[Senate Hearing 113-660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's Note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences
Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2015 appropriations for
geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The American Geosciences Institute (AGI) supports earth science
research sustained by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Frontier research on the
Earth, energy, and the environment has fueled economic growth,
mitigated losses, and sustained our quality of life. The subcommittee's
leadership in supporting geoscience-based research is even more
critical as our Nation competes with rapidly developing countries, such
as China and India, for energy, mineral, air, and water resources. Our
Nation needs skilled geoscientists to help explore, assess, and develop
Earth's resources in a strategic, sustainable, and environmentally
sound manner and to help understand, evaluate, and reduce our risks to
hazards. AGI recognizes our Nation's financial challenges and also the
necessity for steady and sustained growth in investment in science and
technology for the future. AGI respectfully requests $1.322 billion for
the Geoscience Directorate at NSF and $1.853 billion for NASA Earth
Science programs to keep pace with inflation. AGI supports the
President's request for $5.497 billion for NOAA and $900 million for
NIST.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of about 50 geoscientific and
professional societies representing more than 250,000 geologists,
geophysicists, and other Earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI
provides information services to geoscientists, serves as a voice for
shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening
geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the
vital role the geosciences play in society's use of resources,
resilience to hazards, and the health of the environment.
National Science Foundation.--AGI supports a minimum increase of
$18 million over the President's request for the Geosciences
Directorate to keep pace with inflation, and an overall budget of
$7.255 billion for NSF. NSF is vital national incubator for scientific
breakthroughs that will fuel economic growth and for developing the
educated workforce that is needed to drive innovation and global
leadership in science, engineering, and technology. AGI believes that
investment in NSF programs, where research is funded based on
competitive scientific merit and peer review, will pay important
dividends in our understanding of the world we inhabit and will play a
critical role in maintaining U.S. dominance in science and technology
long into the future.
NSF Geosciences Directorate.--AGI is very disappointed that the
President's request for a 0.1 percent increase for the Geoscience
Directorate (GEO) does not come close to matching inflation, which
averaged 1.5 percent in 2013, and thus presents an effective cut in
funding for geoscience research and infrastructure. AGI recognizes the
challenges faced by Congress in balancing the Nation's budget and
respectfully asks the subcommittee to provide the Geosciences
Directorate with a modest funding increase of 1.5 percent over fiscal
year 2014 levels, which would do no more than match inflation and
maintain current funding levels for the geosciences.
AGI asks the subcommittee to provide $254 million for Atmospheric
and Geospace Sciences, $180 million for Earth Sciences, $362 million
for Ocean Sciences, $85 million for Integrative and Collaborative
Education and Research (ICER), and $441 million for Polar Programs, for
a total investment of $1,322 million in NSF's Geoscience Directorate.
The Geosciences Directorate (GEO) is the principal source of
Federal support for academic earth scientists and their students who
are seeking to understand the Earth and the processes that sustain and
transform life on this planet. The Geosciences Directorate provides
about 65 percent of Federal funding for basic geoscience research at
academic institutions. According to NSF data, the Directorate
distributes about 1,700 awards annually involving about 14,700 people
and supporting indispensible research infrastructure and instruments.
Understanding the Earth improves our ability to anticipate and
mitigate the effects of natural hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, and tsunamis, to make long- and short-term weather
forecasts, to locate and appropriately develop earth resources, to
sustainably manage our environment, and to make well-informed decisions
at all levels from the individual citizen to national and international
policy makers.
NSF's Division of Polar Programs (PLR) funds basic research in the
Arctic and Antarctic and manages all U.S. activities in Antarctica as a
single, integrated program. The polar regions are the focus of intense
scientific and political interest as new navigation routes are opening
access to resources and presenting security challenges. NSF-funded
research and infrastructure are helping the United States understand
environmental conditions in extreme environments, develop polar
technology, and construct data-driven strategic and security policies.
AGI suggests a minimum of $441 million for the Division of Polar
Programs.
NSF funds facilities that enable researchers to access locations,
data, and technologies that serve the overall research community. AGI
strongly supports robust and steady funding for infrastructure and the
operation and maintenance of major facilities, including the Academic
Research Fleet, Geodetic and Seismological Facilities for the
Advancement of Geosciences and EarthScope (GAGE and SAGE), Ocean
Drilling Activities, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, and the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
Directorate for Education and Human Resources.--NSF support for
geoscience education must be maintained if we are to meet the demand
for a skilled workforce and an informed citizenry prepared to make
well-informed decisions about the management of our planet and its
resources. Outreach and education are important at all levels from K-12
through graduate level and should include formal and informal outlets
to facilitate lifelong learning. AGI strongly supports funding for
geoscience education at all levels and particularly supports programs
to diversify the geoscience student population and workforce. AGI urges
Congress to fund programs in NSF's Directorate for Education and Human
Resources, including NSF Scholarships in STEM, Graduate Research
Fellowships, Climate Change Education, Research Experiences for
Undergraduates, and Advancing Informal STEM Education.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--AGI supports the
President's request for $5.497 billion for NOAA. We hope the
subcommittee will continue to support the National Weather Service
(NWS), Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Ocean Service
(NOS), and the National Environment Satellite, Data and Information
Service (NESDIS). These programs are critical for understanding and
mitigating natural and human-induced hazards in the Earth system while
sustaining our natural resources. Geoscientists rely on NOAA for much
of the data and long-term monitoring that enable research and rapid
response to events such as hurricanes, drought, marine oil spills, and
a range of coastal phenomena.
National Institute of Standards and Technology.--AGI supports the
President's request for $900 million for the NIST. Basic research at
NIST is conducted by earth scientists and geotechnical engineers and
used by the public and private sectors on a daily basis. The research
conducted and the information gained is essential for understanding
natural hazards and for identifying the infrastructure needed to build
resilient communities and stimulate economic growth. Advanced
infrastructure research will help to reduce the estimated average of
$52 billion in annual losses caused by floods, fires, and earthquakes.
NIST is the lead agency for the National Earthquake Hazard
Reduction Program (NEHRP), but has received only a small portion of
authorized and essential funding in the past. AGI strongly supports the
reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) in this Congress. We hope the appropriations subcommittee will
continue to support this effective and cohesive program, even if the
authorizing legislation takes more time to complete. NEHRP is an
excellent example of how to coordinate different entities for the
safety and security of all. NEHRP develops effective practices and
policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerates their
implementation; improves techniques for reducing earthquake
vulnerabilities of facilities and systems; improves earthquake hazards
identification and risk assessment methods and their use; and improves
the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
National Aeronautic and Space Administration.--AGI is disappointed
that the President proposes a 3.1 percent cut to Earth Science
functions at NASA. NASA needs to maintain its current fleet of Earth-
observing satellites, launch the next tier, and accelerate development
of the subsequent tier of missions. The observations and understanding
about our dynamic Earth gained from these missions is critical to
research and to life-sustaining functions like weather forecasting,
emergency service response and planning, and tracking ash plumes or oil
spills that disrupt the economy and the environment. We respectfully
suggest that funding levels should at least match inflation and
therefore we ask that $1,853 million be appropriated for Earth Science
Programs within the NASA's Science Mission Directorate.
AGI applauds NASA's successful launch of the Landsat 8 satellite in
February, 2013, which will enable the continuation of a 40-year record
of Earth observations in conjunctions with the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). Geoscientists use Landsat data to monitor, predict, and help
land managers to address drought, wildfires, changes in vegetation, and
other changes to the Earth's surface. AGI strongly supports the NASA/
USGS Sustainability Land Imaging Architecture Study Team which is
examining options for continuing Landsat-compatible observations into
the future and urges Congress to support and fund their efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee. If you would like any additional information for the
record, please contact Maeve Boland at 703-379-2480, ext. 228 voice,
703-379-7563 fax, mboland@agiweb.org, or 4220 King Street, Alexandria
VA 22302-1502.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
the opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2015
appropriations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). We encourage
Congress to provide NSF with at least $7.5 billion in fiscal year 2015.
The AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to
advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society.
AIBS works to ensure that the public, legislators, funders, and the
community of biologists have access to and use information that will
guide them in making informed decisions about matters that require
biological knowledge. Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy
of Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization
in the 1950s. Today, AIBS has more than 140 member organizations and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia, with a Public Policy Office in
Washington, DC.
nsf and innovation
The NSF is an important engine that helps power our Nation's
economic growth. Through its competitive, peer-reviewed research
grants, NSF supports the development of new knowledge that will help to
solve the most challenging problems facing society, and will lead to
new scientific discoveries, patents, and jobs. The agency's education
and training programs are helping to ensure that the next generation
has the scientific, technical, and mathematical skills employers are
seeking. Investments in research equipment and facilities enable the
country to continue to innovate and compete globally.
These efforts, however, require a sustained Federal investment.
Unpredictable swings in Federal funding can disrupt research programs,
create uncertainty in the research community, and stall the development
of the next great idea.
The budget request for fiscal year 2015 will flat line investments
in foundational research at a time when other nations are accelerating
their commitments to science. The proposed $1.5 million cut from the
Research and Related Activities account may seem small, but coupled
with an anticipated 1.7 percent increase in inflation, NSF research
funding would decline by $100 million next year.
The scientific community recognizes that current fiscal conditions
have necessarily constrained Federal funding, but NSF is a sound
investment that pays dividends. The use of peer-review to evaluate and
select the best proposals means that NSF is funding the highest quality
research.
biological sciences directorate
The NSF is the primary Federal funding source for basic biological
research at our Nation's universities and colleges. The NSF provides
approximately 66 percent of extramural Federal support for non-medical,
fundamental biological and environmental research at academic
institutions.
A reduction of $12.8 million is proposed in fiscal year 2015 from
the Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO). This is a considerably
larger cut than is proposed for any other research directorate. If
enacted, the funding rate for biological and environmental research
would drop to 18 percent.
The research supported by NSF is unique from the science funded by
other Federal programs. Unlike most Federal agencies, which focus on
applied research, NSF supports research that advances the frontiers of
our knowledge about biodiversity, genetics, physiology, and ecosystems.
Recent discoveries that stem from NSF-funded research include:
--Discovering that members of a particular kind of bacteria work
together to find food and survive under harsh conditions. This
discovery could lead to new antibiotics or development of new
pest-resistant seeds.
--Developing a new technique to manipulate the genes of grasshoppers
in order to prevent them from transforming into crop-destroying
locusts.
--Studying the impacts of the death of lodgepole pine forests due to
bark beetle infestations on the timing of snowmelt and water
quality.
--Working to identify the pathway that leads to cells forming into an
individual body, information that could lead to improved cancer
treatments.
BIO funds research in the foundational disciplines within biology.
In addition to supporting our understanding of how organisms and
ecosystems function, BIO supports interdisciplinary research at the
frontiers of science.
Equally important, BIO provides essential support for our Nation's
place-based biological research, such as field stations and natural
science collections. The Long-Term Ecological Research program supports
fundamental ecological research over long time periods and large
spatial scales, the results of which provide information necessary for
the identification and resolution of environmental problems.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request would sustain an effort to
digitize high priority specimens in U.S. natural science collections.
This investment is helping to drive new fields of inquiry and helping
scientists and the public gain access to rare and irreplaceable
biological specimens and associated data. These efforts are stimulating
the development of new computer hardware and software, digitization
technologies, and database management tools.
The Dimensions of Biodiversity program supports cross-disciplinary
research to describe and understand the scope and role of life on
Earth. Despite centuries of discovery, most of our planet's biological
diversity (species) is unknown. This lack of knowledge is particularly
troubling given the rapid and permanent loss of global biodiversity. A
better understanding of life on Earth will help us to make new bio-
based discoveries in the realms of food, fiber, fuel, pharmaceuticals,
and bio-inspired innovation. It will also increase our understanding of
life on Earth and how biological systems and functions respond to
environmental changes.
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account is
funding the construction of the National Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON). Once completed, NEON will provide the infrastructure necessary
to collect data across the United States on the effects of climate
change, land use change, water use, and invasive species on natural
resources and biodiversity. This information will be valuable to
scientists, resource managers, and government decision makers as they
seek to better understand and manage natural systems.
stem education
NSF plays a central role in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education. Support for the scientific training of
undergraduate and graduate students is critically important to our
research enterprise. Students recruited into science through NSF
programs and research experiences are our next generation of innovators
and educators. In short, NSF grants are essential to the Nation's goal
of sustaining our global leadership in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics, and reigniting our economic engines.
NSF's education initiatives support STEM education innovation from
elementary school through post-graduate. The Graduate Research
Fellowship program is an important part of our national effort to
recruit and retain the best and brightest STEM students. NSF proposes
to increase both the number of new fellowships as well as the
fellowship stipend in fiscal year 2015. The Faculty Early Career
Development program (CAREER) supports young faculty who are dedicated
to integrating research with teaching and learning.
The administration once again proposes major changes to STEM
education programs. Although the plans have been scaled back since the
fiscal year 2014 budget request, we are concerned that implementation
of these changes will proceed before the full details are known. Given
the considerable consequences for student education and training, we
hope that Congress will provide careful consideration of the potential
impacts to our Nation's pipeline of researchers and STEM-skilled
workers.
conclusion
Continued investments in the biological sciences are critical.
Sustained support for NSF will help spur economic growth and
innovation, and continue to build scientific capacity at a time when
our Nation is at risk of being outpaced by our global competitors.
Please support an investment of at least $7.5 billion for NSF for
fiscal year 2015.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for
your prior efforts on behalf of science and the National Science
Foundation.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Physiological Society
The American Physiological Society (APS) thanks you for your
sustained support of science at the National Science Foundation (NSF)
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The APS
is a professional society, numbering more than 10,000 members,
dedicated to fostering research and education as well as the
dissemination of scientific knowledge concerning how the organs and
systems of the body function. In this letter we offer our
recommendations for fiscal year 2015 funding levels for these two
agencies.
--The APS urges you to fund the fiscal year 2015 NSF budget at a net
level of $7.6 billion to prevent further erosion of program
capacity.
--The APS urges you to restore cuts to NASA's life sciences research
budgets and to increase funding for the Human Research Program.
NSF and NASA support scientific research and technology development
programs that are critical to the future technological excellence and
economic stability of the United States. Federal investment in research
is critically important because breakthroughs in basic and
translational research are the foundation for new technologies that
help patients, fuel our economy, and provide jobs.
nsf funds outstanding research and education programs
NSF provides support for approximately 20 percent of all federally
funded basic science and is the major source of support for non-medical
biology research, including integrative, comparative, and evolutionary
biology, as well as interdisciplinary biological research. It has been
shown time and time again that the knowledge gained through basic
biological research is the foundation for more applied studies that
sustain the health of animals, humans and ecosystems.
The majority of the NSF funding is awarded through competitive,
merit-based peer review, ensuring that the best possible projects are
supported. Reviewers and NSF officials consider both the intellectual
merit of each research proposal, and also the broader impacts. The
broader impact criteria are defined as the potential for research to
benefit society and achieve specific outcomes. NSF has an exemplary
record of accomplishment in terms of funding research that produces
results with far-reaching potential. Since its inception in 1950, NSF
has supported the work of 212 Nobel laureates.
Biological research is just one part of the NSF portfolio. The APS
believes that each of the NSF directorates support research that is
critical to NSF's mission ``to promote the progress of science; to
advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the
national defense . . .'' \1\ Collaboration between scientific
disciplines is increasingly recognized as the best and most efficient
way to advance science. This will only be possible with strong support
for all disciplines of research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.nsf.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to funding innovative research in labs around the
country, the NSF education programs foster the next generation of
scientists. The APS is proud to have partnered with NSF in programs to
provide training opportunities and career development activities to
enhance the participation of underrepresented minorities in science. We
believe that NSF is uniquely suited to foster science education
programs of the highest quality, and we recommend that Congress
continue to provide Federal funds for science education through the
NSF.
The APS joins the Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology (FASEB) to recommend that the NSF be funded at a level of $7.6
billion in fiscal year 2015 so that it can support a sustainable
research program that follows a funding trajectory reflecting the level
authorized in the America COMPETES Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ www.faseb.org/fundingreport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
support for life sciences research should be increased at nasa
NASA sponsors research across a broad range of the basic and
applied life sciences, including gravitational biology, biomedical
research and the Human Research Program (HRP). The gravitational
biology and biomedical research programs explore fundamental scientific
questions through research carried out both on Earth and aboard the
International Space Station, which provides an environment for the
conduct of experiments in space. The HRP at NASA conducts unique
research and develops countermeasures with the goal of enabling safe
and productive human space exploration.
During prolonged space flight, the physiological changes that occur
due to microgravity, increased exposure to radiation, confined living
quarters, and alterations in eating and sleeping patterns can lead to
debilitating conditions and reduced ability to perform tasks. APS
scientists are actively engaged in research that explores the
physiological basis of these problems with the goal of contributing to
the identification of therapeutic targets and development of
countermeasures. The knowledge gained from this research is not only
relevant to humans traveling in space, but is also directly applicable
to human health on Earth. For example, some of the muscle and bone
changes observed in astronauts after prolonged space flight are similar
to those seen in patients confined to bed rest during periods of
critical illness as well as during the process of aging.
NASA is the only agency whose mission addresses the biomedical
challenges of human space exploration. Over the past several years, the
amount of money available for conducting this kind of research at NASA
has dwindled. The overall number of projects and investigators
supported by NASA through the HRP, National Space Biomedical Research
Institute and Exploration and Technology Development program has
decreased markedly (https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/Publication/). In the
past, appropriations legislation specified funding levels for
biomedical research and gravitational biology, but recent internal
reorganizations at NASA have made it difficult to understand how much
money is being spent on these programs from year to year. The APS
recommends that funding streams for these important fundamental
research programs be clearly identified and tracked within the NASA
budget. The APS also recommends restoration of cuts to peer-reviewed
life sciences research.
As highlighted above, investment in the basic sciences is critical
to our Nation's technological and economic future. The APS urges you to
make every effort to provide these agencies with increased funding for
fiscal year 2015.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
life science Society with over 39,000 members, wishes to submit the
following statement in support of increased funding for the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2015. The NSF is the only
Federal agency that supports innovative basic research across all
fields of science and engineering. For over six decades, the NSF has
invested in basic research and education at the frontiers of science
and engineering, including high risk and transformative research not
supported by other funding sources. In fiscal year 2013, 81 percent of
the NSF budget supported research and related activities at colleges,
universities and academic consortia and NSF reviewed 49,000 grant
proposals and made 10,844 new awards to 1,922 institutions in all
states across the Nation.
An estimated 299,000 people were directly involved in NSF programs
and activities in fiscal year 2013. NSF programs indirectly impact
millions (e.g., K-12 students and teachers, general public,
institutions like museums). NSF grants supported eight of the 13 Nobel
Prize 2013 winners at some point in their research careers. NSF has now
funded 212 Nobel laureates since the agency began, 41 of whom also had
been NSF Graduate Research Fellows. Since 1952, the agency has funded
nearly 47,800 graduate research fellows.
NSF support of multidisciplinary research and all levels of
education is critical to improving the future of the Nation's science
and engineering enterprise and our global competitive edge. NSF's
National Science Board just released its latest biennial Science and
Engineering Indicators report, a detailed analysis of the Nation's
position in global science and technology. Since 2001, the share of the
world's R&D performed in the United States has decreased from 37
percent to 30 percent, while that performed by Asian countries grew
from 25 percent to 34 percent. It is critical to increase the NSF
budget to help reverse this worrisome trend.
nsf builds r&d infrastructure
Through competitive grants, contracts and fellowships, NSF builds
partnerships among industry, academia and other R&D stakeholders which
expands the Nation's technical workforce. The NSF supports
multidisciplinary research, cutting edge facilities, and initiatives
and consortia. Examples are the National Big Data R&D Initiative
launched in 2012 and NSF's Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases
Initiative (EEID). In fiscal year 2013, the NSF invested more than $17
million in 60 multidisciplinary projects to employ new computational
analyses essential to data driven STEM breakthroughs. The effort was
part of over $75 million spent in fiscal year 2013 to advance software,
networking, data sciences and workforce training to support all STEM
disciplines, via NSF's Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century
Science and Engineering.
Funding from NSF builds local R&D infrastructures through the long
standing Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR) program. In mid-2013, four newly funded projects were in the
EPSCoR portfolio: (1) a New England consortium focused on pathogenic
bacteria in coastal regions, their environmental and economic impacts
and decisionmaking through human interactions with natural systems; (2)
a three State study of high elevation water resources, to create better
computer models related to water quality; (3) a joint project in North
and South Dakota to develop processing methods for converting biomass
into renewable energy resources; and (4) a three State collaboration in
New England placing a network of environmental sensors in each State,
to collect data on carbon and nutrients in watersheds over time.
NSF partnerships with academia are vital to energizing the U.S.
workforce in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
The NSF responds to wide spread concerns about future workforce
shortages across STEM disciplines. An example of NSF's STEM education
strategy are five STEM projects funded last September involving
multiple institutions in five States, to increase STEM participation of
women and girls, underrepresented minorities and underserved rural
areas. The nearly $4 million in EPSCoR grants will pilot new methods
among students from middle school to early career levels.
Another example is the diverse 2013 class of NSF Graduate Research
Fellows, 2,000 young researchers from 434 U.S. baccalaureate
institutions, including 1,102 women, 390 from underrepresented minority
groups, 51 with disabilities and 28 veterans. Forty percent indicated
interdisciplinary fields of study. In mid-2013, NSF announced the first
53 recipients of the new Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide
(GROW) program, partnering with 12 countries to place NSF research
fellows in institutions abroad.
NSF also collaborates with the private sector to boost R&D
entrepreneurs in the United States, in part through the competitive
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology
Transfer program. In October, under an agreement between NSF and the
Biotechnology Industry Organization, 10 NSF funded early stage biotech
companies presented at the 12th annual BIO Investor Forum to begin
raising funds in the private sector. The startups focus on drug
discovery, diagnostics and other platform technologies.
nsf supported microbiology research
Within NSF, the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) sustains
a research portfolio encompassing the wide breadth of biology from
molecules to ecosystems and the global biosphere. BIO divisions include
those focused on environmental biology, systems biology or molecular
biology. The Emerging Frontiers Division invests in higher risk,
interdisciplinary activities that show promise of generating productive
innovations. BIO also supports R&D infrastructures like the National
Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), biological field stations and
computerized databases that include DNA sequences of microorganisms. In
fiscal year 2013, the directorate was able to fund 21 percent of the
5,937 grant proposals submitted by researchers. Research reported in
the past year illustrates the diversity of BIO's funding:
--Bacterial DNA is more likely to be naturally transferred to human
tumor cells than to normal, healthy cells, suggesting a role
for bacterial gene transfer in cancer and other diseases
associated with mutations. Scientists had already shown that
bacteria can transfer DNA to animal genomes through previous
genomic sequencing studies.
