[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 Nin o versus a La Nin a
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''