and Members for their
    questions. The Members of the Committee, of course, may have
    additional questions for you, and we will ask you to respond to
    those in writing. I will just say that answers from the agency
    are obviously important to the work, but we still haven't
    received our QFRs back from the hearing the Subcommittee held
    on November 17 of last year. So I am going to ask you to kind
    of commit to us that within the next two weeks you can get
    those back.
        The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
    comments from Members. The witness is excused, thank you all
    for coming and the hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Admistrator,
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    Questions Submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris,

    Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, and Other Committee Members

    Responses by Mr. Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator,
    Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency

    Questions Submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris,

    Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, and Other Committee Members

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.028

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.029

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.030

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.031

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.032

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.033

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.034

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.035

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.036

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.037

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.038

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.039

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.040

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.041

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.042

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.043

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.044

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.045

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.046

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.047

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.048

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.049

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.050

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3125.051

                                   Appendix 2

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

            Mercury News Editorial: ``Don't Reduce Tsunami Alerts''