--For the first time, the banded mongoose in Botswana was identified
as carrying Leptospira interrogans, the bacterial cause of
leptospirosis, which is the world's most common illness
transmitted to humans by animals.
--Scientific analysis of the 2011 record breaking algae bloom in Lake
Erie blamed a ``perfect storm'' of weather events and
agricultural practices, predicting more huge blooms in the
future.
--An unusual soil bacterium is being used in modeling and simulations
by computational biologists to study how individual cells might
have evolved into more complicated configurations. Myxococcus
xanthus organizes itself into multicellular, three dimensional
structures made up of thousands of cells to hunt other microbes
and survive in harsh conditions.
--The redwoods of California are being threatened by the combined
effects of forest fires and sudden oak death disease, linked in
2000 to the plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. Flames carried
into the tree canopy by the dead oaks scorch the crowns of
surrounding redwoods.
Last August, BIO funded U.S. and United Kingdom scientists in four
projects that could revolutionize farming methods: (1) to design a
synthetic biological module that will ``fix'' nitrogen inside plant
cells, by reengineering nitrogen fixing bacteria to build an N-fixing
unit that can be transferred; (2) to rediscover a bacterium found only
once (in the 1990s in a German charcoal pit) that contains a unique
enzyme allowing nitrogen fixing in oxygen rich environments normally
inhibitory to nitrogen fixing bacteria; (3) to genetically alter
nitrogen fixing bacteria and a grass species similar to more complex
cereals such as maize, to ensure a lock and key interaction between
plant and microbe and maximize the amount of usable nitrogen delivered
to the plant; and (4) to optimize practical applications of nitrogen
fixing blue green algae and genetically engineer plant cells to fix
atmospheric nitrogen directly.
The NSF Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) also funds microbiology
research through studies of Earth's environment and the myriad roles
played by microorganisms. In January, the directorate awarded grants to
four new critical zone observatories, which join six existing CZOs to
study the zone where Earth's surface meets the atmosphere and living
organisms. The CZOs are the first research network to holistically
investigate this zone, so important to water quality, food supplies,
soil health and carbon storage.
Both GEO and BIO contribute to NSF's Ecology and Evolution of
Infectious Diseases program jointly sponsored with the National
Institutes of Health. EEID supports the study of ecological and
biological mechanisms of environmental change that shape emergence and
transmission of infectious diseases. Projects help understand how large
scale events like habitat destruction can alter microbial diseases in
humans and other animals. In 2013, new EEID grant recipients included
studies on foot and mouth disease virus, honeybee killing parasites,
impacts of livestock production practices on emerging drug resistant
staphylococci bacteria and transmission of Tasmanian devil facial tumor
disease. Effects of climate change on the spread of infectious disease
is another EEID focus area, generating reports last year that model
disease outcomes based on climate variables to guide public health
officials. In February, researchers reported field studies showing that
environmental temperatures significantly influence whether or not
Wolbachia bacteria will block the malaria pathogen from developing
within carrier mosquitoes. The Wolbachia malaria interaction is
considered a promising new tool for controlling malaria. Other EEID
funded studies are investigating West Nile virus, Lyme disease and
hantavirus in the context of climate change and other environmental
factors.
There is no doubt that NSF contributes to the Nation's scientific
strength and economic growth. The ASM urges Congress to increase
funding for NSF in fiscal year 2015 to the highest level possible. The
ASM also looks forward to continued future investment of NSF resources
in programs related to microbiology since microbes are at the
foundation of scientific discovery and other activities that are at the
core of the NSF mission.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, the Crop
Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America
Dear Chairwoman Senator Mikulski, Ranking Member Senator Shelby and
members of the subcommittee: The American Society of Agronomy (ASA),
the Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science
Society of America (SSSA) urge the subcommittee to support $7.5 billion
for the National Science Foundation for the fiscal year 2015.
This funding level will put the premier Government-funding agency
for scientific research back on track to address to continue valuable
projects that promote transformational and multidisciplinary research,
provide needed scientific infrastructure, and contribute to preparing
the next generation science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
workforce.
Specifically, we urge strong support for the following NSF
programs:
Within the Biological Sciences Directorate,
-- Division of Environmental Biology (DEB), which supports the
Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) program.
-- Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS), which
supports the Plant Genome Research Program and the Basic
Research to Enable Agricultural Development (BREAD)
program.
Within the Geological Sciences Directorate,
-- Division of Earth Sciences (EAR), which supports the
Geobiology & Low-Temperature Geochemistry Program and
Critical Zone Observatories.
The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of
America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), represent
over 18,000 members in academia, industry, and government, 12,500
Certified Crop Advisers (CCA), and 781 Certified Professional Soil
Scientist (CPSS), as the largest coalition of professionals dedicated
to the agronomic, crop and soil science disciplines in the United
States. We are dedicated to utilizing science to manage our
agricultural system and sustainably produce food, fuel, feed, and fiber
for a rapidly growing global population in the coming decades.
Agriculture and agriculture-related industries contributed $742.6
billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011, a 4.8-percent
share. In 2012, 16.5 million full- and part-time jobs were related to
agriculture--about 9.2 percent of total U.S. employment. However, even
though increased agricultural productivity, arising from innovation and
changes in technology, is the main contributor to economic growth in
U.S. agriculture not all people at all times have to access to enough
food for an active and healthy life. The global number of food-insecure
people is estimated at 707 million in 2013, up 3 million from 2012. By
2023, the number of food-insecure people is projected to increase
nearly 23 percent to 868 million, slightly faster than population
growth. The Nation's economic prosperity and security depend on our
dedication to developing innovative, science-based solutions to meet
our growing agricultural needs and managing efficient food systems.
biological sciences directorate
Division Environmental Biology (DEB)
DEB emphasizes research on complex ecological and evolutionary
dynamics to improve our ability to understand the reciprocal
interactions between living systems and the environment, and inform
essential considerations of environmental sustainability.
The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network was created by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) to conduct research on ecological
issues that can last decades and span huge geographical areas. For more
than three decades, the Network has generated rigorous, site-based
scientific research that has led to important findings on regional and
continental scales.
Among the major goals of long-term ecological research is to
increase our understanding of a wide array of ecosystems at multiple
geographical and time scales, giving society the knowledge and
capability to address complex environmental challenges. Key research
findings by LTER scientists provide valuable information for Federal
agencies, land managers, and decision makers who want to develop
responsible policies to deal with a rapidly changing world.
Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS)
In order to meet increasing demands and develop more robust crops,
additional fundamental understanding regarding the basic biology of
these crops is needed.
IOS maintains its commitment to support fundamental plant genome
research through the Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP).
PGRP supports genome-scale research to accelerate basic discoveries
of relevance to basic plant biology as well as downstream applications
of potential societal benefit such as crop improvement, development of
new sources of bio-based energy, development of sources of novel bio-
based materials, and plant adaptation to global climate change.
In addition, the Developing Country Collaborations in Plant Genome
Research program links U.S. researchers with partners from developing
countries to solve problems of mutual interest in agriculture and
energy and the environment.
The PGRP's Basic Research to Enable Agricultural Development
(BREAD) Program supports basic research on early-concept approaches and
technologies for science-based solutions to problems of agriculture in
developing countries.
geological sciences directorate
Earth Sciences (EAR)
The Earth Sciences division supports the Surface Earth Processes
section, which researches geomorphology and land use, hydrologic
science, geobiology, geochemistry (particularly the Geobiology and Low-
Temperature Geochemistry Program), and sedimentary geology and
paleobiology--all crucial to the areas of agronomy, soil, and crops.
In addition, EAR supports EarthScope which focuses on studying the
structure and tectonics of the North American continent and an
Instrumentation and Facilities program that supports community-based,
shared-use facilities, as well as an education program to attract and
support students and young investigators to the field of Earth science.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA also support strong funding for the Critical
Zone Observatories that operate at the watershed scale and
significantly advance our understanding of the integration and coupling
of Earth surface processes as mediated by the presence and flux of
fresh water.
We must close the innovation deficit if the United States is to
remain the world's innovation leader in agriculture. China continues to
exhibit the world's most dramatic R&D growth at 20.7 percent annually,
compared to the United States at 4.4 percent growth over the same time
period. By 2009, agriculture R&D fell to a historically low 0.035
percent share of the United States economy, a level far below the total
U.S. R&D spending and that which is necessary to meet the critical
challenges facing U.S. agriculture in the 21st century.
Support for NSF is essential to maintain the capacity of the United
States to conduct both basic and applied agricultural research, to
improve crop and livestock quality, and to deliver safe and nutritious
food products while protecting and enhancing the Nation's environment
and natural resource base.
Thank you for your consideration. For additional information or to
learn more about the ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, please visit
www.agronomy.org, www.crops.org, or www.soils.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geophysical Union--Joint Response to
NOAA Budget Bill
Senator Barbara Mikulski,
Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies,
U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations,
142 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Senator Richard Shelby,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies,
U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations,
125 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Re: Support funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration at or above the President's fiscal year 2015 request of
$5.5 billion.
Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby: We write on
behalf of millions of Americans who are strongly supportive of robust
funding and smart investment in NOAA's ocean, coastal, and fisheries
programs. We strongly support funding for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration at or above the President's Request of $5.5
billion in fiscal year 2015. In addition, we support balanced
investments across NOAA's dual atmospheric and oceanic missions--
Americans shouldn't have to choose between weather satellites and ocean
and coastal resources that support and protect our coastal economies
and communities. We simply need both.
NOAA's mission to protect, restore and manage our ocean, coasts and
Great Lakes is vitally important not only to sustain these resources
but also to sustain our coastal economies. The National Ocean Economics
Program has estimated that the U.S. ocean and coastal economy
contributes more than $282 billion annually to the Nation's GDP through
fisheries and seafood production, tourism, recreation, transportation,
and construction. Additionally, over 2.8 million jobs in the U.S.
depend on the ocean and coasts. Adequate funding for NOAA is critically
important to support a healthy and resilient ocean that can continue to
strengthen our coastal economies and communities.
Resilience has emerged as the critical goal that unites all of
NOAA's ocean and coastal programs. Man-made and natural ocean and
coastal disasters over the last several years, from Department of
Commerce declared fisheries disasters to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil
disaster, remind us of the connection between the health of our ocean
and coasts and the well-being of our coastal communities and economy.
Resilience means more than just storm-ready; truly resilient
communities are prepared to face changing ocean conditions, from
acidification to sea level rise, changing economic conditions, from
recession to emerging ocean uses, as well as major catastrophes, from
Superstorm Sandy to marine debris clogging waterways. Investing in
NOAA's programs will ensure we can respond to and mitigate the impacts
and costs of future disasters by creating healthy and more resilient
coastal ecosystems and communities.
For example:
--Coastal wetland buffer zones in the U.S. are estimated to provide
$23.2 billion per year in storm protection and a single acre of
wetland can store 1 to 1.5 million gallons of flood water or
storm surge.
--Healthy fisheries are needed to support an industry of more than
60,000 jobs and $6.6 billion in GDP. Information provided by
core data collection, catch monitoring and stock assessment
programs within the NMFS is critical to ending overfishing.
--Ocean and coastal observations and monitoring supports severe storm
tracking and weather forecasting systems, which greatly reduce
the cost of natural disaster preparation, evacuation, and
mitigation.
The President's Request seeks modest increases in ocean, coastal,
and fishery programs, and we support these increases as an important
step towards robust funding for NOAA's ocean mission. In fiscal year
2014, NOAA has finally been put back on a path towards robust and
sustainable funding, the first step in bouncing back from significant
cuts to critical programs from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013.
Underfunding NOAA simply is not sustainable, we urge Congress to
recognize the importance of our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes by fully
funding NOAA programs at or above $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2015.
Signed,
organizations & businesses
Advanced Aqua Dynamics, Inc.
Alliance for the Great Lakes
American Geophysical Union
American Rivers
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Coastal Studies
Chesapeake Communities
Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Coastal Conservation League
Coastal Research & Education Society of Long Island
Coastal States Organization
Conservation Law Foundation
Consortium for Ocean Leadership
Earthjustice
Environmental Defense Fund
Green/Duwamish & Central Puget Sound Watershed (Watershed Resource
Inventory Area 9) Ecosystem Forum
Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology
International Federation of Fly Fishers
IOOS Association
Long Live the Kings
Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS)
Marine Conservation Institute
National Audubon Society
National Estuarine Research Reserve Association
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS)
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nature Abounds
The Nature Conservancy
Ocean Conservancy
Ocean Conservation Research
The Ocean Project
Oceana
Operation Splash
Project AWARE
Puget Sound Partnership
Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council
Reef Relief
Restore America's Estuaries
Rhode Island Marine Trades Association
Save Our Shores
Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Sierra Club
Southeast Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association (SECOORA)
Surfrider Foundation
individuals
Carleton Ray, Research Professor, Dept. Environmental Sciences,
University of Virginia
Dawn J. Wright, Chief Scientist, Esri, Redlands, California
Dr. Alina M. Szmant, Professor of Marine Biology, Center for Marine
Science, University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Dr. Rozalind Jester, Marine Science Faculty, Edison State College, Fort
Myers, Florida
Elizabeth Rhodes, Professor of Hispanic Studies, Boston College
Harald Duell, Larchmont, New York
Jennifer I. Barrett, Owner, Island Connect Consulting, LLC, Founder,
Hawaii Nature Hui, Honolulu, Hawaii
Jerry McCormick-Ray, Senior Scientist, Dept. Environmental Sciences,
University of Virginia
John C. Ogden, Professor Emeritus, Integrative Biology, University of
South Florida
Jonathan Milne, M.Sc, Atlantic and Midwest Region Program Manager,
LightHawk, Sidney, Maine
Leesa Cobb, Executive Director, Port Orford Ocean Resource Team, Port
Orford, Oregon
Michael Krivor, Maritime Project Manager, SEARCH--SEARCH2O, Pensacola,
Florida
Mitchell A. Roffer, Ph.D., President, Roffer's Ocean Fishing
Forecasting Service, Inc., West Melbourne, Florida
Sarah Towne, NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region and University of
Washington Masters Candidate (School of Marine and Environmental
Affairs)
Will McClintock, Ph.D., SeaSketch Director, Marine Science Institute,
University of California Santa Barbara
Y. Peter Sheng, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Coastal and
Oceanographic Engineering Program, University of Florida
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for accepting our testimony in support
of fiscal year 2015 funding for activities under the Office of Justice
Programs (OJP) and the office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). We ask that no further
cuts be made in appropriations for these programs and that, to the
extent possible, funding be restored so that they are better able to
serve their missions.
As noted on its Web site: ``The Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
provides innovative leadership to Federal, State, local, and tribal
justice systems, by disseminating state-of-the art knowledge and
practices across America, and providing grants for the implementation
of these crime fighting strategies. . . . OJP works in partnership with
the justice community to identify the most pressing crime-related
challenges confronting the justice system and to provide information,
training, coordination, and innovative strategies and approaches for
addressing these challenges.''
Elsewhere, the COPS website defines community policing as ``a
philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the
systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to
proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public
safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.''
There is an emphasis on training and technical assistance; creative,
innovative, and experimental community policing strategies; and best
practices, among others efforts.
Nothing is more creative, innovative, or proactive, nor more open
to dynamic partnerships, than addressing community safety through
training, technical assistance, partnerships, and development of
problem-solving strategies designed to improve the prevention,
investigation, and prosecution of animal cruelty. Unfortunately,
reduced funding has impaired the ability of these programs to meet the
demand for training and assistance in this area.
Animal cruelty is both a crime (with all 50 States now recognizing
certain acts as felonies) and a manifestation of social disorder. The
connection between animal abuse and other forms of violence has been
firmly established through both experience and science. ``Animal
abusers are five times more likely to commit crimes against people,
four times more likely to commit property crimes, and three times more
likely to have a record for drug or disorderly conduct offenses.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thompson, Daria, ``The Link Between Animal Abuse and Other
Violent Behavior,'' in Deputy and Court Officer, 2013 Number 3, p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One ``gold standard'' study \2\ has identified animal abuse as one
of four significant predicators for who is likely to become a batterer.
Criminals and troubled youth have high rates of animal cruelty during
their childhoods, perpetrators were often victims of child abuse
themselves,\3\ and animal abusers often move on to other crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Walton-Moss, Benita, Jacquelyn Campbell, et al, ``Risk Factors
for Intimate partner Violence and Associated Injury Among Urban
Women,'' Journal of Community Health, vol. 30, No. 5, October 2005.
\3\ ``Woman's Best Friend: Pet Abuse and the Role of Companion
Animals in the Lives of Battered Women,'' by Flynn (2000), as cited at
www.ncadv.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another research project, which is being overseen by an FBI special
agent, involves ``analyzing the criminal histories of offenders who
were arrested for active animal cruelty, in order to further examine
the potential link between animal cruelty and violence against
persons.'' According to an initial analysis published in a dissertation
(Leavitt, 2011), the majority of the 66 offenders examined so far ``had
prior arrests for other crimes,'' including interpersonal violence (59
percent), assault (39 percent), and assault of a spouse or intimate
partner (38 percent); 17 percent had a history of sexual offenses. The
publication of final results is expected by the end of the year.
All of this experience combined with the growing body of research
makes a compelling case that addressing animal cruelty is a significant
tool for enhancing public safety. For example, the Los Angeles Police
Department's Animal Cruelty Task Force attributes an increase in
citizen-provided videos documenting animal cruelty to ``a deep concern
for public safety.'' A press release (January 15, 2014) states that
``[w]itnesses come to the realization that anyone that would commit
such horrific acts of violence on defenseless animals could also do the
same to humans.''
Nowhere is this clearer than in the well-documented relationship
between animal cruelty and domestic violence, child abuse, and elder
abuse. Up to 71 percent of victims entering domestic violence shelters
have reported that their abusers threatened, injured, or killed the
family pet; batterers do this to control, intimidate, and retaliate
against their victims; they may be trying to coerce them into allowing
sexual abuse or to force them into silence about abuse.\4\ This poses a
significant public safety and public health problem. In one study, 48
percent of women responding reported they had delayed leaving an
abusive situation out of fear for their pets. (Faver and Strand, 2003)
Twenty-six States (this tally includes the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico) now specifically allow the inclusion of companion animals
in domestic violence restraining orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The study ``I'll only help you if you have two legs,'' or Why
human services professional should pay attention to cases involving
cruelty to animals, by Loar (1999), as cited on the website of the
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (www.ncadv.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another connection that is all too common, and all too dangerous,
exists among animal fighting, gangs, drugs, illegal guns, and other
offenses. The Animal Legal and Historical Center at the Michigan State
University College of Law describes dogfighting in these stark terms:
``The notion that dogfighting is simply an animal welfare issue is
clearly erroneous. Until the past decade, few law enforcement officials
or government agencies understood the scope or gravity of dogfighting.
As these departments have become more educated about the epidemic of
dogfighting and its nexus with gang activity, drug distribution rings,
and gambling networks, many have implemented well designed,
sophisticated task forces. The magnitude of criminal activity
concurrently taking place at the average dogfight is of such a scope as
to warrant the involvement of a wide range of agencies, including
local, regional, and Federal law enforcement agencies and their
specialized divisions such as organized crime units, SWAT teams, and
vice squads, as well as animal control agencies and child protective
services.''
Animal fighting is barbaric and is a violent crime in the truest
sense of the term. It causes immense suffering to countless numbers of
innocent animals and its presence threatens the safety of the entire
community. It is illegal under both State and Federal law, so it well
serves the entire community for law enforcement to have the most
powerful tools possible to eradicate it. In fact, as part of the new
farm bill, Congress has added to these tools by closing a significant
loophole in the law by making knowingly attending an animal fight
punishable by fines and jail time and also making it a separate
offense, with higher penalties, to knowingly bring a minor to such an
event. This is a significant new tool. Animal fighting is fueled not
just by those who train and fight the animals and finance the fights,
but also by spectators. Spectators are not innocent bystanders; they
are active participants in and enablers of these criminal enterprises--
and they also provide ``cover'' during raids by allowing the
organizers, trainers, etc., to ``blend into the crowd'' to escape
arrest.
There is a need to respond proactively to animal cruelty at the
very earliest signs and earliest ages, before it becomes a larger
public safety issue. ``A study conducted over a 10 year period found
that children between the ages of 6-12 years old who were described as
being cruel to animals were more than twice as likely as other children
in the study to be reported to juvenile authorities for a violent
offense.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Thompson, Ibid., p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Justice should be commended for taking note
of these developments in what is commonly called ``the link,'' and then
taking steps to respond. OJP showed great vision in recognizing that by
identifying precursor crimes, such as animal cruelty and animal
fighting, and ensuring proper adjudication of such cases, our criminal
justice system can reduce the incidence of family and community
violence and change the path of potential future violent offenders.
DOJ has given weight to the need to address animal cruelty crimes
as part of an overall strategy for curbing community violence by
funding programs that deal with this crime and by weaving the
recognition of that connection into its own policies and operations.
For instance, in 2009, what would become the Animal Cruelty Working
Group had its first meeting. Then-Assistant Attorney General Laurie
Robinson was aware of, and wanted to bring staff together to discuss,
the link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence (IPV). She
``wanted to make sure [they] were using the evidence on animal cruelty
to inform how OJP programs were designed and implemented.''
It is especially noteworthy that DOJ, et al, included witnessing
animal cruelty on their Polyvictimization/Trauma Symptom Checklist,
which was developed to ``allow lawyers and other advocates to focus on
important information about (juvenile) clients' past victimization
history and help advocates better identify and advocate for appropriate
placements, disposition plans, trial strategies, services, and
treatment.'' \6\ This recognizes the impact that witnessing or being
forced to participate in animal abuse has on children and its
relationship to later involvement with the criminal justice system. In
fact, some States have even enacted or are considering provisions that
enhance the penalty for animal cruelty when it is committed in front of
a child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Checklist is part of a tool (The Polyvictimization and
Trauma Identification Checklist and Resource) developed by The
SafeStart Center (a project of the U.S. Department of Justice's Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs), the American Bar
Association's Center on Children and the Law, and Child & Family Policy
Associates. http://www.safestartcenter.org/pdf/Resource-
Guide_Polyvictim.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, DOJ hosted a ``listening session'' on the topic of ``the
intersection between animal cruelty and public safety'' among its own
staff and judges, prosecutors, forensic scientists, and representatives
from law enforcement, animal protection, domestic violence, child
welfare, and veterinary organizations. At that meeting, which Associate
Attorney-General Tony West attended, then-Acting Assistant Attorney-
General Mary Lou Leary said, ``The topic of animal cruelty may seem
unimportant in the face of events like the Boston bombing, school
shootings, and other recent tragedies, but we know there's a history of
animal cruelty in the backgrounds of many perpetrators of violent acts.
Understanding this link between animal cruelty and interpersonal
violence is critical to the Department.''
That the Department takes this seriously is evident. However, cuts
in the OJP and COPS programs are hampering their ability to be the
catalyst for innovative responses to animal cruelty and ``the link'' as
envisioned in their missions and in the Department's commitment to this
issue. Prosecutors and other members of the law enforcement community
are eager for new thinking and better tools for dealing with animal
cruelty crimes in their communities. Funding is needed for training,
technical assistance, communication and coordination, and dissemination
of best practices.
We hope that Congress will take this important public safety need
into consideration when determining funding for programs under BJA and
COPS. Enabling DOJ to support initiatives addressing animal cruelty and
its relationship to other crimes sends a very strong message to
prosecutors, law enforcement, and, most importantly, the community at
large, that crimes involving animals are to be taken seriously and
pursued vigorously.
______
Prepared Statement of Associated Universities, Incorporated
This written testimony is submitted on behalf of Associated
Universities, Incorporated (AUI) to ask you to continue your support of
the National Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2015 by providing
NSF with $7.5 billion. In particular, we urge you to provide strong
support for the NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences and the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO).
My name is Ethan Schreier, President of AUI, a non-profit
corporation that operates the National Radio Astronomy Observatory
under a Cooperative Agreement with the National Science Foundation.
NRAO is a federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) that
enables forefront research into the Universe at radio wavelengths.
Radio astronomy has opened new vistas into the Universe, uncovering the
birthplaces of stars and planets, super-massive black holes,
gravitational waves and the remnant heat of the Big Bang.
I would like to emphasize how much AUI appreciates your
subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
role of the NSF and its support for science and engineering in enabling
a strong U.S. economy, workforce, and society.
Today, I submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
of NSF in fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
NSF funds basic research that spurs innovation and discovery in all
fields of science and engineering. As a part of this work, NSF provides
unique Federal support for ground-based astronomy that is answering
fundamental questions about our Universe. These questions include how
the Universe began, how cosmic structures form and evolve, whether
habitable worlds exist around other stars, and what organic materials
exist in space as the building blocks of life.
I join with the research and higher education community and request
that you provide NSF with $7.5 billion overall. I ask that you allocate
an additional $245 million above the budget request to Research and
Related Activities (RRA), and within RRA, we encourage you to provide a
proportional increase to the Division of Astronomical Sciences to $249
million.
NSF provides critical funding to support astronomy facilities and
the researchers in the United States that use them to answer these
questions. In particular, NRAO currently operates four world-leading
telescopes funded by NSF for use by the scientific community: the
Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) in New Mexico, the most productive,
ground-based telescope in history; the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank
Telescope (GBT) in West Virginia, the world's largest, fully-steerable
telescope; the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the world's largest
scientific instrument with 10 dishes spanning North America that enable
the most precise angular measurements of any telescope; and the new
international Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), the
largest ground-based astronomy project ever conceived and built, for
which AUI is the North American lead, overseeing NRAO's construction
and operations for the North American science community. Each of these
telescopes fills a unique and essential science role, and each is the
best in the world in its category. NRAO's Headquarters, and the focus
of its radio technology development, is in Virginia.
Certain physical phenomena are only observable by their radio
signals. Just as visible light from space carries information about
stars and the astronomical objects that are illuminated by them, radio
waves are emitted by important celestial phenomena that are often
invisible to our eyes, even with the best optical telescopes. For
example, stars form from collapsing cold clouds of molecules and dust
that are too cold and obscured to be observed by any other technique.
The earliest stages of star formation, one of the most basic processes
of astrophysics, are invisible even to the Hubble Space Telescope or
the future James Webb Space Telescope and can only be studied using the
techniques of radio astronomy. Radio astronomy also offers cost-
effective methods to complement other techniques. For example, radio
astronomers are using accurate timing of pulsars--fast-spinning, highly
dense, collapsed (neutron) stars--to search for the gravitational waves
predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. This technique,
which uses NRAO's Green Bank Telescope among other facilities, is a
complement to the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory
(LIGO) and other gravitational wave detectors.
NRAO facilities provide transformational and unique scientific
capabilities that enable the astronomy community to answer many
fundamental questions about the Universe including those highlighted by
the recent National Academy's Decadal Survey, New Worlds New Horizons,
studying galaxies as they form and grow since the earliest times of the
Universe, directly imaging planets in formation around nearby stars,
and directly detecting gravitational waves from the merging of massive
black holes.
We ask that you continue the fiscal year 2014 level for NRAO
operations to support ongoing activities at U.S. NRAO facilities.
Support for these facilities will sustain groundbreaking research
capabilities as well as our very active science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and public outreach
programs. We additionally hope you will support the President's budget
request for the ALMA project, now nearing completion of construction,
at $40.17 million for fiscal year 2015. This represents a $5.9 million
increase to the AST budget as the ALMA project ramps up to full
operations.
AUI also supports the important NSF initiative to fund midscale
research infrastructure at $29 million, an increase of $8.25 million
above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. These funds would support
scientific instrumentation that facilitate student training, bridging
the gap between small laboratory-scale instrumentation and large multi-
user facilities . This midscale program request would implement a
priority identified by the National Academy's most recent decadal
survey of astronomy and astrophysics.
We would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing
support of NSF that enables the research and education communities it
supports, including thousands of astronomers, to undertake activities
that contribute to the health, security, and economic strength of the
U.S. NSF needs sustained annual funding to maintain our competitive
edge in science and technology, and therefore we respectfully ask that
you continue robust support of these critical programs in fiscal year
2015. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Committee on behalf of AUI. I am happy to provide any additional
information or assistance you may ask of us during the fiscal year 2015
appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
Universities' (APLU) Board on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Climate (BOAC)
On behalf of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities'
Board on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Climate (BOAC), we thank you for the
opportunity to provide recommendations for the proposed fiscal year
2015 budgets for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), and
the National Science Foundation (NSF). BOAC represents over 300
scientists and administrators at APLU's 235 member universities and
systems. We support a budget of $5.6 billion for NOAA, $80 million for
the NOAA's National Sea Grant College Program, $5.25 billion for NASA's
Science Directorate and $7.5 billion for NSF.
According to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), between 1980
and 2013, there were 151 weather/climate disasters that each exceeded
$1 billion in damages. Combined they totaled $1 trillion in losses. The
Federal Government spent nearly $140 billion on disasters in 2012
alone. Additionally, the role of the Federal Government in covering
many of these losses has grown tremendously over the last few decades.
Erwann Michel-Kerwann, chairman of the OECD's Board on Financial
Management of Catastrophes, noted that in 1989, Federal relief covered
only 23 percent of total damage whereas Federal relief covered 69
percent of Hurricane Ike in 2008 and 75 percent of Hurricane Sandy in
2012.
To decrease future Federal expenditures and to make the Nation more
prepared for natural disasters, Federal agencies are working with
communities across the Nation to enhance their resilience. Community
resilience is a measure of the ability of a community to prepare for,
respond to, and fully bounce back from a variety of crises. Through
research, Federal science agencies can play a valuable role in helping
communities strengthen their resilience.
In 2005, the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee
on Disaster Reduction provided a framework for sustained Federal
investment in science and technology related to disaster reduction,
regardless of the type of disaster. They call for:
--Providing hazard and disaster information where and when it is
needed.
--Understanding the natural processes that produce hazards.
--Developing hazard mitigation strategies and technologies.
--Recognizing and reduce vulnerability of interdependent critical
infrastructure.
--Assessing disaster resilience using standard methods.
--Promoting risk-wise behavior.
All of these actions require research, whether it be for the basics
of understanding how and when natural processes become hazardous or for
modeling potential flooding or for the social science to enhance
communications, trust and understanding within communities to promote
``risk-wise'' behavior.
Below we comment on the needs of each agency and their
collaborating science communities in making our Nation more resilient:
noaa
NOAA conducts research into natural processes and provides
information on when natural processes may be hazardous. To create
resiliency for the Nation, researchers and forecasters need increased
and sustained support of satellite and in situ environmental observing
systems. As reported in several prior and recent National Research
Council studies, (Observing Weather and Climate from the Ground Up, a
Nationwide Network of Networks, NRC, 2009), the needs are particularly
acute for urbanized areas as well as mountain, ocean and coastal
regions.
While we recommend sustained support for NOAA's satellite programs,
we point out that this support should not be at the expense of NOAA's
extramural funding of research, education and outreach. Extramural
funding is cost effective. Its highly competitive nature ensures up-to-
date qualifications and cutting-edge approaches without the continuing
costs of developing, maintaining and updating these skills in house. It
provides essential training in research skills to provide the next
generation of researchers. In 2004 the NOAA Science Advisory Board's
Research Review Team report concluded:
``. . . Extramural research is critical to accomplishing NOAA's
mission. NOAA benefits from extramural research in many ways,
including: access to world class expertise not found in NOAA
laboratories; connectivity with planning and conduct of global science;
means to leverage external funding sources; facilitate multi-
institution cooperation; access to vast and unique research facilities;
and access to graduate and undergraduate students. Academic scientists
also benefit from working with NOAA, in part by learning to make their
research more directly relevant to management and policy. It is an
important two-way street . . . NOAA cannot accomplish its goals without
the extramural community, specifically the universities and
institutions that represent the broad range of expertise and resources
across the physical, biological, and social sciences (emphasis added).
Moreover, there is the important issue of maintaining a scientific and
technologically competent workforce in NOAA and the workforce is
another ``product'' of the extramural research community . . . Also it
is important that during difficult budget periods that NOAA not
disproportionately target the extramural research for budget cuts.''
Sustained observations are vitally important to ensure coastal
communities have the information necessary to increase overall
resiliency. NOAA's Sustained Ocean Observations and Monitoring program
funds global observing programs, including globally deployed floats,
drifters, and fixed moorings to provide information essential for
accurate forecasting of hurricanes, typhoons, atmospheric rivers and
associated flooding, heat waves, and wildfires. Data and analyses of
ocean and atmospheric conditions are increasingly used for drought
early warning systems, enhanced tsunami warning systems, and storm
surge monitoring. Ocean observations are also imperative for
calibrating and validating satellite observations. Maintaining baseline
ocean observations in support of weather and regional climate
predictions, fisheries management and ecosystem studies, tide and
current monitoring, and sea level change is essential. Maintaining
continuity of long-term data sets is essential to ensure communities
are able to respond and adapt to today's changing world.
NOAA's support of environmental research and education via programs
such as the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research's Sea Grant and the Office
of Ocean Exploration and Research programs are also critical to
university research, education and outreach. Similarly, NOAA's role in
understanding the oceans and coastal areas and oceanic resources
through the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science support and help
maintain sustainable coastal economies.
In particular, we would like to point out the important role of the
National Sea Grant College Program in increasing the resilience of the
Nation's coastal communities. Sea Grant personnel excel at working with
local communities to address their specific needs and prepare them for
potential hazards. For example, Virginia Sea Grant provided training to
emergency managers and weather service meteorologists in Rstofs, a
flood forecasting system used extensively by the National Weather
Service and emergency managers. In 2011, that training paid off when
decision-makers, using this training, made a timely evacuation call of
200,000 residents during Hurricane Irene. Similarly, Virginia Sea Grant
sponsored the development and dissemination of real-time tide
monitoring technology (TideWatch). With information from TideWatch,
marinas were able to properly prepare for the drastic tidal changes
produced by storms Ida (2009) and Irene (2011) and avoid the damages
they accrued during similar, earlier storm events. For the reasons
listed above, we support funding of the National Sea Grant College
Program at $80 million.
Another critical pillar of NOAA's extramural research enterprise in
atmospheric and ocean science, climate, weather, and marine ecosystems
are its 16 Cooperative Institutes, involving 42 leading research
universities and non-profit independent institutions located in 23
States and the District of Columbia. Established through open
solicitations, competitive Cooperative Institute (CI) partnerships
provide NOAA direct access to key innovations at the Nation's primary
institutions of science, social-learning, and research development.
Recent Cooperative Institute research has focused on forecasting energy
demand scenarios, seasonal wildfires, and large storm events; assessing
local impacts of projected sea-level rise; improving seasonal
precipitation and drought predictions; and understanding atmospheric
rivers and other causes of extreme flooding. This research is
translated into information used by private businesses and public
sector mangers at all levels of government. CI program are
predominantly funded by the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
(OAR), through its ``Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes'' line,
but are also administered and/or funded by other NOAA line offices
including the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the NOAA's
Satellite and Information Service (NESDIS).
In addition, OAR's Regional Climate Data and Information line funds
the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program, the
National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), and associated
programs. The RISA program supports research teams in over 30 States--
each affiliated with one or many universities--as they work with public
and private user communities to build the Nation's capacity to prepare
for and adapt to environmental variability and change. NIDIS provides
dynamic and easily accessible drought information for the Nation.
nasa
Like NOAA, NASA is critical to community resilience, both for
developing an understanding of the Earth and how it functions as well
as collection of the data scientists use to help aid decision-makers.
In 2007, the National Academies issued the report, ``Earth and
Science Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next
Decade and Beyond.'' The report found that between 2000 and 2009
funding for Earth Sciences (ES) had fallen substantially. ES research
is absolutely critical to understanding climate change, such as the
decline of Earth's ice sheets and the health of the global oceans. Past
investments in NASA's science mission have funded university research
that has resulted in the development of new instruments and
technologies and in valuable advances in weather forecasting, climate
projections and understanding of Earth ecosystems.
NASA is instrumental in deploying satellites used by NOAA and in
cooperating with other countries. Furthermore, without the tools
developed at NASA, oceanic, atmospheric, hydrologic and Earth-system
scientists and the Nation would have only a fragmentary picture of the
interconnected functioning of the planet's oceans, atmosphere and land.
NASA plays a role in technology transfer from NOAA by testing new
sensors. NASA is currently developing a sensor that will for the first
time give scientists and resource planners a global picture of the
world's terrestrial water supplies. Currently many lakes and rivers are
not monitored and there is no centralized location for water resource
information. The NASA data archive is an irreplaceable collection of
environmental information that researchers depend upon. Furthermore,
through its support for young scientists and graduate students, the
NASA science mission supports innovation.
Finally, we support funding NASA to develop and implement a
scatterometer mission with fast community access to those data,
capability to distinguish between wind and rain and a higher orbit for
coverage of Alaskan waters. The scatterometer has been a critical
component of hurricane prediction.
nsf
Understanding natural processes and how or when they become
hazardous is critical to forecasting those hazards. This requires basic
research, which is why BOAC supports funding of NSF. NSF supplies
almost two-thirds of all Federal funding for university-based,
fundamental research in the geosciences. GEO-supported research
increases our ability to understand, forecast, respond to and prepare
for environmental events and changes. NSF's Water Sustainability and
Climate program addresses the pressing challenge of providing adequate
water quantity and quality in light of both burgeoning human needs and
increasing climate variability and change. Through facilities such as
the Oceans Observatory Initiative, the Integrated Ocean Drilling
Program, and NCAR-Wyoming supercomputer, NSF provides the academic
community with advanced capabilities that it would not be able to
afford if conducted through individual institutions. It does so without
growing the needs for increased personnel, training and retooling in
house at Federal laboratories and while training the next generation.
summary
Together, NOAA, NASA, and NSF provide critical Earth observations
and research funding for scientists, engineers and mathematicians
working to increase understanding of natural phenomena of economic and
human significance. BOAC thanks the Committee for its continued support
of these critical agencies.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
noaa
Thank you Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby for
allowing me to submit testimony on behalf of the Nation's 213 U.S.
accredited zoos and aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my
support for the inclusion of at least $3.981 million for the John H.
Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program, $2,500,000 for
the NOAA Ocean Education Grants Program, and $12,000,000 for the Bay,
Watershed, Education and Training Program in the fiscal year 2015
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Additionally, I urge you to reject any proposal that eliminate valuable
ocean education programs as part of a plan to restructure Federal
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs.
Founded in 1924, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a
nonprofit 501c(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and
aquariums in the areas of conservation, education, science, and
recreation. AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums annually see more than
182 million visitors, collectively generate more than $21 billion in
annual economic activity, and support more than 204,000 jobs across the
country. Over the last 5 years, AZA-accredited institutions supported
more than 4,000 field conservation and research projects with
$160,000,000 annually in more than 100 countries. In the last 10 years,
accredited zoos and aquariums formally trained more than 400,000
teachers, supporting science curricula with effective teaching
materials and hands-on opportunities. School field trips annually
connect more than 12,000,000 students with the natural world.
During the past 20 years AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums have
rescued and rehabilitated more than 1,800 marine animals including
stranded dolphins, whales, sea lions, seals, sea otters, sea turtles,
and manatees. More than 1,750 (97 percent) of these animals have been
successfully released back into their natural habitat. While the
Nations' accredited zoos and aquariums support wildlife rehabilitation
through their ongoing animal rescue programs, these institutions are
sometimes involved in addressing natural and manmade disasters such as
the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill. For example, following the
oil spill, accredited zoos and aquariums around the country offered
assistance by pledging the services of 200 animal care professionals
and donating supplies, vehicles, and other resources to assist in the
wildlife rescue efforts.
The John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program
provides grants or cooperative agreements to eligible stranding network
participants for the recovery and treatment (i.e., rehabilitation) of
stranded marine mammals; data collection from living or dead stranded
marine mammals; and, facility upgrades, operation costs, and staffing
needs directly related to the recovery and treatment of stranded marine
mammals and collection of data from living or dead stranded marine
mammals. Eligible applicants are currently active, authorized
participants, including AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums, or
researchers in the National Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
Without the Prescott grant program, NOAA would have to rely on
private organizations as it coordinates the response to marine mammals
in distress; determines disease, injury and potential cause(s) of
death; and supports emergency response for marine mammals during oil
spills, outbreaks of diseases, and unusual mortality events. Network
partners may not have the funds or the ability to respond to some
stranding events, leaving animals at risk for prolonged exposure and
likely death. Without funding for this program the critical ability to
monitor marine mammal health trends, collect scientific data, and
perform analysis would also be diminished. Information about the causes
of marine mammal strandings is useful to the public because marine
mammals can serve as an indicator of ocean health, giving insight into
larger environmental issues that also have implications for human
health and welfare.
At the same time that AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are working
with Federal partners to conserve ocean wildlife, they also are
providing essential learning opportunities, particularly about science,
for schoolchildren in formal and informal settings. Increasing access
to formal and informal science education opportunities has never been
more important. Studies have shown that American schoolchildren are
lagging behind their international peers in certain subjects including
science and math.
The NOAA Ocean Education Grants Program and Bay, Watershed,
Education and Training Program bring students closer to science by
providing them with the opportunity to learn firsthand about our
world's marine resources. Through these grant programs, aquariums work
closely with Federal, State, and local partners on projects with long-
lasting benefits not only for the students but their communities as
well. For example, previous projects funded by NOAA Ocean Education
Grants at AZA aquariums have focused on establishing a regional network
of summer camp programs grounded in ocean science, enhancing teen
conservation leadership programs, and conserving and managing coastal
and marine resources to meet our Nation's economic, social and
environmental needs. As schools face increased budgetary pressures,
these types of education programs at aquariums will become even more
important in ensuring that American schoolchildren receive the
necessary foundation in science education that they will need to be
competitive in the 21st century global economy.
AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are essential partners at the
Federal, State, and local levels to improve education for
schoolchildren and ensure that current and future generations will be
good stewards of the world's oceans. Therefore, I urge you to include
at least $3.981 million for the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue
Assistance Grant Program, $2,500,000 for the NOAA Ocean Education
Grants Program, and $12,000,000 for the Bay, Watershed, Education and
Training Program in the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Nathan M. Bacheler, Fisheries Biologist, NOAA/
National Marine Fisheries Service
Dear Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and
Science, and Related Agencies: Acting as a private citizen on my own
time, I would like to submit testimony for the record to strongly urge
the subcommittee to reject the proposal in the President's fiscal year
2015 budget to close the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) laboratory in Beaufort, North Carolina, and to
instead fund this facility so that the crucial work being done there
can continue on into the future. This laboratory is uniquely located to
address key marine science issues throughout the east coast of the
U.S., and its loss would represent a devastating blow to the fisheries
interests in the region. The decision to try and close the Beaufort
facility represents a narrow-minded approach to a temporary funding
concern that is dwarfed in comparison by the potential damage done to
the research conducted on the marine resources in the southeast.
The closure of the Beaufort lab would be a grave error because of
the loss of high-quality science and scientists associated with the
facility. Located at the intersection of two distinct marine
environments, the NOAA laboratory in Beaufort is uniquely situated to
study one of the most diverse ecosystems in the country. The lab is an
international leader in studies of harmful algal blooms (HABs) and the
invasion of lionfish into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, both of
which are currently having a significant impact on the fisheries
resources of the United States. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) programs at the lab are responsible for the assessment of the
major marine fisheries stocks in the southeast, including menhaden (the
largest fishery along the Atlantic coast as well as in the Gulf of
Mexico) and the commercially and recreationally important snapper and
grouper fisheries. NMFS in Beaufort also provides the only up-to-date
information on the currently-closed red snapper fishery along the
southeast coast through its SouthEast Fishery-Independent Survey. All
of these programs would suffer irreparable damage were the lab to close
because NOAA would be unlikely to retain the world-class scientists
performing this research in the event their Federal positions were
transferred to other NOAA facilities in the southeast; the NOAA lab is
part of a unique conglomeration of research facilities in the Beaufort
area, and the majority of employees would very likely try and remain in
the area at a different institution rather than relocate to a less
desirable location. Thus, NOAA (and NMFS in particular) would be forced
to rebuild these programs from scratch, programs that are required to
meet congressional mandates laid out in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Just as importantly for NMFS, the
closure of the Beaufort facility would mean that the Fisheries Service
would not have a presence along the coast between Sandy Hook, New
Jersey and Miami, Florida--an extent that covers over two-thirds of the
United States east coast. It is difficult for the agency to claim they
are interested in conserving the marine resources of the southeast with
such a large spatial gap in representation, especially compared to five
NMFS research facilities in the Gulf of Mexico and another five in the
northeast.
The financial reasons given by the leadership of the National Ocean
Service (NOS) for closing the Beaufort facility have been
misrepresented and overblown. In their justification for closing the
lab, NOS cited only the NOS employees that would be impacted, grossly
underestimating the total number of workers at the site. In addition to
NOS, the lab also houses National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) programs; between
the three groups there are 108 Federal, State, and contract employees
at the facility, a much larger disruption of staff than initially
claimed. Additionally, NOS cited a cost of future maintenance repairs
to the facility that was outdated and did not take into account recent
work that has been done to upgrade the laboratory and its
infrastructure. Since 2006, approximately $14 million in repairs and
upgrades have been accomplished, including the replacement of multiple
buildings. The closure of this facility, after so much has been
invested in its improvement in recent years, seems like a clear waste
of taxpayer money, especially given that a 2014 report showed that the
facility is structurally sound.
In summary, the closing of the NOAA facility in Beaufort is bad
policy--it is a squandering of taxpayer funds, it is a major detriment
to the science being conducted in the southeast, and it makes it more
difficult for NMFS to maintain the quality of the work it is federally
mandated to achieve. The laboratory in Beaufort has been operating
continually since 1899 and was sited here specifically because of its
advantageous position so close to so many of our Nation's valuable
marine resources; Congress owes it to our country to make sure the
high-quality work done here continues on for the next 115 years.
______
Prepared Statement of George Boehlert, Redmond, Oregon
To whom it may concern,
I am writing concerning the proposed closure of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory in Beaufort,
North Carolina. I believe that closing this facility entirely is a
mistake and have some recommendations for the subcommittee to consider.
First, I will provide some background on my credentials to comment.
Although I retired in 2012, I have worked with a variety of National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) laboratories during my career, and have
served as director of two. As a graduate student, I conducted my
research at the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla,
California from 1972-77. I conducted postdoctoral research at the
Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle from 1977-78.
In academic positions from 1978-1983 at the College of William and Mary
and at Oregon State University, I collaborated with NOAA/NMFS
scientists at several labs, including the Beaufort Laboratory. In 1983
I took a position as division director at the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory,
and served as director there in 1988-1993, and moved to Monterey,
California in 1993 as director of the NMFS Pacific Fisheries
Environmental Group. I left there in 2002 to return to Oregon, where I
served as Professor and Director at Oregon State University's Hatfield
Marine Science Center in Newport--a facility co-located with three
different regional NOAA activities. I have served on external review
panels of several NOAA labs and am highly familiar with the mission of
the different organizations.
From my own perspective, the Beaufort Laboratory has a long history
that has served NOAA and the central Atlantic Seaboard with
distinction. As a relatively small lab for several decades, it
addressed key issues of the National Marine Fisheries Service's
mission, including fisheries management (menhaden, groundfish species,
estuarine species), fundamental fisheries ecology, protected species
(particularly sea turtles), and fisheries habitat (including toxic
algal blooms). It conducted these tasks with distinction, with an
enviable publication record as well as a record of solving fundamental
fisheries problems in the region. I am familiar with these earlier
endeavors, not only because I collaborated with scientists there, but
also because I served as an external reviewer of some of their programs
in the early to mid 1990s on behalf of the National Research Council.
Beaufort was a perfect example of the value of the smaller regional
laboratories, meeting the mission of the larger NMFS and NOAA within
the context of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center while
collaborating with and augmenting regional State resource agencies.
Problems with smaller regional labs often arise when political or
personal forces work to give them greater autonomy and higher budgets.
In my opinion, this is the case with the Beaufort Laboratory and has
played a role in making it a weaker laboratory. Roughly 10 years ago,
NOAA decided to put the Beaufort Laboratory under a different line
office--the National Ocean Service (NOS), expanding the mission
significantly but keeping many NMFS employees on site. The broader
mission requires more funds, more scientists with more expertise, more
buildings, and an expanded budget. While the mission was more diverse,
it was also more vague and perhaps less focused on the particular
regional needs. I am not sure why a decision to close the laboratory
was made this year, but it may be related to the loss of focus in
mission and thus to questions about the value of the organization.
Finally, I do have some recommendations for the subcommittee.
Rather than taking a meat axe approach and closing this laboratory
entirely, I believe that an external review of the Beaufort
Laboratory's mission and function is needed. Direction should be given
for this review that will address key issues, including the following:
--Critical regional needs within NOAA's mission that can be addressed
best by a regional lab as opposed to larger facilities located
in different regions. This should have significant input from
the regional coastal States and their resource agencies;
--Organizational structure of the laboratory within NOAA--given the
critical needs identified above; for example, determining
whether NOS is the right place, or if NMFS a better match for
the regional needs; and
--Staff size, budgets, and physical facilities required to meet these
needs.
Armed with the output of such a review, a values-based decision can
be made that is beneficial to both NOAA and the regional States; it may
well involve significant cuts and a smaller laboratory, but will be
based on an appropriate and well-thought out approach. I continue to
believe that small regional labs with a clear focus, embedded within
the larger NOAA and line office structure, are of extremely high value.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Prepared Statement of the Brennan Center for Justice
Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished members
of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and
Science, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony
before the committee to discuss fiscal year 2015 budget priorities. The
testimony is offered to the subcommittee for use during its
consideration of Department of Justice criminal justice funding.
The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
\1\ is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve the
national systems of democracy and justice. The Brennan Center for
Justice was created in 1995 by the clerks and family of the late
Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. to improve our systems of
justice and democracy. The Justice Program at the Brennan Center is
dedicated to ensuring a rational, effective, and fair justice system.
Our priority initiative is to reduce mass incarceration by reducing the
criminal justice system's current size and severity; while still
protecting public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This letter does not represent the opinions of NYU School of
Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice (DOJ) administers dozens of criminal
justice grants, which total over $1 billion each year. In 2012, the
Community Oriented Policing Services and Violence Against Women Act
grants received more than $1.45 billion. Most notably, the Edward J.
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG), the largest
nationwide criminal justice grant program administered by DOJ, receives
between $300 million to $500 million each year. It retains an enormous
influence on criminal justice policies and priorities. JAG dollars
reach across the entire criminal justice system. They reach all States,
territories, and thousands of localities, mainly flowing to law
enforcement. These funds support local police departments, drug courts,
prosecutor and public defender offices, courts, and more. While
important, the structure was created more than 30 years ago, based on
criteria and priorities at a time of rising and seemingly out of
control crime. Decades after its inception, the criminal justice system
that JAG dollars were created to support has spiraled into one that now
supports the world's largest population of incarcerated people and all
of the inherent problems that come with this distinction.
It is time for a change. A better approach, termed ``Success-
Oriented Funding'' would use the power of the purse to steer the
criminal justice system toward the twin goals of reducing crime and
reducing mass incarceration--goals research shows are not in conflict.
The Brennan Center for Justice recently published a report highlighting
a way to align fiscal and policy priorities.\2\ Grounded in economic
principles and built on discrete models in other policy areas, Success
Oriented Funding ties Government dollars as closely as possible to
whether agencies or programs meet specific, measureable goals. These
goals would drive toward what policymakers and researchers increasingly
see as a new, modern, and more effective justice system. The model
imports private sector business principles and applies it to public
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Chettiar, Inimai; Eisen, Lauren-Brooke, Fortier, Nicole;
Reforming Funding to Reduce Mass Incarceration, Brennan Center for
Justice, Nov. 2013. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/
default/files/publications/REFORM_FUND_MASS_INCARC_web_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic theory indicates that actors provided with clear positive
rewards will usually alter their behavior to match these incentives.
Former Chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic
Advisors and Harvard University Professor N. Gregory Mankiw articulates
this fundamental tenet in ``Principles of Economics''--one of the most
widely-used introductory economics textbooks. He defines the discipline
in this way: ``People respond to incentives. The rest is commentary.''
\3\ By setting clear goals for success or failure of government
agencies and programs, Success-Oriented Funding would fund ``success,''
achieving results-driven government. This cost-effective framework
ensures that the government is getting a good return on its investment.
Broad goals for funding recipients include reducing recidivism and
crime, or reducing unnecessary prison sentences and incarceration.
Grant-specific goals would vary depending on the agency or program
funded. For example, grants for police could focus on reducing violent
crime or diverting drug addicted arrestees to treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ N.Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics 7 (6th ed. 2012)
(quoting Steven E. Landsburg, The Armchair Economist 3 (2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois has seen great success with its investment and support of
the Adult Redeploy Illinois program, which diverts non-violent
offenders from prison into more effective community-based services.
Adult Redeploy Illinois provides financial incentives to local
jurisdictions that design evidence-based services to supervise and
treat non-violent offenders in the community instead of sending them to
State prisons. Since 2011, Adult Redeploy Illinois sites have diverted
more than 1,000 non-violent offenders. These sites spent an average of
$4,400 per program participant, compared to the annual per capita
incarceration cost of $21,500 in State fiscal year 2011. This
represents more than $18.5 million in potential corrections savings.\4\
By investing in programs like Adult Redeploy Illinois, Congress can
make inroads in achieving better taxpayer accountability while using
funding to improve criminal justice outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.icjia.org/public/redeploy/pdf/articles/
Adult_Redeploy_Illinois_media_
stories_011714.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last month, President Obama introduced his fiscal year 2015 budget
proposal for the Department of Justice, which requests $27.4 billion
for the Justice Department, of which $173 million is set aside for
targeted investments for criminal justice reform efforts. The budget
also calls for an investment of $173 million to support the Attorney
General's Smart on Crime initiative, which is intended to promote
fundamental reforms to the criminal justice system that will ensure the
fair enforcement of Federal laws, improve public safety, and reduce
recidivism by successfully preparing inmates for their re-entry into
society.
The President's budget provides a needed boost to the types of
competitive, evidence-based grant programs that make better use of
taxpayer dollars. His budget also improves the Byrne JAG program, by
calling for an additional $45 million to be funded through competitive
grants that are conditioned on potential Byrne JAG program recipients
making a good case for how they will use the money. The budget also
creates a $15 million incentive grant program, essentially bonus money
for which States and localities can compete.
By increasing funding for competitive, evidence-based programs, the
administration is communicating its desire to move away from blindly
funding legacy programs without strong records of success, and towards
modern programs that work at reducing crime and incarceration and
improving public safety.
The Brennan Center supports these efforts because they move
budgeting and funding toward Success-Oriented Funding by holding
recipients of Federal dollars accountable for their spending choices by
implementing direct links between funding and proven results. This
allows Congress to ensure the criminal justice system is producing
results while not increasing unintended social costs. Success-Oriented
funding principals improve the use of taxpayer money, promote
accountability and reduce government waste.
Restructuring the way taxpayer dollars are sent to law enforcement
and other criminal justice agencies nationwide can do a great deal to
modernize our outdated criminal justice system. Funding these incentive
based grants would mark an important shift in how the Federal
Government spends dollars on criminal justice. Because these dollars
travel across the country, changing incentives for these grants can
create change that reverberates nationwide.
We encourage you to fully fund the Byrne Incentive grant program,
the Byrne Innovation grant program, and the Byrne Competitive grant
program.
Respectfully submitted,
Danyelle Solomon
Policy Counsel, Washington Office
Danyelle.Solomon@nyu.edu
Brennan Center for Justice at
NYU School of Law
1730 M Street, NW 4th floor, Suite 413
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 249-7190
Lauren-Brooke Eisen
Counsel, Justice Program
lbeisen@nyu.edu
______
Prepared Statement on the Bureau of Prisons Budget
organizations submitting testimony
AFL-CIO
American Civil Liberties Union
American Gateways
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Americans for Immigrant Justice
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles
Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI)
Coalicioon de Derechos Humanos
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Detention Watch Network
DRUM--South Asian Organizing Center
Enlace
Families for Freedom
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Georgia Detention Watch
Grassroots Leadership
Human Rights Defense Center
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
In The Public Interest
International CURE
Justice Policy Institute
Justice Strategies
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Immigrant Justice Center
National Immigration Forum
National Immigration Law Center
National Immigration Project of the NLG
New Sanctuary Coalition
Picture Projects/360degrees.org
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Private Corrections Institute
Private Corrections Working Group
Reformed Church of Highland Park (New Jersey)
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--Institute Justice Team
Southern Center for Human Rights
Texas Civil Rights Project
The Sentencing Project
Transgender Law Center
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX)
testimony addressed to
The Honorable Barbara Mikulski, The Honorable Richard C. Shelby,
Chair Ranking
Member
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy The Honorable Mitch McConnell
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein The Honorable Lamar Alexander
The Honorable Jack Reed The Honorable Susan Collins
The Honorable Mark Pryor The Honorable Lisa Murkowski
The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu The Honorable Lindsey Graham
The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen The Honorable Mark Kirk
The Honorable Jeff Merkley The Honorable John Boozman
The Honorable Chris Coons
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies
Senate Committee on Appropriations
SD-142, Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Do not appropriate funds for additional private prison contract
beds in the Bureau of Prisons budget
Dear Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
subcommittee: We, the undersigned organizations working to ensure civil
liberties and human rights in our communities, urge that you do not
appropriate funding for any additional Bureau of Prison ``Criminal
Alien Requirement'' (CAR) contract confinement beds beyond those that
now exist.
CAR prisons use taxpayer funds to incarcerate non-violent, ``low
security'' Federal immigrant prisoners, primarily prosecuted for
immigration violations through the highly controversial program,
``Operation Streamline'' and related prosecution programs. These
facilities are substandard, privately-owned, privately-operated
segregated immigrant prisons. For the reasons set forth below, we call
upon you to redirect funding from the wasteful prosecution and
incarceration of low-level immigration violations and focus resources
instead on correctional programs that will better prepare Federal
prisoners for constructive lives when they are released from
confinement.
The increasing incarceration of immigrants is the direct result of
a prosecution program known as ``Operation Streamline'' and the sharp
increase in felony prosecutions for border crossing. Nearly 90,000
people were convicted in Federal courts during fiscal year 2013 for
crossing the border.\1\ Prior to ``Operation Streamline,'' which
launched in 2005, the majority of immigrants apprehended after entering
the United States without documentation were processed in the civil
immigration system. Now, these migrants are charged with one of two
Federal crimes--(1) unlawful entry to the U.S. (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325),
usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor with defendants facing a sentence
of up to 180 days; or (2) unlawful re-entry after deportation (8 U.S.C.
Sec. 1326), a felony charge carrying a Federal prison sentence of up to
20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse
University, ``Immigration Convictions for 2013,'' available at http://
tracfed.syr.edu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once sentenced for Sec. 1326 violations, immigrants are typically
segregated from other Federal prisoners and sent to CAR facilities,
dedicated private prisons for non-citizen immigrants in BOP custody, to
serve their time. Unlike Federal prisons operated directly by the BOP,
CAR prisons are operated under contract with multi-billion dollar for-
profit prison companies, including Corrections Corporation of America
(CCA) and the GEO Group. Also unlike BOP facilities, CAR facilities are
governed by policies that BOP and its private prison contractors often
withhold from the public as ``trade secrets'' instead of open and
transparent to the public. CAR facilities are often located in remote
parts of the country, where prisoners are far from lawyers, courts,
advocates and family members. Finally, unlike the BOP, the corporations
that operate CAR prisons have an incentive to ensure the immigrant
prisoner population continues to increase, because every prison bed
with a body in it means higher profits.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Justice Strategies, ``Privately Operated Federal Prisons for
Immigrants: Expensive, Unsafe, Unnecessary,'' September, 2012,
available at http://www.justicestrategies.org/publications/2012/
privately-operated-Federal-prisons-immigrants-expensive-unsafe-
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Federal prosecutions for border crossing and CAR prisons are
enormously expensive to maintain at a time when budgets are tight and
Federal dollars are sparse. The Federal Government spent an estimated
$5.5 billion incarcerating border-crossers in the Federal prison system
between 2005 and 2012, and the primary beneficiary of this massive cash
flow is the private prison industry.\3\ Even as the American economy
has faltered and businesses across the country have been forced into
bankruptcy, the private prison industry is booming. Three companies--
GEO Group, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), and the Management
Training Corporation (MTC)--monopolize Federal prison contracting. CAR
contracts are very lucrative. The CAR contract issued to house up to
3,000 prisoners at the infamous Willacy County Processing Center, the
``Tent City'' located in Raymondville, Texas, was valued at
$532,318,723 over 10 years.\4\ MTC won the contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Grassroots Leadership, ``Operation Streamline: Costs and
Consequences,'' September 2012, available at http://
grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/
GRL_Sept2012_Report-final.pdf.
\4\ Jasen Asay, ``Private Prison Company Lands Federal Contract,''
Standard Examiner, June 8, 2011, available at http://www.standard.net/
topics/economy/2011/06/07/private-prison-company-lands-Federal-
contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of undocumented immigrants entering the United States
without inspection has been steadily declining for the last several
years, largely due to economic conditions in the U.S. and countries of
origin. Yet private prison corporations, motivated by their record
profit margins, continue to benefit directly from the laws and policies
that pull more and more immigrants into the Federal prison system, and
from Federal contracts to build more prisons. Increasing funding for
the unprecedented imprisonment of immigrants implicitly sanctions
wasteful and abusive prosecution programs for border crossing that are
driving the increase in the Federal prison population in the first
place. It is up to policy makers like you to put a stop to the
suffering of immigrant families and wasteful spending which benefits no
one except the private prison operators.
For all of the above reasons, we ask that you do not appropriate
funding for any additional Bureau of Prison ``Criminal Alien
Requirement'' (CAR) contract confinement beds beyond those that now
exist.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. If you have any
questions, please contact Alexis Mazoon, Researcher with Justice
Strategies at alexismazon@justicestrategies.net, (510) 725-4136, or Bob
Libal, Executive Director of Grassroots Leadership at
blibal@grassrootsleadership.org, (512) 971-0487.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Association of Psychiatric
Technicians
federal funds used to sue & shutter federally accredited care
facilities
On behalf of approximately 14,000 California Licensed Psychiatric
Technicians representing the Nation's gold standard in direct-care
nursing services for people with developmental disabilities and mental
illnesses, I am writing to respectfully request that the subcommittee,
committee and Congress as a whole end the ability for the U.S.
Department of Justice to use its office, powers and funding to
discourage, downsize and close federally regulated and accredited
congregate-care facilities.
olmstead ruling upholds americans' rights and choices for care
In recent years, the national demand for closure of congregate-care
facilities such as developmental centers and State hospitals has come
perhaps most strongly--and, perhaps, most surprisingly--from the
Federal Government: the very Federal Government that requires these
facilities to meet its own regulatory standards.
To be federally certified through the U.S. Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, such congregate settings as developmental centers
(ICF/MRs and ICF/DDs) must meet eight major criteria on management,
client protections, facility staffing, active treatment, client
behavior and facility practices, healthcare services, physical
environment and dietetic services. To meet all of these major criteria,
these accredited centers must comply with 378 specific Federal
standards and elements. Failure to comply with any one of these
hundreds of requirements or to swiftly correct any deficiencies means
the loss of Federal certification as well as Federal Medicaid funding.
In its landmark 1999 Olmstead ruling on the use and choice of
federally accredited congregate-care settings such as these, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that Americans have the right to ``community''-
based housing and care, specifically when the ``State's treatment
professionals [including Psychiatric Technicians and other members of
treatment teams charged with following and implementing individuals'
program plans] have determined that community placement is appropriate,
transfer is not opposed by the affected individual and the placement
can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources
available to the State and the needs of others with mental
disabilities.''
the doj deliberately & dangerously misinterprets olmstead
But the Federal U.S. Department of Justice--charged with upholding
the Olmstead ruling through its Civil Rights Division and its powers
under the Americans with Disabilities Act B has overstepped its mission
and taken a dangerous carte blanche approach to enforcing Olmstead.
As currently and accurately stated and emphasized on the DOJ's own
Olmstead section of its Web site, ``The [U.S. Supreme] Court held that
public entities must provide community based services to persons with
disabilities when (1) such services are appropriate; (2) the affected
persons do not oppose community based treatment; and (3) community
based services can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the
resources available to the public entity and the needs of others who
are receiving disability services from the entity.''
Nevertheless, to date, the DOJ has filed more than 40 actions in
more than 25 States during the past 5 years aimed at downsizing and
closing federally regulated congregate-care facilities, regardless of
the individual and unique wishes and needs of their residents and legal
conservators. As part of a Federal push beginning in 2009, the DOJ has
taken a stated and active position of ``Community Integration for
Everyone''--whether Americans and their families and legal conservators
wish it or not B and whether or not this position violates Americans'
rights and choices under Olmstead:
--In 2010's United States v. Georgia, DOJ did not consult families
and legal guardians prior to entering into a settlement
requiring closure of federally accredited congregate-care
facilities and forcing all residents B regardless of their
wishes, choices and needs guaranteed under Olmstead--into
community-based care.
--In 2011's dismissal order for United States v. Arkansas, which
ruled against the DOJ regarding Conway Human Development
Center, U.S. District Judge J. Leon Holmes noted that ``all or
nearly all of those residents have parents or guardians who
have the power to assert the legal rights of their children or
wards. Those parents and guardians, so far as the record shows,
oppose the claims of the United States. Thus, the United States
is in the odd position of asserting that certain persons'
rights have been and are being violated while those persons--
through their parents and guardians--disagree.''
--In 2012's United States v. Virginia, families, parents and legal
guardians were not included in the exhaustive list of
stakeholders interviewed by the DOJ prior to that State's
settlement; families had to spend $125,000 of their own money
to be included in the settlement process and to include their
on-record opposition to DOJ's statement that ``the parties' . .
. desire to phase out the residential Training Centers and
transition all Virginians with ID/DD to community-based care is
readily apparent.''
stop funding doj actions to restrict federally recognized choices
On behalf of CAPT's members--who are trained, licensed and pledged
to uphold the choices and rights of Californians with developmental
disabilities and mental illnesses, wherever they wish to live and
receive services--I am respectfully requesting that the subcommittee
end the use of Federal funding and staff of the U.S. Department of
Justice to discourage, downsize and close federally regulated
congregate-care facilities against the federally and legally protected
wishes of residents and their families.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Biological Diversity
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member McConnell, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit written
testimony. I am Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the
Center for Biological Diversity. The Center is a non-profit
environmental organization focused on the protection of native species
and their habitats through science, policy and environmental law. The
Center has more than 775,000 members and online activists dedicated to
the protection and restoration of imperiled plants and wildlife, open
space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life. We would
like to submit testimony on the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected
Resources and the Enforcement and Observers budget for fiscal year
2015. The Office of Protected Resources is responsible for protecting
93 species under the Endangered Species Act. Enforcement and observers
are critical to implement the protections of the Endangered Species Act
as well as the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is America's strongest
environmental law. It has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the
1,500 domestic species it protects. Were it not for the Act, scientists
estimate that 227 of these plants and animals would have disappeared by
2006, and even more by 2012. The Act also has had considerable success
moving species towards recovery. For example, the gray whale was first
protected in 1970. The eastern population, which migrates from Baja
California to the Chukchi Sea each year, was recovered to its estimated
pre-whaling population size in just 24 years. Similarly, after just 23
years of protection under the ESA, the eastern population of Steller
sea lion was delisted in 2013, having suffered for nearly a century
from poaching, irrational predator-control actions, and from the near
collapse of its main food sources due to unsustainable fishing
practices. The recoveries of these species show the value and
effectiveness of the ESA's strong protection measures.
However, not all species that are protected by NOAA are improving.
NOAA's 2012 recovery report to Congress indicated that approximately 16
threatened and endangered marine species are still declining towards
extinction. And as the extinction crisis worsens due to threats
including climate change, many other once-common species, such as the
staghorn and elkhorn Corals that once were the dominant reef building
corals of Florida, have experienced major population declines and now
are being moved from threatened to endangered status. Scientists warn
us that the world's coral reefs are in crisis and will be destroyed
within decades unless we act now. That is why 66 additional corals
found in U.S. waters await final rules before they will gain the safety
net of the ESA.
Accordingly, we strongly support the administration's request for
an additional $4 million dollars to complete the listing process. This
funding is desperately needed to give NOAA the tools it needs to start
addressing the difficult threats that the world's coral reefs face.
However, even with this additional funding, overall funding for
protected resources is lagging and is not keeping up with the
biological needs of protected species in the United States.
Marine biodiversity is at risk, along with the coastal communities
that depend on the ocean--but there are solutions. Increasing the funds
for the Protected Resources division of the NOAA Fisheries Service will
ensure that declining, threatened, and endangered marine species will
get the resources they need to recover to the point where they no
longer need the protections of the Endangered Species Act.
additional funding is still needed for recovery
As scientists learn more about the oceans, it is becoming
increasingly clear that the threats to marine biodiversity continue to
grow. Unfortunately, funding resources to protect marine species is not
keeping up with the biological needs of these species. Funding for
Protected Resources peaked in 2010 at approximately $204 million and
has since declined approximately 9 percent. This decline occurred even
though 20 additional species--such as the Puget Sound canary rockfish
and Atlantic sturgeon-- have been protected by NOAA under the ESA in
the previous 4 years. As a result, the average funding per species has
actually decreased 23 percent over the last 4 years.
This funding situation for threatened and endangered species will
become even more difficult if additional resources are not allocated
since an additional 80 species--including 66 coral species, the dwarf
sawfish, and the scalloped hammerhead shark--have been proposed for
listing and will likely receive protection under the ESA within the
next year. An additional 34 species are currently candidate species
that may eventually be protected under the ESA. If funding does not
keep up with the growing threat to marine biodiversity, the recovery of
threatened and endangered species will become more difficult to
achieve.
other protected species
As stated above, the Center supports the $4 million budget increase
for the ``other protected species'' category to address the listing of
66 coral species. We would also like to point out the possibility of
reconsidering the relative allocations of the remaining five categories
of funding for protected resources in future years. Specifically, the
``Other Protected Species'' category currently covers all non-salmonid
marine fish, invertebrates, and plants. This category includes
important animals such as the Nassau grouper, great hammerhead shark,
queen conch, and the pinto abalone, and should not be overlooked for
funding despite its broad characterization.
Last year in the Commerce-Justice-Science Committee Report,
Congress allocated $49 million to marine mammals, $13 million to sea
turtles, $6 million to Atlantic salmon, and $65 million to Pacific
salmon. In contrast, $7 million was allocated to ``Other Protected
Species,'' which includes all other marine fish, invertebrates, and
marine plants. In other words, 73 listed species received $133 million
in recovery funding, while 20 ``other'' species received just $7
million in funding. If all of the species currently proposed for
listing are ultimately protected under the ESA, the number of species
in the ``Other'' category would increase from 20 species to 100
species, while there would be no change in the number of protected
marine mammals, sea turtles, or salmonids. Furthermore, if the species
that NOAA currently identifies as candidates for listing are ultimately
protected, the number of species in the ``Other'' category would
increase further to 132 listed species. The number of protected marine
mammals would increase from 28 listed species to 33 listed species and
the number of protected sea turtles and salmonids would remain the
same.
Simply put, in a few years time, the number of ``Other'' protected
species may represent over 60 percent of the species under NOAA's
jurisdiction. If the current allocations are not eventually
reconfigured, these species would receive less than 5 percent of the
overall recovery budget. Such limited funding would likely be
insufficient to protect these species, let alone put them on a path
towards recover. Accordingly, the Center recommends that the committee
requests that NOAA develop a plan on how they will allocate resources
within Protected Resources over the next 2 years to address the
increase in recovery needs for these ``Other'' species going forward.
Finally, we hope that the committee will recognize that funding for
these new species should not come at the expense of those species that
are currently protected. Cutting funding from species that are already
protected by the ESA, especially those species that are still
declining, is not a long term strategy for achieving recovery. Instead,
additional funding should be allocated to meet the full scope and scale
of the extinction crisis that is occurring in our world's oceans. Four
years after the worst oil spill in the United States' history,
scientists are just beginning to learn how severely the oil spill
impacted the marine environment. Restoring ocean ecosystems, including
endangered species, has proven to be more complex and costly than was
once thought. Providing NOAA with the necessary funds to address its
responsibilities under the ESA is an important step in protecting our
ocean's biological diversity.
maintain or increase funding for stranded marine mammals
NOAA requested a decrease of $2,500,000 for the John H. Prescott
Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program and the Marine Mammal
Protection Program. The President's budget request did not include
funding for the John H. Prescott Grant Program in fiscal year 2014, but
Congress thankfully kept the program alive. Last year California,
Florida and the Mid-Atlantic had unusual mortality events of California
sea lions, manatees and bottlenose dolphins. With decreased Federal
funding, State stranding networks struggle to respond to marine mammals
washing ashore. Virginia reportedly had over 30 animals in 2 days
stranded on its beaches over one weekend in the last year's die-off and
had a total of 346 dolphins die since July 1, 2013.
Scientific investigations to understand the causes of these events
can help assess ocean health and protect humans. In 2010, nearly 40
percent of the Nation's population lived in coastal areas. Ensuring
that States have adequate resources to respond to and study marine
mammal strandings will help keep marine mammals safe and our coasts
clean.
increase observer coverage for fisheries
Observer coverage in fisheries is essential to ensure the best
possible management of our fisheries. This program ensures that our
fisheries are on a sustainable path for long term success and allows
NOAA to prevent whales, sea turtles, and sharks from drowning in
fishing gear.
This year's budget should increase funding to collect accurate
fisheries data, especially from the observer program. While NOAA's
request for an increase of $4,000,000 for Electronic Monitoring and
Reporting may pave the way for future innovation, NOAA also needs an
increase now in the budget for Enforcement and Observers.
This funding is needed most importantly because several fisheries
lack resources to ensure meaningful observer coverage to monitor
bycatch of sea turtles, sharks, and marine mammals. For example in
2012, a longline fishing area NOAA once closed to longline fishing due
to sea turtle take (the Northeast Distant area) had no observer
coverage during the third and fourth quarters of the year, when sea
turtle interactions are highest. Low observer coverage undermines
confidence in management decisions and can result in severe emergency
measures.
Starting in 2014 observers must report fishing and marine pollution
violations. Additional funding will be needed to effectively implement
the changes in policy and increase observer-related enforcement once
observers report violations. Adequate observer program funding ensures
a fair playing field for U.S. fishermen and keeps fishing sustainable.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coastal States Organization
The Coastal States Organization (CSO) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization in Washington, DC that represents the Governors of the 35
coastal States, territories and commonwealths and their issues relating
to the sound management of coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean resources.
CSO was established in 1972 and is recognized as the trusted
representative of the collective interests of the coastal States on
coastal and ocean management. For fiscal year 2015, CSO supports the
following coastal programs and funding levels within the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
Coastal Zone Management Grants Program $70 million
(Sec. Sec. 306/306A/309).
Regional Coastal Resilience Grants........ $10 million
Coastal Zone Management and Services...... $46.472 million
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation $5 million
Program.
National Estuarine Research Reserve System $22.9 million
Coral Reef Conservation Program........... $26.078 million
The U.S. economy is an ocean and coastal economy and this needs to
be reflected in our Federal investment into ocean and coastal programs.
While only accounting for 18 percent of the U.S. land area, coastal
areas are home to 163 million people and almost 5 million businesses.
Home to coastal and ocean dependent industries, including marine
transportation, tourism, marine construction, aquaculture, ship and
boat building, mineral extraction, and living marine resources, coastal
counties contribute $8.7 trillion to U.S. GDP and employ 67 million
people. If these coastal counties were their own country, they would
have the world's third largest economy, behind the European Union and
the United States. Coasts and oceans are visited by nearly half of all
Americans, adding to their health and quality of life. The non-market
value of recreation alone is estimated at over $89 billion. Every
American, regardless of where they live, is fundamentally connected to
U.S. coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes. These valuable resources are a
critical framework for commerce, public recreation, energy, and
environmental health and merit robust investment.
Today, our Nation's coasts are as vital for our future as they are
vulnerable. As a result of their increasing recreational, residential,
and economic appeal, there are more pressures on our coastal and ocean
resources. This demand, combined with an increase in natural hazards
such as sea level rise, extreme weather, and other flooding events,
highlight the danger of losing these invaluable national assets.
Despite the difficult budgetary times, adequate and sustained funding
is needed to support the key programs that are on the front lines of
this daily battle, which continually advance coastal and ocean science,
research, and technology to manage our coastal and ocean resources for
future generations.
Programs engaged in these important efforts and working to balance
the protection of coastal and ocean resources with the sustainable
development of the coasts include the Coastal Zone Management Program,
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, Regional Coastal
Resiliency Grants, the Coral Reef Conservation Program, and National
Estuarine Research Reserves. These programs reside within the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and provide direct
funding or services to the States, territories and regions to implement
national coastal and ocean priorities at the State, local, and regional
level. These types of partnership programs account for only a small
portion of the total NOAA Federal budget but provide dramatic results
in coastal communities. The funding for these programs is cost-
effective, as these grants are matched by the States and used to
leverage significantly more private and local investment in our
Nation's coasts. Maintaining funding for these programs that provide
on-the-ground services to our local communities and citizens is well
worth the investment. In fact, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) estimates that every $1 invested in community resilience it will
reduce disaster damages by $4.
coastal zone management program (Sec. Sec. 306/306a/309)
CSO recommends that these grants be funded at $70 million.--This
funding will be allocated among the 34 States and territories that have
approved coastal zone management programs. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), States partner with NOAA to implement coastal
zone management programs designed to balance the need to maintain
productive coastal and ocean resources with the need for the
sustainable development of coastal communities. States have the
flexibility to develop programs, policies, and strategies targeted to
their State priorities while concurrently advancing national goals.
Under the CZMA program, the States receive grants from NOAA, which are
then matched with State funding and then often further leveraged with
private and local funds. These grants have been used to support and
enhance coastal economies by resolving conflicts between competing
coastal uses, reducing environmental impacts of coastal development,
and providing critical assistance to local communities in coastal
planning and resource protection.
These State coastal zone management programs reflect a unique and
successful Federal-State partnership. Coastal management has become a
national priority, as they are critical to building coastal resilience
against extreme weather events and educating and guiding communities to
build their homes and businesses in ways that minimize the threat of
loss. Events like Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina reinforced the
importance of planning ahead. Coastal zone management programs ensure
that the national interest in a resilient coast is incorporated in
State actions, while respecting the sovereignty, different priorities,
and geographic variations of our diverse States.
The CZMA State grants have essentially remained at an even funding
level for a decade, resulting in decreased capacity in State coastal
zone management programs and less funding available to communities. An
increase to more than $91 million would be necessary to reach actual
level funding that accounts for inflation since 2001 and would provide
an additional $300,000--$800,000 for each State and territory. However,
CSO recognizes that the current fiscal climate makes such an increase
challenging. By maintaining current funding levels, States and
territories would receive between $850,000 and just over $2,300,000 to
carry out their coastal management programs based on a formula that
considers shoreline miles and coastal population. The following are a
few examples of activities in Maryland and Alabama that CZM State
grants have recently funded. These types of contributions, and more,
can be found around the Nation.
Maryland
--Maryland's CZM Program worked with land conservation partners to
preserve 4,468 acres of critical coastal habitat for storm
protection, water-filtering benefits, fish nurseries, or
recreation through acquisition and easements. Maryland
completed projects that protected 4,980 linear feet of
nearshore habitat from erosion while providing critical habitat
through the implementation of shoreline management techniques
such as living shorelines.
--Maryland's Coastal Zone Management Program has collected 1.05 tons
of debris as a part of annual Maryland Coast Days and
Assateague Coastal Clean-ups, created four new public water
access (non-motorized) sites, and exposed over 21,000 students
with the opportunity to participate in a classroom or outdoor
experience.
--CZMA funding in Maryland assisted 5 coastal communities in reducing
vulnerability to future storm events, shoreline change and sea
level rise and incorporating those considerations into local
plans, codes and ordinances. Additionally, CZMA funding
assisted 6 communities that developed designs or plans to
reduce polluted runoff through the Watershed Assistance
Collaborative.
Alabama
--Last year, CZMA funding in Alabama supported the 26th Annual
Alabama Coastal Clean-up with over 3,700 volunteers are removed
38,000 pound of marine debris.
--In fiscal year 2013, the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program
provided funds for the public access improvements to City of
Chickasaw, City of Foley and Dauphin Island Park and Beach
Board; the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program to facilitate
Phase II of the development of the Coastal Area and Marine
Planning Program; the Dauphin Island Sea Lab to conduct Phase I
of Coastal Habitat Restoration Project Monitoring; the City of
Chickasaw to develop a comprehensive plan and to develop a
Three Mile Creek Watershed Management Plan; the City of
Fairhope to develop low impact development standards and
ordinance; Town of Dauphin Island and the City of Gulf Shores;
the City of Orange Beach, for local beach and dune protection
program; and the sea turtle/share the beach program and the
annual Alabama Coastal Birding Festival.
Several years ago, a grant cap of approximately $2,000,000 per
State was instituted to allow for funding to be spread more evenly
across the States and territories, so as to prevent most of the funding
from going entirely to the larger, more heavily populated States. Now,
however, over half of the States have met the cap and no longer receive
an increase in funding, despite increased overall funding for CZMA
State grants since that cap was introduced. Since the cap was never
intended to serve as a barrier to States receiving reasonable increases
intended for all States, CSO recommends that the subcommittee include
language in the appropriations bill report that allows the cap to be
exceeded when it is fair and consistent with the original purposes of
the cap. To that end, CSO suggests language declaring that each State
will receive no less than 1 percent and no more than 5 percent of the
additional funds over and above previous appropriations. As was
provided previously by the subcommittee, CSO also requests that
language be included in the appropriations bill report that directs
NOAA to refrain from charging administrative costs to these grants.
This is to prevent any undue administrative fees from NOAA from being
levied on grants intended for States.
coastal and estuarine land conservation program
CSO requests the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
(CELCP) not be terminated, as has been previously proposed in the
President's budget. Authorized by Congress in 2002, CELCP protects
``those coastal and estuarine areas with significant conservation,
recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are
threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational states to
other uses.'' To date, Congress has appropriated over $250 million for
CELCP. This funding has allowed for the completion of over 175
conservation projects, with more in progress. CELCP projects in 28 of
the Nation's 35 coastal States have already helped preserve more than
100,000 acres of the Nation's coastal assets. All Federal funding has
been leveraged by at least an equal amount of State, local, and private
investments, demonstrating the broad support for the program, the
importance of coastal protection throughout the Nation, and the
critical role that Federal funding plays in reaching the conservation
goals of our coastal communities. CELCP is the only Federal program
entirely dedicated to the conservation of these vital coastal areas.
The need for CELCP funding far exceeds federally appropriated funds
in recent years. In the last two funding cycles (fiscal year 2012 and
fiscal year 2014), NOAA, in partnership with the States, has
identified, deemed eligible, and ranked over $64.1 million in projects
with willing sellers and State funding match available. Adequate and
sustained funding is needed to meet the demand of the increasingly
high-quality projects developed by the States and submitted to NOAA.
The importance of natural barriers in preventing and reducing storm
impacts was recognized in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, when these
types of areas provided buffers and increased resilience in the face of
storm surge. Therefore, we request your support for minimally restoring
funding at the fiscal year 2012 enacted level for CELCP.
regional coastal resiliency grants
$10 million in grants for Regional Coastal Resiliency Grants is
needed to provide competitive funding to ensure our States and
communities are prepared to face changing ocean conditions, from
acidification to sea level rise, changing economic conditions, from
recession to emerging ocean uses, as well as major catastrophes, from
tsunamis to marine debris clogging waterways. Resilient communities
invest proactively to ensure they avoid unnecessary costs--economic,
social, and environmental--in the future. These grants will help
States, local communities, and other stakeholders produce on-the-ground
results that benefit both the economy and the environment, including
cutting edge science and practical tools like maps and surveys. This
request is an increase above the President's request of $5,000,000 in
order to fully establish this key competitive grant program that is
designed to promote resilience and address shared risks of weather
events and hazards on coastal communities and economies.
national estuarine research reserve system
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) partners
with States and territories to ensure long-term education, stewardship,
and research on estuarine habitats. Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Caribbean
and Great Lakes reserves advance knowledge and stewardship of estuaries
and serve as a scientific foundation for coastal management decisions.
This unique site-based program around the Nation contributes to a
systemic research, education and training on the Nation's estuaries.
CSO greatly appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided
in the past. Its support has assisted these programs to work
collaboratively to protect our coasts, support coastal economies, and
sustain our local communities. Without these competitive grant funds
and key NOAA programs, States will not have the resources to help
address local and regional coastal resilience needs and priorities, and
leverage the Federal Government's support and expertise. Thank you for
taking our requests into consideration as you move forward in the
fiscal year 2015 appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased
to share our views on the Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2015
budget and has identified the following funding needs:
$38.2 million for Salmon Management Activities ($11 million above
the request) of which:
--$26.6 million for the Columbia River Mitchell Act hatchery program
to implement reforms of which $6.7 million (or 25 percent of
the enacted amount) is directed to the tribes to enhance
supplementation (natural stock recovery) programs; and
--$11.6 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty Program, of which $9.76
million is for the implementation of the 2009-2018 Agreement,
and previous base programs; and $1,844,000 is for the Chinook
Salmon Agreement Implementation.
$90 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund ($40
million above the request) to support on-the-ground salmon restoration
activities.
Background.--The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
(CRITFC) was founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River treaty tribes:
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Confederated Tribes
and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and Nez Perce Tribe. CRITFC provides
coordination and technical assistance to the tribes in regional,
national and international efforts to protect and restore the fisheries
and fish habitat.
In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
tribes.\1\ The tribes' ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the
U.S. and the U.S. pledged to honor our ancestral rights, including the
right to fish at all usual and accustomed places. Unfortunately, a long
history of hydroelectric development, habitat destruction and over-
fishing by non-Indians brought the salmon resource to the edge of
extinction with 12 salmon and steelhead trout populations in the
Columbia River basin listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 6, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the treaties form the bedrock of fisheries management. The
CRITFC tribes are among the most successful fishery managers in the
country leading restoration efforts and working with State, Federal and
private entities. CRITFC's comprehensive plan, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-
Wit, outlines principles and objectives designed to halt the decline of
salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations and rebuild the fisheries to
levels that support tribal ceremonial, subsistence and commercial
harvests. To achieve these objectives, the plan emphasizes strategies
that rely on natural production, healthy rivers and collaborative
efforts.
Several key regional agreements were completed in 2008. The
Columbia Basin Fish Accords set out parameters for management of the
Federal Columbia River Power System for fish passage. New agreements in
U.S. v. Oregon and the Pacific Salmon Commission established fishery
management criteria for fisheries ranging from the Columbia River to
Southeast Alaska. The U.S. v. Oregon agreement also contains provisions
for hatchery management in the Columbia River Basin. The terms of all
three agreements run through 2017. We have successfully secured other
funds to support our efforts to implement these agreements, including
funds from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the Department of
Interior, and the Southern Fund of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, to name
just few. Continued Federal funding support is needed to accomplish the
management objectives embodied in the agreements.
Columbia River (Mitchell Act) Hatchery Program.--Restoring Pacific
salmon and providing for sustainable fisheries requires using the
Columbia River Mitchell Act hatchery program to supplement naturally
spawning stocks and populations. To accomplish this goal, $26.6 million
is requested for the tribal and State co-managers to jointly reform the
Mitchell Act hatchery program. Of this amount, $6.7 million, or 25
percent of enacted funding, will be made available to the Columbia
River Treaty Tribes for supplementation (natural stock recovery)
programs. The Mitchell Act program provides regional economic benefits.
NOAA Fisheries estimates that the program generates about $38 million
in income and supports 870 jobs.
Since 1982, CRITFC has called for hatchery reform to meet recovery
needs and meet mitigation obligations. In 1991, this subcommittee
directed that ``Mitchell Act hatcheries be operated in a manner so as
to implement a program to release fish in the upper Columbia River
basin above the Bonneville Dam to assist in the rebuilding of upriver
naturally-spawning salmon runs.''
Since 1991, we have made progress in increasing the upstream
releases of salmon including Mitchell Act fish that have assisted the
rebuilding and restoration of naturally-spawning upriver runs of
chinook and coho. These efforts need to continue.
We now face the challenges of managing for salmon populations
listed for protection under the ESA, while also meeting mitigation
obligations. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
operation of Columbia River basin hatcheries released by NOAA in 2010
illustrates the conundrum we face. While the DEIS, which assumes level
funding for Mitchell Act hatcheries, points out the need for hatchery
reform, the implementation scenarios for the proposed alternatives to
the status quo all call for substantial reductions in hatchery
releases. From the tribal perspective the proposed alternatives will
not result in the delisting of salmon populations or meet mitigation
obligations. Under the proposed alternatives the future is increased
regulation under the ESA, resulting in more constrained fisheries along
the west coast The funding for the Mitchell Act program should be
increased along with natural stock recovery program reform
(supplementation) so that we can make progress towards ESA delisting.
This would transition the Mitchell Act program to a much more effective
mitigation program.
We support hatchery reform to aid in salmon recovery, while meeting
mitigation obligations. The CRITFC tribes are leaders in designing and
managing hatchery facilities to aid in salmon restoration and believe
similar practices need to be implemented throughout the basin to reform
current hatchery production efforts. Additional funding is necessary to
reform Mitchell Act hatcheries to accomplish conservation and
mitigation objectives. Years of inadequate funding have taken a toll
resulting in deteriorating facilities that do not serve our objectives.
Evidence to Support Tribal Salmon Restoration Programs under the
Mitchell Act.--The tribes' approach to salmon recovery is to put fish
back in to the rivers and protect the watersheds where fish live.
Scientific documentation of tribal supplementation success is available
upon request. The evidence is seen by the increasing returns of salmon
in the Columbia River Basin. Wild spring chinook salmon are returning
in large numbers to the Umatilla, Yakima and Klickitat tributaries.
Coho in the Clearwater River are now abundant after Snake River coho
was once declared extinct. Fish are returning to the Columbia River
Basin and it is built on more than 30 years of tribal projects.
Once considered for listing under the ESA, only 20,000 fall chinook
returned to the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River in the early
1980's. This salmon run has been rebuilt through the implementation of
the Vernita Bar agreement of the mid-1980s combined with a hatchery
program that incorporated biologically appropriate salmon that spawn
naturally upon their return to the spawning beds. Today, the Hanford
Reach fall chinook run is one of the healthiest runs in the basin
supporting fisheries in Alaska, Canada, and the mainstem Columbia
River. In 2013, close to 700,000 Fall Chinook destined for the Hanford
Reach entered the Columbia River, which was a record since the
construction of Bonneville Dam. The predictions are for an even higher
return this fall.
In the Snake River Basin, fall chinook has been brought back from
the brink of extinction. Listed as threatened under the ESA, the
estimated return of naturally-spawning Snake River fall chinook
averaged 328 adults from 1986-1992. In 1994, fewer than 2,000 Snake
River fall chinook returned to the Columbia River Basin. Thanks to the
Nez Perce Tribe's modern supplementation program fall chinook are
rebounding and the Snake River fall chinook is well on their way to
recovery and ESA delisting. In 2013 about 56,000 fall chinook made it
past Lower Granite Dam. Of those, approximately 21,000 were wild, twice
the previous record for wild returns since the dam was constructed in
1975.
A Request for Review of Salmon Mass-Marking Programs.--CRITFC
endeavors to secure a unified hatchery strategy among tribal, Federal
and State co-managers. To that end, we seek to build hatchery programs
using the best available science and supported by adequate, efficient
budgets. A Congressional requirement, delivered through prior
appropriations language, to visibly mark all salmon produced in
federally funded hatcheries should be reconsidered. We have requested
that Federal mass-marking requirements, and correlated funding, be
reviewed for compatibility with our overall objective of ESA delisting
and with prevailing laws and agreements: U.S. v Oregon, Pacific Salmon
Treaty and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Letter from Bruce Jim, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission to U.S. House of Representatives Chairmen Frank Wolf,
Mike Simpson and Doc Hastings, July 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salmon managers should be provided the latitude to make case-by-
case decisions whether to mark fish and, if so, in the appropriate
percentages.
Pacific Salmon Treaty Program.--CRITFC supports the U.S. Section
recommendation of $11.6 million for Pacific Salmon Treaty
implementation. Of this amount, $9.76 million is for the Pacific Salmon
Treaty base program with Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and NOAA to
share as described in the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
Commission's Budget Justification. In addition, we support $1.9 million
as first provided in 1997 to carry out necessary research and
management activities to implement the abundance based management
approach of the Chinook Chapter to the Treaty. Costs of the programs
conducted by State agencies to fulfill national commitments created by
the treaty are substantially greater than the funding provided in the
NOAA budget. State agencies supplement the Federal appropriation from
other sources including: State and Federal grants, and the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, to the extent those sources are
available.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program (PCSRF)/Watershed
Restoration.--Funding has been sought after by the State of Alaska, the
Pacific Northwest States, and the treaty tribes since the renewal of
the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1995. This would serve critical unmet
needs for the conservation and restoration of salmon stocks shared in
these tribal, State, and international fisheries. The PCSRF program was
developed in 2000 to contribute to the shared effort in accomplishing
this goal. We recommend restoring the PCSRF fiscal year 2015 funding
level to $90 million. Long-term economic benefits can be achieved by
making PCSRF investments on the ground to rebuild sustainable,
harvestable salmon populations into the future.
The State and tribal co-managers have responded to concerns raised
by Congress regarding accountability and performance standards to
evaluate and monitor the success of this coast wide program. The co-
managers have developed an extensive matrix of performance standards to
address these concerns, which includes the use of monitoring protocols
to systematically track current and future projects basin-wide.
Tribally sponsored watershed projects are based on the best science,
are competently implemented and adequately monitored, and address the
limiting factors affecting salmon restoration. Projects undertaken by
the tribes are consistent with CRITFC's salmon restoration plan and the
programmatic areas identified by Congress.
In summary, the CRITFC and its four member tribes have developed
the capacity and infrastructure to lead in restoring and rebuilding
salmon populations of the Columbia Basin. Our collective efforts
protect our treaty reserved fishing rights and we also partner with the
non- Indian community to provide healthy, harvestable salmon
populations for all citizens to enjoy. This is a time when increased
effort and participation are demanded of all of us and we ask for your
continued support of a coordinated, comprehensive effort to restore the
shared salmon resource of the Columbia and Snake River Basins. We will
be pleased to provide any additional information that this subcommittee
may require.
______
Prepared Statement of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership
On behalf of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2015 Federal science budget for
the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). Ocean Leadership represents 90 of the
Nation's leading oceanographic research and education institutions and
also manages several ocean research and education programs in the areas
of scientific ocean drilling, ocean observing, oil spills, and ocean
partnerships. We respectfully request $7.5 billion for the NSF; $1.9
billion for Earth Sciences at NASA; and $5.6 billion for NOAA.
As Congress prioritizes Federal investments in the face of
constrained budgets, it is important to recognize and maintain support
for basic research as a core Federal responsibility. Increasing this
investment is a priority given the shift to a science and technology
(S&T) based economy whose foundation is built on scientific advances,
both within specific disciplines as well as across disciplines. The
U.S. dominance in S&T is being challenged by accelerated investment by
other nations, as evidenced by Battelle's recent research and
development (R&D) Global Forecast, which states: ``At the current rates
of growth and investment, China's total funding of R&D is expected to
surpass that of the U.S. by about 2022.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Battelle and R&D Magazine, December 2013. http://
www.battelle.org/docs/tpp/2014_global_rd_funding_forecast.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the role of ocean science
Recent hypotheses suggest that the extreme weather events we have
had this past year may be attributable to a persistent shift in the jet
stream due to a rapidly melting polar region as well as a warmer North
Pacific Ocean. If this is the case, ice storms in Mobile, Alabama or
monsoon-like rain events in Boulder, Colorado, may become more
frequent, along with their significant economic costs. Unfortunately,
as the demand for more and better data and information to understand
ocean and atmospheric trends increases, we are instead losing our
capabilities to collect data at sea and from space to build more
capable and accurate long-term forecasts. For instance, the inability
to service the buoys comprising the TAO Array (Tropical Atmosphere
Ocean project in the equatorial Pacific) has resulted in a degradation
of the data return rate to just 40 percent capacity from an optimally
operating system.\2\ This situation greatly reduces our ability to
accurately forecast El Ninno and La Ninna strengths and thus risks
proper preparation to deal with episodes of droughts and flooding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ El Ninno monitoring system in failure mode, U.S. budget woes
cripple a key mooring array in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Jeff
Tollefson. Nature News, January 23, 2014. http://www.nature.com/news/
el-ninno-monitoring-system-in-failure-mode-1.14582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that the ocean absorbs, stores and transfers most of the heat
(and a high percentage of the carbon) on our planet, the ability to
understand, forecast and prepare for extreme weather events requires
investments in basic research to better understand air-ice-sea
interactions as well as observations of the physical environment from
space, land and sea. Without this basic knowledge and prediction
capabilities on regional and seasonal scales, we are essentially flying
blind in terms of managing resources (e.g. agriculture, fisheries,
freshwater) and protecting public health. There are many major natural
threats facing our Nation and significant challenges ahead in
understanding, forecasting and mitigating them, all of which require
significant financial resources. We believe that our appropriations
requests would enable our Nation to maintain the assets and
capabilities necessary to better understand the physical, chemical,
geological and biological changes to the natural environment and use
this information to help Congress, State and local governments,
businesses and private individuals make informed and fiscally
responsible economic and national security, public health and safety,
and resource management decisions.
nsf basic research
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is our top funding priority
as it is the premier Federal agency tasked with supporting basic
research, which underpins all future scientific advances. As you know,
NSF is the only Federal agency with the mission of supporting basic
research, and has been a primary force in providing support for
discoveries that have driven our Nation's economy through innovation.
Historically, Congress has appropriated top line numbers for the agency
and has refrained from directing the course of the agency's research
agenda or setting science or infrastructure priorities for the agency.
We hope that this policy will continue so the Foundation can continue
to make decisions based on the highest quality peer reviewed science,
rather than politics.
Given the tremendous recent impact that natural hazards have had on
our Nation's economy and public welfare, we believe that investing in
the geosciences is critical to advance our knowledge of the physical
world, while social and behavioral sciences can improve our ability to
understand and communicate key scientific findings and risks to the
public and policymakers, who must deal with a rapidly changing planet.
We hope that NSF can continue to fund the best minds in the Nation
through competitive research grants, while mission agencies such as
NOAA and NASA can support applied research and observational
requirements to ensure our Nation has the intellectual capacity to
develop and deal with the next generation of challenges. Thus, we
request that Congress appropriate $140 million in additional funding
for the ``Research and Related Accounts'' to at least match anticipated
inflationary costs, but preferably above this level to maintain a
positive trajectory enhancing NSF capacity to support its research
mission.
noaa research and observations
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requires
timely, accurate, and sensitive observations of the planet to meet its
many missions and mandates. Given the austere budget environment, we
believe that NOAA can better accomplish its scientific requirements in
a more effective way through partnerships with the extramural academic
and industrial communities, rather than relying solely on their own
internal scientific capability. The majority of scientific research
expertise in areas such as climate, ocean acidification, ocean
exploration, instrument development, data dissemination and fisheries
management resides in the academic and industrial sectors. A greater
commitment to extramural competitive peer-review grant opportunities to
answer the key questions necessary to assess trends, make forecasts,
and manage resources in a changing environment would improve efficiency
and extend NOAA's access to the best minds in the Nation.
We remain concerned about the Nation's earth observing satellite
programs and the ability to maintain continuity of long-term data sets.
We encourage NOAA to follow the NESDIS Independent Review Team's (IRT)
recommendations for procurement models for missions beyond J2 that will
not only reduce costs but also mitigate against data gaps. Implementing
all the missions as an integrated program could save the agency tens of
millions of dollars. These savings could help address other needs, such
as recapitalization of the oceanographic fleet to help service the TAO
Array, or supporting a more robust ocean exploration program.
Ultimately, we need the polar observing system to be more resilient and
more capable, which requires a more integrated approach to weather and
climate research, monitoring and modeling. Moving NOAA's climate
sensors to NASA without the resources to support their construction and
operation defeats this purpose. Consequently, we hope you will continue
your close oversight of the Federal Earth observing programs to help
ensure that satellite missions can be cost-efficient, reliable, and
effective.
Of course, the ocean also impacts life beyond weather, climate and
extreme events. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a tragedy with loss
of life, economic impacts and long-term ecological implications for the
Gulf region. The fact that it took so long to identify and track the
location of the massive subsurface oil plume in the water column or
forecast its trajectory highlights the significant shortcomings of the
existing ocean and coastal observing systems. Consequently, we need to
make sure that we are better prepared for the next spill, especially
given offshore oil exploration in the Arctic and now proposed for the
Atlantic coast. Ideally, there should be significant coordination
between NOAA and the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) with regards
to the use of criminal and civil settlement funds and fines. We have a
unique opportunity to build a sustainable ocean and coastal observing
system that will better enable the Gulf region to identify and prepare
for future problems, such as oil spills, red tides, and hypoxic events,
while also better managing their marine living resources. I hope this
opportunity is not lost given the significant funds that will flow into
the region.
We are disheartened by the administration's extremely low funding
request for NOAA's Education programs, including the elimination of the
competitive program, which in the past has supported successful
initiatives such as the National Ocean Sciences Bowl (NOSB). For the
last 16 years, NOSB has exposed 26,000 students to a field of study not
commonly offered in high school, which enhances student understanding
of all major areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
We greatly appreciate your historical support for education programs at
the mission agencies, and we hope that the administration will take a
more transparent and deliberative planned approach to improving our
Nation's STEM education programs in the future.
nasa earth science research and missions
We are very concerned with the administration's proposal to cut
Earth Science funding at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA), particularly at a time when NASA is supporting
several new Earth observing missions as well as providing unprecedented
access to their archives of Earth data. NASA has been responsive to the
2007 ``Decadal Survey,'' but a flat budget, as well as increased
mission responsibilities, has delayed many critical missions. While we
support NASA taking on additional responsibilities for developing
climate sensors from NOAA, we believe that this obligation should be
accompanied with adequate financial resources. NASA has shown itself to
be an effective partner with other agencies, such as with the USGS and
their Landsat-8 mission, and with NOAA and the NPP-Suomi satellite.
Moreover, its Venture class missions are providing flight opportunities
for the next generation of scientists and engineers. We also support
two NASA satellite missions, Surface Water Ocean Topography (SWOT) and
Pre-Aerosol, Clouds, and ocean Ecosystem (PACE), which are particularly
important to the oceans community and are tentatively scheduled for
launch by 2020. NASA supports the only truly global view of the Earth,
so it is critical to support its Earth science missions and research at
a time when we see such unprecedented change to the physical
environment of our planet.
Madame Chair and members of the subcommittee, I greatly appreciate
the opportunity to share our recommendations, and I encourage you to
continue your long-standing bipartisan support for science funding in
the fiscal year 2015 budget and into the future.
Below is a list of the institutions that are represented by the
Consortium for Ocean Leadership.
Alabama
Dauphin Island Sea Lab
Alaska
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Alaska Ocean Observing System
North Pacific Research Board
California
Bodega Marine Lab
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Moss Landing Marine Laboratory
Naval Postgraduate School
Stanford University
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of California, Santa Cruz
University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institution of
Oceanography)
University of Southern California
Aquarium of the Pacific
Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute
Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies
Esri
L-3 MariPro, Inc.
Liquid Robotics, Inc.
Teledyne RD Instruments
Colorado
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
Connecticut
University of Connecticut
Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration
Delaware
University of Delaware
Mid-Atlantic Regional Association Coastal Ocean Observing System
Florida
Florida State University
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at FAU
University of Florida
University of Miami
University of South Florida
Earth2Ocean, Inc.
Florida Institute of Oceanography
Nova Southeastern University
Georgia
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography of the University of Georgia
Savannah State University
Hawaii
University of Hawaii
Illinois
John G. Shedd Aquarium
Louisiana
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
Louisiana State University
Maine
Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
University of Maine
The IOOS Association
Maryland
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Johns Hopkins University
Marine Technology Society
National Aquarium
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Battelle
Michigan
University of Michigan
Mississippi
Mississippi State University
University of Mississippi
University of Southern Mississippi
Nebraska
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
New Hampshire
University of New Hampshire
New Jersey
Rutgers University
New York
Columbia University (LDEO)
Stony Brook University
North Carolina
Duke University Marine Laboratory
East Carolina University
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina, Wilmington
North Carolina State University
Oregon
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State University
Rhode Island
University of Rhode Island
South Carolina
Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium
Texas
Harte Research Institute
Texas A&M University
University of Texas, Austin
Fugro
Sonardyne, Inc.
Virginia
College of William and Mary (VIMS)
Old Dominion University
CNA
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
CARIS, USA
SAIC
Washington
University of Washington
Sea-Bird Scientific
Washington, DC
Southeastern Universities Research Association
Wisconsin
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes WATER Institute
Australia
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) at the University of
Tasmania
Bermuda
Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences (BIOS)
Canada
Dalhousie University
University of Victoria
______
Prepared Statement of the Consortium of Social Science Associations
On behalf of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA),
I am pleased to offer this written testimony to the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
Agencies for inclusion in the official committee record. For fiscal
year 2015, COSSA urges the subcommittee to appropriate $7.5 billion for
the National Science Foundation (NSF), $47.5 million for the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ), $55.4 million for the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS), and $107 million for the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA).
COSSA is proud to serve as a united voice for the social and
behavioral sciences, bridging the academic research community with
Federal policymakers. Its membership consists of more than 100
professional associations, scientific societies, universities, and
research centers and institutes, representing thousands of scientists
working in industry, government, and academia.
national science foundation
First, I wish to thank the subcommittee for its longstanding
support for Federal science agencies. Despite the tough, ongoing fiscal
challenges, the subcommittee has remained vigilant in its efforts to
ensure adequate funding for basic research, particularly at the
National Science Foundation. Thank you.
COSSA joins the broader scientific community and the 21 Senators
who signed the April 11 letter to the subcommittee in support of $7.5
billion for NSF in fiscal year 2015, an increase of 4.6 percent. This
amount would return NSF to its fiscal year 2010 funding level when
adjusting for inflation and would allow the agency to recover some of
the purchasing power lost in recent years due to sequestration and caps
on discretionary spending. The amount would also attempt to put NSF
back on track with the vision of the America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act of 2010, which authorized NSF at $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2011,
$7.8 billion in fiscal year 2012, and $8.3 billion in fiscal year 2013.
If the U.S. is to maintain its scientific competitiveness on the global
stage, we as a nation must continue to prioritize investments in
science and technology and not abandon the aspirations set forth in the
original America COMPETES Act of 2007 and its reauthorization in 2011.
The U.S. scientific enterprise must remain insulated from political
and ideological pressure if we are to encourage the most innovative
science. As you move through the appropriations process this year,
COSSA urges you to discourage and object to amendments that would
defund or otherwise compromise specific research areas or programs at
NSF, as we saw with the political science amendment in fiscal year
2013. At a time when we should be investing in our knowledge economy
and doing all we can to encourage a diverse scientific workforce, such
efforts would instead have a chilling effect, discouraging the next
generation of researchers to embark on science careers.
Unfortunately, some recent efforts in the House seek to further set
back the U.S. scientific enterprise. COSSA is deeply concerned about
the impacts the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and
Technology Act (H.R. 4186), or FIRST Act, would have on NSF, the
scientific community overall, and American innovation and intellectual
competitiveness. Not only does the FIRST Act lack vision for the U.S.
scientific enterprise by authorizing levels for NSF that would cut
funding to the agency in terms of real dollars, it would also degrade
NSF's gold-standard merit review process by seeking to micromanage the
agency's award-making process. Regrettably, the legislation serves as a
soapbox for lawmakers wishing to hurl ideological attacks on specific
research areas, such as social and behavioral science or climate
science. The inclusion of specific authorization levels for NSF's
individual science directorates would set a dangerous precedent by
allowing Congress to legislate what qualifies as meritorious science,
as opposed to continuing to rely on a process that has served this
Nation well; that is, entrusting qualified experts to make such
determinations. It would also place scientific disciplines (i.e.
biology, engineering, chemistry, social science, etc.) in direct
competition with one another for scarce resources, thereby discouraging
interdisciplinary science, which is becoming increasingly necessary for
answering complex societal challenges.
Equally distressing are the attempts to single out the Social,
Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate. The
shortsightedness of critics of social and behavioral science research
is disappointing. Publicly holding up individual research grants for
ridicule based solely on their titles--research projects that a
distinguished panel of scientific peers has determined meritorious--
misleads the American public by asserting that taxpayer funding is
being wasted without fully understanding the projects, their intent,
and the benefit to society and/or the progress of science.
While we understand that the FIRST Act is an authorization bill and
currently has no legal bearing on the fiscal year 2015 appropriations
process, we are nonetheless concerned by these efforts in the House and
any impact they might have on Senators looking to further target social
and behavioral science funding at NSF. COSSA is hopeful that the Senate
will reject the FIRST Act should it pass the House this year, and
object to additional efforts to defund or devalue these NSF programs
that have proven their value to the U.S. economy, national security,
and the health of our citizens.
As the Senate negotiates the CJS Appropriations bill this year,
please consider the value of the social and behavioral sciences in
helping to answer questions of national importance, such as how to
convince a community in the path of a tornado to seek cover, or
statistical analyses that help local governments understand crime
patterns, among others. Without this science, and without an
understanding of the fundamental nature of who we are, policy-making on
major national issues will not be based on evidence and billions of
dollars will be wasted.
Below are just a few examples \1\ of impactful social and
behavioral science:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bringing People Into Focus: How Social, Behavioral and Economic
Research Addresses National Challenges, National Science Foundation
(NSF 13-62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Research supported by NSF has provided the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) with its current system for apportioning the
airwaves via a fruitful, practical application of game theory
and experimental economics. Since their inception in 1994, FCC
``spectrum auctions'' have netted over $60 billion in revenue
for the Federal Government. The U.S. system of partitioning
airwaves is now emulated in several other countries around the
world, resulting in total worldwide revenues in excess of $200
billion.
--Researchers at Indiana University, Drexel University, and Arizona
State University developed spatial models to help manage the
location of sex offenders. Their research addressed concerns
regarding the impact of sex offender residency laws on a
community, considering important factors such as whether
residency restrictions lead to high concentrations of offenders
in specific areas, distribute the risk across a community
equitably, and keep sex offenders from living near minors.
Improving the development and evaluation of sex offender
residency policies in advance of any legislation allows public
officials the opportunity to consider the resulting
distribution of offenders in terms of local residents, better
meeting the needs of communities.
--Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis investigated
emotion recognition using nonverbal cues such as facial
expressions, vocal tones, and body language. Based on this
research, the Army Research Institute now incorporates
education on nonverbal communication into soldier training,
thereby assisting troops in understanding cross-cultural,
nonverbal communication with non-English speaking citizens with
whom they interact overseas. Thus, this research has the
potential to provide human solutions in military situations. It
has been demonstrated that enhancing troops' interpersonal
skills can enable them to anticipate and diffuse conflict, as
well as facilitate cooperation, negotiation and compromise.
national institute of justice and bureau of justice statistics
u.s. department of justice
COSSA urges the subcommittee to appropriate $47.5 million for the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and $55.4 million for the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
These levels are equal to the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
request. Taken together--roughly $100 million--this modest investment
represents the only source of Federal research dollars committed to
enhancing our understanding of crime and the criminal justice system.
As the research arm of DOJ, NIJ plays a critical role in helping us
understand and implement science-based strategies for crime prevention
and control. The President seeks additional investment for the
Comprehensive School Safety Initiative in fiscal year 2015 as part of
the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative; the initiative
received $75 million in fiscal year 2014. COSSA urges the subcommittee
to continue its support for this critical activity, the research from
which will help ensure that policies and investments made at U.S.
schools to address the safety of students, teachers and administrators
will be evidence-based.
BJS' national data collections play an important role in providing
statistical evidence needed for criminal justice policy decision
makers. In particular, these programs provide the critical data
infrastructure supporting the administration's commitment to focus on
data-driven, evidence- and information-based, ``smart on crime''
approaches. COSSA supports the request for an additional $1 million for
the National Survey of Public Defenders and an additional $1.5 million
for the National Public Defenders Reporting Program. Further, we
endorse the administration's efforts to ``explore the feasibility of
statistical collections in important topical priority areas, including:
recidivism and reentry, prosecution and adjudication, criminal justice
data improvements and victimization statistics.''
Increased investment in criminal justice science is needed to
ensure future policies and decisions are evidence-based and to contain
escalating costs associated with public safety. COSSA applauds NIJ's
increased efforts to disseminate research results to practitioners,
putting it in the hands of those who need it.
bureau of economic analysis
department of commerce
COSSA urges the subcommittee to appropriate $107 million for the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) within the U.S. Department of
Commerce. This is equal to the amount included in the fiscal year 2015
budget request. BEA plays a critical role in helping the Nation
understand our economy through the National Income and Product
Accounts, which provides economic data at the national as well as
industry levels.
Further, BEA proposes a new $1.9 billion initiative in fiscal year
2015, ``Big Data for Small Business.'' This would allow BEA to create a
new Small Business Gross Domestic Product to track the health of the
U.S. small business sector, thereby addressing the need for more public
data relating to small businesses. COSSA supports this activity.
Thank you for the opportunity to express these views on behalf of
the social and behavioral science community. Please do not hesitate to
contact me should you require additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of Ford ``Bud'' Cross, Ph.D. National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Retired)
This testimony addresses the portion of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) fiscal year 2015 Budget that
proposes to close their research laboratory in Beaufort, North
Carolina, where I served as Laboratory Director from 1985-2000.
The purpose of this testimony is to enter my strong objection to
the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory, Norlth Carolina by
NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS). Having worked at the Lab for 33
years that included serving as Laboratory Director for 15 years, I
would like to provide you with my assessment of the validity of the
NOAA justification for closing the Beaufort Laboratory. (I still
interact with Lab staff and visit the lab frequently.)
NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory is part of the NOS National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) and the Lab's official name is the
National Center for Fisheries and Habitat Research. In addition to NOS
(42), staff from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (51), and
the State of North Carolina (8) share the Beaufort facility. NCCOS also
has research Centers or Laboratories in Charleston, S.C., Oxford,
Maryland, Kasitsna Bay, Alaska, and two Centers at NOAA Headquarters in
Silver Spring, Maryland. In recent years, NOAA has tried unsuccessfully
to close two other NOS laboratories, Oxford, MD, and Kasitsna Bay,
Alaska.
NOS claims that about $58 million is needed to upgrade the Beaufort
facility. This estimate is based on an outdated (2010), and somewhat
inaccurate, facilities assessment report that resulted from a site
visit in 2009. Since 2000, about $14.5 million has been spent to
upgrade many structural deficiencies, and two new buildings were
constructed ($8 million). Also, almost $1 million of Hurricane Sandy
funds currently are being used to further upgrade the facility for
storm protection, and the State of North Carolina is spending about
$500,000 for storm water improvements as well. That's over $23 million
in upgrades in less than 15 years.
Why were these upgrades not taken into account when the fiscal year
2015 budget was submitted? In my opinion, the argument that the
Beaufort facility is in poor shape and an unsafe work environment is
not accurate. The figure of $58 million to repair the facility does not
take recent upgrades into account, and does not reflect a more recent
informal inspection of the Lab where ``no structural issues'' were
found. Thus, the Beaufort facility is not in a rundown condition, nor
is it an unsafe place to work. A visit to the facility will bear these
points out. Most of funds currently being identified as needed to
repair the facility were actually identified to replace older buildings
with state-of-the-art facilities in order to allow the Beaufort Lab to
take full advantage of its location.
impact on nccos programs
If the Laboratory is closed, the impact on the NCCOS research there
will be significant, as much of it must be conducted in a laboratory
and field setting. Priority research in the following areas would be
disrupted or eliminated: harmful algal blooms, coastal toxic metal
pollution, sea level rise, invasive species (lionfish), mapping of
seagrass beds, and coastal planning for sustainable marine aquaculture.
(Yet, NOS/NCCOS is requesting an additional $4 million in fiscal year
2015 for similar work.) Several of the NCCOS scientists at Beaufort
have received national and international awards for research, and one
received the NOAA Lifetime Scientific Achievement Award. Virtually all
of this research is conducted cooperatively with universities, State
agencies, other Federal agencies, or other NOAA programs. Again, much
of this research cannot be conducted away from the coast.
Is this research of low priority to NOAA/NOS/NCCOS?
impact on nmfs programs
Since 1899, when the Beaufort Laboratory was created by Congress,
until 2000, the Laboratory belonged to the National Marine Fisheries
Service, or its precursor agencies. In the late 1990's, the
Administrator of NOAA directed the Assistant Administrator (AA) for NOS
to develop a research capability within NOS. To satisfy that request,
five field laboratories were transferred in 2000 from NMFS to NOS,
including Beaufort. However, NMFS fisheries and protected species
research remained at the Lab. Their contribution to O&M costs is based
on the ratio of NOS to NMFS staff. The NMFS fisheries and protected
species research would be highly impacted if the Lab closed. Much of
this research is used by fisheries and protected species managers, and
primarily requires the coastal Lab.
fisheries stock assessments
The primary fisheries research at the Beaufort Lab deals with stock
assessments of more than 100 species of reef fish (mainly snappers and
groupers) that exist between Cape Hatteras and the Florida Keys. The
Lab monitors the catch of about 100 head boats along the southeast
Atlantic coast. They then combine these data with estimates of the
commercial catch and other recreational catch to produce an estimate of
the total fishing effort on the populations of reef fish. These data
are then coupled with economic information to estimate the economic
effect of various management scenarios. This information is then
provided to the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council who has the
responsibility to manage fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
(EEZ).
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council depends on the
Beaufort Laboratory for providing the science upon which these
management recommendations are based for the reef fish fishery.
Attempts to transfer this staff to another location will fracture it,
disrupt the flow of information to the South Atlantic Council, and
result in an unnecessary expenditure of relocation funds.
menhaden
The Beaufort Laboratory is the only entity that monitors the catch
of the Atlantic menhaden fishery (since 1955), and the Gulf of Mexico
menhaden fishery (since 1964). Stock assessments are made periodically,
and the information is provided to the Atlantic States Marine Fishery
Commission and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission for
management purposes. Similar to reef fish, the unnecessary disruption
of this research will be costly. It could result in the loss of the
longest and most continuous data bases in the U.S., and essential
management information to the Commissions would be delayed at best.
protected species
The unique geological location of the NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory
lends itself to one of the best locations along the Atlantic coast to
conduct research on marine mammals and sea turtles. This is due to the
unique mix of estuarine habitats that exists in coastal North Carolina
and the opportunity to interact directly with commercial fishermen. The
objectives of this research are to better understand the direct and
indirect effects of fisheries, climate change, and other environmental
factors in support of the conservation and recovery of these species as
mandated by Federal law. This research cannot be done effectively from
a non-coastal location or out of North Carolina.
noaa sentinel site cooperative (http://oceanservive.noaa.gov/
sentinelsites/north-carolina.htlm) (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/
sentinelsites)
NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory is one of only five such sites that NOAA
has established in the United States. These sites were established to
leverage existing research and monitoring resources to ensure resilient
communities and coastal ecosystems in the face of changing
environmental conditions. The focus of the North Carolina site is sea
level change and coastal inundation adaptation and planning. About 20
partners (Federal, State, and other organizations) are involved in this
effort in which the NOAA Lab is a key player. For more information on
this Program, see the links given above. Why would NOAA pull the
Beaufort Lab out of one of only five sentinel sites in the Nation?
north carolina marine science and education partnership
(www.ncmsep.com)
The central portion of the North Carolina coast has been a focus of
marine research for well over 100 years. After the establishment of the
Beaufort Lab in 1899, the Duke Marine Laboratory and the University of
North Carolina's Institute were established in the late 1940's and the
North Carolina State University Marine Lab (CMAST) was established in
the 1990's, all within five miles of each other. This concentration of
labs has resulted in a center of expertise in coastal North Carolina of
international and national significance. In 2002, the Carteret County
Economic Development Council convened a meeting of the leaders of
marine institutions and organizations and community leaders in the
county. From that meeting, the North Carolina Marine Science and
Education Partnership (MSEP) was formed. Currently, there are 18
organizations that comprise MSEP, including the Carteret Country Public
School System. Members of MSEP meet regularly to discuss ways to better
cooperate on research, education, and outreach projects. For example,
MSEP developed and is running a Coastal Marine Science Competition for
13-18 year old
students in the multi-County region (https://www.sites.google.com/site/
msepcompetition/). For NOAA to eliminate the Beaufort Laboratory from
such an organization so closely tied to their overall missions is
puzzling at best.
summary
1. In my opinion, the justification for closing NOAA's Beaufort
Laboratory is weak. The facility report is not up to date, and not
entirely accurate. The $58 million price tag includes replacing the two
story research building that would be beneficial but the laboratory is
operational and safe without it. Also, NOAA has constructed a new
maintenance building and a $7 million building to house administrative
staff, the library and the NEERS staff, and has spent an additional $14
million in facility upgrades, since 2000. I strongly urge that a site
visit be made so Congress can be assured that the Lab is functional and
safe.
2. The closing of the Lab will destroy critical masses in habitat,
fisheries, and protected species research. NOAA argues that the
scientists and support staff will be moved to other locations, but
there is no plan. Those scientists and staff who chose not to move will
be riffed. There is no way NOAA can successfully move any part of the
staff in its entirety to maintain any semblance of a critical mass in
any one of the three research areas. The result will be a major
disruption of research that is of high priority to NOAA, and again, not
for a valid reason.
3. NOAA prides itself in its capacity to reach out and interact
with constituents and partners. The Beaufort Laboratory is the epitome
of those relationships. A high percentage of the research conducted
there is with collaborators. Graduate students and post-doctoral
students from various universities, sponsored by Lab staff, conduct
their research at the Laboratory. As described above, the Lab is an
integral part of the North Carolina Marine Science and Educational
Partnership and NOAA Sentinel Site project. Is it in the best interests
of NOAA to walk away from these relationships?
recommendations
I would like to make the following three recommendations to the
subcommittee:
1. For reasons given above, please do not close NOAA's Beaufort
Laboratory. The level of unnecessary disruption to research,
partnerships, and personal lives is far too great for the questionable
justification given.
2. If the Laboratory remains in NOS, it should have its own line
item in the NOS/NCCOS budget. This will prevent NOS/NCCOS from
continually bleeding the Lab of money and positions.
3. And my most preferred recommendation is to move the Beaufort
Laboratory back to the National Marine Fisheries Service, where it
spent its first 100 years. I cannot believe that NMFS agreed up front
to this proposed closure. The impact to their programs is too great. It
would be interesting to know if a paper trail exits between NOS and
NMFS on this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of Michelle Duval, Morehead City, North Carolina
As a resident of Carteret County and a fisheries management
professional engaged at both the State and Federal levels, I want to
express my opposition to the proposed closure of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Lab. The lab has a rich
history of conducting a wide variety marine science research. There are
significant collaborations that occur between the Beaufort Lab and
academic institutions in the area that inform the science used for
management. Closure of the Beaufort Lab would eliminate those
collaborations, simply due to the fact that those researchers will not
be in close proximity to one another. Having received my doctorate in
1997 from the Duke Marine Lab, which shares Pivers Island with the NOAA
Beaufort Lab, I have witnessed these collaborations firsthand. However,
I wanted to express a few very specific concerns regarding fisheries
science and long term fiscal impacts of the lab closure that merit
consideration. (Please note that I am not an employee of the Beaufort
Lab).
1. Impacts to fishery-independent surveys.--Most of the federally-
managed fish species in the southeast are considered ``data poor'' when
compared to other regions, particularly the snapper grouper complex.
Information collected through fishery-independent surveys (i.e.,
surveys that do not rely on commercial and recreational catches) is
critical to filling in knowledge gaps regarding species distribution,
abundance, longevity and reproduction--essential elements for a stock
assessment. There is only one fishery-independent survey for snapper
grouper species in the southeast, and its geographic range has always
been limited by available resources. Only since 2010 have the necessary
staff resources been allocated to the Beaufort Lab to expand the
northern range of this survey from just south of Cape Lookout, North
Carolina north to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (as well as add a video
monitoring component to the survey). Closing the lab and relocating the
staff would set this program back substantially through survey
interruption and re-hiring of staff with the appropriate skills to
replace those unable to relocate.
2. Impacts to fisheries stock assessments.--It has taken 10 years
to build the necessary analytical capacity at the Beaufort Lab to
conduct much-needed stock assessments for commercially and
recreationally important fishes in the southeast. These scientists work
together as a team in completing assessments; they also work side by
side with the survey scientists mentioned above, as well as the
scientists who process the biological samples collected to provide
information critical for the assessments. The ability for the
assessment team to interact directly with the other teams of scientists
collecting the data is invaluable. Closing the Beaufort Lab and
relocating personnel would have significant negative impacts on the
efficiency and productivity of the process, at a time when the demands
have never been greater. It will not be possible to relocate all
personnel to a single location, and the fact is that not all personnel
will be able to relocate due to spousal commitments, childcare
obligations, etc. The existing team of assessment scientists are
nationally and internationally respected and not easily replaced. Loss
of specialized skill sets that have taken years to acquire is a very
real risk.
3. Downstream fiscal impacts.--Closure of the lab and relocation
of staff will have significant downstream fiscal impacts that do not
appear to have been taken into consideration. The development of stock
assessments in the southeast is a very collaborative process, involving
the assessment team, other State and Federal agency scientists, and
fishermen coming together in person to review and discuss data being
considered for an assessment. Moving the staff from the Beaufort Lab to
other locations (such as the NOAA lab in Pascagoula) will incur
additional travel costs in the form of bringing those staff back into
the region for stock assessments, (or transporting all other
participants to where the assessment team is located). Similarly, there
will be additional travel costs to bring fishery independent survey
staff back to cruise deployment locations; this would likely reduce the
magnitude of future sampling efforts at a time when they need to be
expanded, both spatially and temporally.
With regard to local impacts, even if all existing staff were
able and willing to relocate (which is unlikely, as noted above), the
cost of relocation and potentially buying those staff out of existing
homes is not trivial. The economy and current real estate market simply
cannot absorb such an influx of houses. At the local level, these NOAA
employees are important, year-round contributors to an economy that is
seasonally dependent on tourism.
Finally, NOAA's proposal to close the lab would leave a notable
absence in geographic coverage between Sandy Hook, New Jersey and
Miami, Florida along the Atlantic coast. This is at odds with the NOAA
presence along the Gulf of Mexico, with labs located in Panama City,
Florida; Pascagoula, Mississippi; Stennis, Mississippi; Lafayette,
Louisiana; and Galveston, Texas. This coverage along the Gulf coast
represents a much larger investment of resources over a shorter stretch
of coastline. Given the Beaufort Lab's location near the intersection
of two major biological and oceanographic convergence zones, it seems
the agency should be investing more in this facility rather than less,
particularly in light of NOAA's commitment to determining the impacts
of climate change on fisheries resources. In closing, the $54 million
figure being cited as the cost of maintaining the Beaufort Lab appears
excessive considering the condition of the facilities. While I
appreciate the administration's desire to reduce its overall footprint,
an updated maintenance estimate and comparison to similar NOAA
facilities should be considered.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on such an
important issue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Entomological Society of America
The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits
this statement for the official record in support of funding for the
National Science Foundation (NSF). ESA requests a robust fiscal year
2015 appropriation of $7.5 billion for NSF, including strong support
for the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO).
Advances in basic biological sciences, including entomology,
provide the fundamental knowledge that is the basis for overall
scientific progress and the development of new technologies and
strategies that address societal challenges related to economic growth,
security, and human health and well-being. Entomologists' basic
research on insect anatomy, classification, and genetics improves our
understanding of evolution and biodiversity. Better knowledge of insect
behavior and the dynamics of insect populations is an important
component to the study of ecosystems and the environment. Additionally,
insects play a critical role in our ability to explore the
underpinnings of biological processes at the cellular and molecular
level. Insects including Drosophila flies have long served as model
systems for animals that scientists use to study biochemistry,
microbiology, molecular biology, and toxicology, among other subjects.
In many cases, insects are ideal for use in laboratory experimentation
because they are inexpensive, easy to handle, have relatively short
life spans, and do not require special facilities required to maintain
vertebrate animals.
NSF is the only Federal agency that supports basic research across
all scientific and engineering disciplines, except for the medical
sciences. In fiscal year 2013, the foundation supported an estimated
299,000 researchers, scientific trainees, teachers, and students,
primarily through competitive grants to nearly 2,000 colleges,
universities, and other institutions in all 50 States. NSF also plays a
critical role in training the next generation of scientists and
engineers, ensuring our Nation will remain globally competitive in the
future. For example, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program
selects and supports science and engineering graduate students
demonstrating exceptional potential to succeed in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers.
Through activities of its BIO Directorate, NSF advances the
forefront of knowledge about complex biological systems at multiple
scales, from molecules and cells to organisms and ecosystems. In
addition, the directorate contributes to the support of research
resources, including important biological collections and biological
field stations. NSF BIO is also the Nation's primary funder of
fundamental research on biodiversity and environmental biology.
For example, NSF-funded researchers have recently examined the
wide-ranging effects of an ongoing bark beetle invasion which threatens
the destruction of millions of acres of forests in the Western United
States.\1\ The death of pine trees caused by bark beetles has severe
implications for the forest's canopy and water systems, and creates
conditions that favor devastating forest fires. The study has provided
new insights into how invasive insect species that damage or destroy
plants can affect entire ecosystems at the watershed scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mikkelson, KM, et al. ``Bark beetle infestation impacts on
nutrient cycling, water quality and interdependent hydrological
effects.'' Biogeochemistry (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another NSF-funded researcher \2\ is studying a phenomenon that
allows a locust to change its color depending on how densely populated
an area is with other locusts; this trait is believed to cause locust
swarms, which can be very destructive to agriculture. Migratory locust
swarms, one of the biblical plagues, continue to contribute to famine
in Africa. The current research is examining how the locusts change
their appearance, and whether these genetic traits can be manipulated
to maintain an appearance that is not conducive to forming swarms. The
results of this study could provide a new way to control locusts
without relying on chemical pesticides, which can have negative effects
on the surrounding ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CAREER: ``Evolution of locust swarms and phenotypic plasticity
in grasshoppers.'' NSF Award Abstract #1253493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One example of how NSF's support for basic research using insects
contributes to our understanding of human and animal biology is a
recent NSF-funded study on the behaviors of Drosophila vinegar
flies,\3\ which has advanced scientists' knowledge about neurobiology
of insects, animals, and humans. The results of the research may also
help inform the field of robotics; scientists believe that modeling the
functions of the insect brain can help develop algorithms able to
control robotic systems. Other NSF-funded research on Drosophila
genetics \4\ is helping scientists understand gene mutations in humans,
as humans and these tiny flies share conserved genetic similarities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ van Breugel, F, et al. ``Plume-tracking behavior of flying
Drosophila emerges from a set of distinct sensory-motor reflexes.''
Current Biology (2014).
\4\ CAREER: ``Investigating the evolution of gene regulation at
Drosophila Hox genes.'' NSF Award Abstract #0845103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given NSF's critical role in supporting fundamental research and
education across science and engineering disciplines, ESA supports an
overall fiscal year 2015 NSF budget of $7.5 billion. Within this
budget, ESA requests robust support for the NSF BIO Directorate, which
funds important research studies and biological collections, enabling
discoveries in the entomological sciences to contribute to our
understanding of environmental and evolutionary biology, physiological
and developmental systems, and molecular and cellular mechanisms.
ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest
organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs
of entomologists and individuals in related disciplines. Founded in
1889, ESA has nearly 7,000 members affiliated with educational
institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government.
Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel,
administrators, marketing representatives, research technicians,
consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of
America's support for NSF. For more information about the Entomological
Society of America, please see http://www.entsoc.org/.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) respectfully requests a fiscal year 2015 appropriation of a
minimum of $7.6 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF). This
demonstrates commitment to the critical mission of the agency and is an
important first step in returning to a model of sustainable growth.
FASEB, a federation of 26 scientific societies, represents more
than 120,000 life scientists and engineers, making it the largest
coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. Our
mission is to advance health and welfare by promoting progress and
education in biological and biomedical sciences.
Progress in science and technology is becoming increasingly
interdisciplinary, as discoveries in one field fuel progress in
another. NSF is the only Federal research agency dedicated to advancing
all fields of fundamental science and engineering. As a result, the
broad research portfolio of NSF is critical for our Nation's capacity
for innovation and essential for our prosperity, quality of life, and
national security.
The NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program awards approximately
2,500 3-year fellowships annually to outstanding graduate students
pursuing advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or
mathematics. These fellowships support the education and training of
the next generation of researchers, ensuring a robust and competitive
workforce. NSF graduate research fellows have become leaders in the
scientific community.
Of the U.S. Nobel Laureates in the sciences, 200 received NSF
funding over the course of their careers, including the 2013 prize
winners in physiology or medicine, chemistry, and economics.
Recent examples of NSF-funded research include:
--Harnessing More Solar Energy.--Researches have developed a new
material for solar panels that is cheaper, more efficient, and
can harness energy from visible and infrared light, unlike
previous materials that could only use ultraviolet light. The
new material, developed by NSF-funded researchers, increases
efficiency by absorbing and converting six times the energy of
its predecessors. Researches are currently scaling up the
prototype to a full size solar panel for implementation on the
national power grid.
--New Microscope Detects the Movement of Atoms.--NSF-funded
researchers have developed a new electron microscope that can
detect the movement of atoms and molecules. The cutting-edge
technology allows users to observe the fundamental
transformations of matter: chemical reactions and the electric
charges of interacting atoms. The new microscope has immediate
applications in the clean energy industry, development of
nanotechnology, and countless other scientific endeavors.
--Preventing Post-operative Infections.--Infection at the surgical
site is one of the most common types of post-operative
complications, which lengthens hospital stays and increases
healthcare costs. Scientists with NSF support have developed a
new antibiotic coating for surgical sutures. Lab tests have
shown that the new coating is 1,000 times more effective at
preventing infection than previous coatings, and even prevents
the spread of staphylococcus aureus, the variety of ``staph''
that frequently causes virulent post-surgical infections.
--New Storm Radar Saves Lives.--Researchers supported by NSF are
building an advanced radar network to detect severe storms
earlier. Using novel algorithms, the network can generate
information faster and with more geographic specificity,
enabling first responders to take action before a storm hits.
Researchers are currently testing the system in southwestern
Oklahoma and Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas. Once it is broadly
implemented, the system will reduce injuries, enable first
responders to be more effective, and save lives.
--Preserving Bat Colonies to Protect the Ecosystem.--Agricultural
pests cost the U.S. farm industry over $1 billion per year in
lost crop yield and additional cost of pesticide use. NSF-
funded researchers studied bat colonies in the cotton and corn
growing region of southern Texas and found that bats are
valuable to farmers because they consume insects that destroy
crops, reducing the need to use pesticides. Protecting bat
colonies in crop-growing regions will both decrease pesticide
cost to farmers and reduce the presence of chemicals on food
people eat.
maintaining global leadership
Scientific and technological advances keep our Nation
internationally competitive by spurring the innovations that fuel
economic growth. NSF's broad portfolio of fundamental research expands
the frontiers of knowledge, opening the way to these innovations.
Through its education initiatives, NSF ensures that the U.S. will
continue to have an unrivaled scientific and engineering workforce.
NSF-funded research leads to major scientific breakthroughs, many
of which provide the basic knowledge that stimulates innovation in the
private sector. We must build on prior NSF investment and provide an
adequate funding level to advance discovery, educate the next
generation of scientists and engineers, and retain our position as the
global leader in innovation. In fiscal year 2015, FASEB recommends a
minimum of $7.6 billion for the NSF. This is the level that the America
COMPETES Act authorized for the agency for 2011 and is an important
first step in returning to a model of sustainable growth.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support and
recommendations for the NSF.
______
Prepared Statement of John Fieberg, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of
Quantitative Ecology, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, Conservation
Biology, University of Minnesota
Dear Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee of Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: I recently became aware of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National
Ocean Service's (NOS) request to close the Beaufort Laboratory. Having
collaborated with scientists at the Beaufort lab, I am well aware of
the many ways the laboratory's staff contribute to NOAA's mission: they
provide state-of-the-art fishery stock assessments that help to
determine how many fish can be sustainably caught in the southeast
United States, they conduct fishery-independent surveys to collect the
data necessary for conducting informative stock assessments, and they
conduct cutting edge research aimed at improving the way we ``do''
science in support of fisheries management. In short, closing the
Beaufort lab would be a significant loss, not only for the 100-110
staff employed by the lab, but also the fishing and marine science
communities that benefit from their work. Thus, I am writing to request
that NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory closure proposed in the 2015
President's Budget Request be removed from the NOS budget.
The recommendation to close the laboratory was largely driven by
financial considerations related to the long-term cost of maintaining
the infrastructure at the laboratory. Unfortunately, this decision was
based on inaccurate, outdated information that overstated the costs of
maintaining the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory. Several recent investments in
new construction and renovations, totaling approximately $14 million
dollars, were not properly considered when making the recommendation.
Recent facility improvements include:
--2006: Administration Building replaced (with North Carolina NERRs)
--2007: Bridge replaced--cost shared with Duke University
--2008: Maintenance Building replaced
--2009: Air conditioning/Air handler replacement and mold abatement
--2009: Sample Storage/Chemical Storage/Haz-Mat buildings
consolidated and replaced
--2014: Seawall repair, electrical upgrade and State of North
Carolina funded storm water control
In addition, the NOS request underestimated the staff that would be
impacted by the closure by not including the more than 40 National
Marine Fisheries Service staff and staff members of the North Carolina
National Estuarine Research Reserve co-located at the facility.
It is surprising that the request for closure comes at a time when
the National Ocean Service is requesting an increase of $4 million in
funding for another center to support Ecological Forecasting of Harmful
Algal Blooms (HAB), Hypoxia, pathogens and Species Distributions (see
budget summary, page 8, paragraph 1). The Beaufort Laboratory has both
the expertise and facilities required to address these issues.
Researchers and research teams at the Beaufort Laboratory have
repeatedly been recognized for their work. Further, the laboratory's
excellent research capabilities and reputation also attract support,
both from other branches of NOAA and from other organizations which
have recognized potential benefits of the Laboratory's studies, and
long have augmented the support provided by NOAA.
In summary, the closing of the Beaufort Laboratory does not make
economic sense, given the recent investments in facility infrastructure
and the need to address emerging marine issues identified by the
National Ocean Service. More importantly, closing the laboratory would
have significant negative consequences for the 100-110 staff employed
by the lab and also the large fishing and marine science communities
that rely on the outstanding quality of work of the lab and its
members.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Janelle Fleming of Seahorse Coastal
Consulting, LLC and Discovery Diving Co., Inc.
In Re: Potential closing of Beaufort, North Carolina laboratory of
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries
Science Center.
Dear Committee on Appropriations Senators,
This letter is not a formal testimony, but rather a comment on how
this laboratory has guided some of my research as a student and as an
independent consultant and how essential the lab is to the functioning
of the local economy and research. You may or may not be aware of the
fact that President Obama has targeted the closing of the Beaufort
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lab as part of
the 2014-2015 budget proposal. This is the only Federal lab between
Miami, Florida and Sandy Hook, New Jersey. This lab houses over 150
scientists, technicians, and office personnel that conduct important
research locally as well as nationally and internationally.
In terms of ecology and physical oceanography, North Carolina is in
a unique position because it maintains both tropical and temperate
characteristics. During the summer, the Gulf Stream pushes up from
Florida and winds bring it close to shore, bringing it with tropical
species of algae and animals (fish, mammals, etc). During the winter,
the Greenland current pushes down from the North Atlantic and brings
the temperate species into the area. The capes also allow for a
tremendous amount of recirculation within the area and these different
species have learned to adapt to the changing currents found of the
North Carolina coast. All this is to say that North Carolina is
uniquely situated to study fisheries issues, sediment transport issues,
wind energy issues, and sea level rise issues, just to name a few. The
NOAA lab has been essential in understanding the scientific root cause
of some of the major questions about physical circulation and its role
governing the ecology of the area.
As a graduate student, I had the fortune of working with some of
the NOAA scientists on my Ph.D. project. Their advice in terms of data
collection and analysis, were pivotal in determining some of the causes
of wind-driven circulation in the Neuse River Estuary and how that
might lead to fish kills. As the scientists were down the street, I
could call them, make an appointment and meet with them that day.
Nowhere else in the world, do you get that type of interaction. In
Beaufort, we are able to do this because of the logistics.
As an independent consultant, I was able to work with Dr. Pat
Tester on Harmful Algal Blooms, both in North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia and Florida, but also in Belize. Innovative measurement and
monitoring techniques have been developed at the Beaufort NOAA lab in
conjunction with the local universities in the area, Duke University,
North Carolina State University, and University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill.
Finally, I have been collaborating with Dr. James Morris on the
Lionfish invasive species epidemic that is affect the local fisheries
in North Carolina as well as Florida and the Caribbean. We have just
recently started an experimental project that seeks to develop a
commercial fishery for the lionfish. Being able to communicate with the
researchers face to face has lead to several advancements in our
experimental techniques and furthered the studies.
In closing, when you look at this item in the President's budget
proposal, I would like you to think of three things:
1. What would the removal of a vibrant research organization do on
the ``brain drain'' within a local community, rich with university
collaboration?
2. Does it make sense to centralize and reduce the number of
laboratories that cover the coast, given that each region has their own
specific characteristics?
3. If the laboratory is closed, more money and time would be lost
in transitioning those full time Government employees to a different
laboratory and the research that they are currently working on would be
delayed 2-3 years.
Please reconsider this budget as the Beaufort NOAA lab affects
approximately $58 million into the local economy and aids in fisheries
independent research such as advanced procedures in stock assessment,
fisheries oceanographic research, and oceanic observations.
Thank you,
______
Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
summary
The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports strong and
sustained investments in earth science research and education at the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). We believe investment in these agencies is
necessary for America's future economic and science and technology
leadership, both through discoveries that are made and the talent
developed through their programs. In addition, this research addresses
such critical societal issues as energy and mineral resources, water
availability and quality, climate change, waste management, and natural
hazards. The United States faces a looming shortage of qualified
workers in these areas that are critical for national security. We are
very concerned that cuts in earth science funding will cause students
and young professionals to leave the field, potentially leading to a
lost generation of professionals in areas that are already facing
worker shortages and inhibit potential economic growth. GSA urges
Congress to provide the National Science Foundation at least $7.5
billion in fiscal year 2015.
about the geological society of america
The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
society with over 26,000 members from academia, government, and
industry in all 50 States and more than 100 countries. Through its
meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional
growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of
humankind.
As the National Science Board's recent 2014 Science & Engineering
Indicators reports, America's share of the world's R&D fell from 37
percent to 30 percent from 2001 and 2012. As other nations have been
increasing their support for long-term, high-risk research, we have
been allowing ours to stagnate or decline. We must reverse that trend
and tackle our mounting innovation deficit if we want to retain our
global economic leadership.
national science foundation
The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to provide
the National Science Foundation (NSF) at least $7.5 billion in fiscal
year 2015. GSA greatly appreciates your efforts to increase the NSF
budget in recent years. Although NSF was able to regain some of its
loss from sequestration in fiscal year 2014, GSA remains concerned
about the impact of flat and declining research budgets on our Nation's
future innovations and innovators. We feel that allowing NSF's budget
to catch up with research inflation costs over the past few years is
the first step to putting NSF back on the path necessary to maintain
and regain America's future economic and science and technology
leadership. We are concerned about the cuts to the Research and Related
Activities Account and flat funding (0.1 percent increase) in
geoscience research in the request, but appreciate that $552 million
was proposed to allow growth in the agency in the Opportunity, Growth,
and Security Initiative.
The Earth sciences are critical components of the overall science
and technology enterprise and NSF investment and should be increased.
NSF's Directorate for Geosciences supports approximately 65 percent of
all basic university research in the geosciences: the largest Federal
support for Earth science research essential for developing policies
regarding land, mineral, energy, public safety and water resources at
all levels of government. This Directorate regularly receives a large
number of exciting research proposals that are highly rated for both
their scientific merit and their broader impacts; the funding rate for
research grants dropped to 23 percent last year, leaving many
meritorious projects unfunded.
Increased investments in NSF's earth science portfolio are
necessary to address such issues as natural hazards, energy, water
resources, climate change, and education. Specific needs include:
--Natural hazards remain a major cause of fatalities and economic
losses worldwide. Several areas in the United States are
vulnerable to damages from earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes,
and landslides--as evidenced by the recent landslide in
Washington. NSF research that improves our understanding of
these geologic hazards will allow for better planning and
mitigation in these areas that will reduce future losses. We
urge Congress to support NSF investments in fundamental earth
science research that underpin basic understanding and
innovations in natural hazards monitoring and warning systems.
--Mineral resources are essential to modern civilization, and a
thorough understanding of their distribution, consequences of
their use, and the potential effects of mineral supply
disruption is important for sound public policy. The Division
of Earth Sciences supports proposals for research geared toward
improving the understanding of the structure, composition, and
evolution of the Earth and the processes that govern the
formation and behavior of the Earth's materials. This research
contributes to a better understanding of the natural
distribution of mineral and energy resources for future
exploration. In particular, GSA encourages support for research
on critical minerals, for which our Nation is dependent upon
foreign sources.
--The devastating droughts in California highlight our dependence on
water. NSF's research addresses major gaps in our understanding
of water availability, quality, and dynamics, and the impact of
both a changing and variable climate, and human activity, on
the water system. Increased public investment is needed to
improve the scientific understanding of water resources,
including improved representation of geological, biological,
and ecological systems, for informed decisionmaking.
--Forecasting the outcomes of human interactions with Earth's natural
systems, including climate change, is limited by an incomplete
understanding of geologic and environmental processes. Improved
understanding of these processes in Earth's deep-time history
can increase confidence in the ability to predict future states
and enhance the prospects for mitigating or reversing adverse
impacts to the planet and its inhabitants.
national aeronautics and space administration
GSA supports earth science and planetary exploration research at
NASA and is concerned about cuts in the fiscal year 2015 request,
although increases are proposed in the Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative. This research is important to understand the
evolution of Earth; to deepen and expand human understanding of our
place in the universe; to reinforce science, technology, engineering
and math (STEM) education and effective training of the next generation
of scientists; to increase U.S. competitiveness in science and
technology development; and to enhance the quality of life through
technological innovation. In addition, the discoveries and technologies
of these programs form the basis of many industries and partnerships
that drive economic growth.
Planetary missions at NASA are designed to collect data to better
understand the history and workings of the entire solar system, to gain
insight into the formation and evolution of Earth and the other
planets, to understand how life began on Earth, and to determine
whether extraterrestrial habitable environments and life forms exist
(or ever did exist) elsewhere in the solar system or beyond. To support
these missions, planetary scientists engage in both terrestrial field
studies and Earth observation to examine geologic features and
processes that are common on other planets, such as impact structures,
volcanic constructs, tectonic structures, and glacial and fluvial
deposits and landforms. Geochemical studies include investigations of
extraterrestrial materials now on Earth, including lunar samples, tens
of thousands of meteorites, cosmic dust particles, and, most recently,
particles returned from comets and asteroids.
Exploration of other planets in the solar system requires major
national and international initiatives, significant funding levels, and
long timelines for mission planning and collaborative research. For
scientists, the funding cycle is much shorter than typical mission
cycles, and in particular, graduate student and career-development
timelines are much shorter than mission timeframes. Therefore, the
growth and continued development of a robust workforce capable of
conducting complex space missions and analyzing the scientific data
returned from such missions does not depend on individual missions as
much as it depends upon a consistent, sustained program that educates
and develops planetary scientists.
GSA supports NASA earth observing systems, including Landsat, and
their research into our planet. By providing adequate resources to
maintain current and develop next-generation satellites, the Nation
will continue to have access to data that is used by diverse
stakeholders ranging from farmers to water managers to make critical
decisions.
support needed to educate future innovations and innovators
Research in Earth science and geoscience education is fundamental
to training the next generation of Earth science professionals. The
United States faces a looming shortage of qualified workers in these
areas that are critical for national security. We are very concerned
that cuts in earth science funding will cause students and young
professionals to leave the field, potentially leading to a lost
generation of professionals in areas that are already facing worker
shortages.
A 2013 report by the National Research Council, ``Emerging
Workforce Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to
Action,'' found, ``Energy and mineral resources are essential for the
Nation's fundamental functions, its economy, and its security . . . In
mining (nonfuel and coal) a personnel crisis for professionals and
workers is pending and it already exists for faculty.''
Another recent study, ``Status of the Geoscience Workforce 2011,''
by the American Geosciences Institute found: ``The supply of newly
trained geoscientists falls short of geoscience workforce demand and
replacement needs. . . . aggregate job projections are expected to
increase by 35 percent between 2008 and 2018. . . . The majority of
geoscientists in the workforce are within 15 years of retirement age.
By 2030, the unmet demand for geoscientists in the petroleum industry
will be approximately 13,000 workers for the conservative demand
industry estimate.''
Increased NSF and NASA investments in earth science education at
all levels to meet these needs and develop an informed electorate.
Knowledge of the earth sciences is essential to science literacy and to
meeting the environmental and resource challenges of the twenty-first
century. NSF's Education and Human Resources Directorate researches and
improves the way we teach science and provide research and fellowship
opportunities for students to encourage them to continue in the
sciences. Similarly, NASA's educational programs have inspired and led
many into science careers.
Please contact GSA Director for Geoscience Policy Kasey White at
kwhite@geosociety.org for additional information or to learn more about
the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position Statements on
water resources, planetary research, energy and mineral resources,
natural hazards, climate change, and public investment in earth science
research.
______
Prepared Statement of John J. Govoni, Ph.D., Ecological Consultant
In the President's Budget request for 2015, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS),
proposes to close the NOAA Laboratory located in Beaufort, North
Carolina (reference the President's fiscal year 2015 Budget for NOS,
Coastal Science, Assessment, Response and Restoration: NOAA Blue Book,
page 8). The reasons given are cost savings by closing an aged
facility. The request does not, however, cite dollar amounts that would
be incurred with closure, and ignores the $14 million dollars recently
invested in infrastructure replacements and refurbishments at the
Beaufort Laboratory. The United States Government can ill-afford to
close the Beaufort Laboratory, as proposed in the President's fiscal
year 2015 budget request.
The Beaufort Laboratory located in Beaufort, North Carolina, was
formerly named the U.S. Fisheries Commission Laboratory at Beaufort and
the Beaufort Laboratory of the NOAA--National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), and is now formally named the NOAA, NOS, Center for Coastal
Fisheries and Habitat Research (CCFHR). It is the second oldest Federal
marine research Laboratory in the U.S. For the past 115 years, the
Beaufort Laboratory has served the Nation by providing timely and much
needed research products used to guide the effective management of the
Nation's natural resources. The Beaufort Laboratory has gained
prominent recognition, reputation, and credibility both nationally and
internationally. It is the only Federal, coastal ocean, research
laboratory between New Jersey and Miami, Florida.
The Beaufort Laboratory operates research programs within three
different NOAA components: NOS, NMFS, and the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System (NERRS). No consideration of NMFS or NERRS
operations, given the proposed closure, is reflected in the President's
budget request for NOS fiscal year 2015. If enacted, the closure
proposed to begin as early as October 2014, will have severe impacts on
the multiple programs of NMFS, NOS, and NEERS.
Curiously, in the same budget proposal, NOAA requests an increase
of $4 million to support ecological forecasting. With this increase,
NOAA and NOS' National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) will
develop and implement ecological forecasts for harmful algal blooms
HABs), hypoxia, marine pathogens, and marine species distributions.
Ironically, at the same time it is proposing to close the Beaufort
Laboratory; the Beaufort Laboratory has well-established expertise and
facilities required to address many of those very same issues, and is
currently doing so. Closure of the Beaufort Laboratory would be
operationally and fiscally irresponsible.
The laboratory currently employs nationally and internationally
known scientists, who are providing essential and necessary support for
the resolution of other national issues (NOS). These issues include:
the impacts of invasive species on marine ecological communities;
ecological forecasting of the condition of habitats and ecosystems that
support many commercially and recreationally exploited species; harmful
algal blooms that can and do impact human health; and aquaculture
planning and sustainability for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Gulf
of Mexico, Caribbean (U.S. possessions), and the Hawaiian archipelago.
The Beaufort Laboratory also supports efforts at recovery from oil
spills, coral reefs, and sea-grass beds, and the restoration of the
Nation's shorelines and marshes. The Beaufort Laboratory's excellent
research capabilities and reputation have attracted, and continue to
attract, support from other branches of NOAA, from other Federal
Organizations, and from non-governmental organizations (NGO's) that
have long recognized the benefits provided by the Beaufort Laboratory.
This inter-agency cooperation, and the efficiency that this cooperation
provides, would be lost with closure.
The Beaufort Laboratory (NMFS) conducts fish stock assessments for
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Caribbean Fisheries
Management council, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Council, and the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. These are all
organizations mandated by Federal Law. The support of management
councils and Commissions provided by the Beaufort Laboratory would be
lost with the closure of the Beaufort Laboratory. Closure is thus
organizationally irresponsible.
The Beaufort Laboratory currently employs 71 Federal employees and
33.5 contractors. Some of the Federal employees could be relocated, but
contract employees would lose their jobs. Further, the cost of
relocating permanent Federal employees is not accounted for in the
President's budget request. Eight North Carolina State employees work
at the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Research Reserve (a reserve
within the NERRS System) headquartered at the Beaufort Laboratory. The
impacts to the employees, their families, and the local community have
not been evaluated in the proposed budget request. Thus, closure would
be an embarrassment to a Government committed to increasing job
opportunities and supporting economic recovery.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2015 cites the age of the
Beaufort Laboratory and the need for infrastructure repairs and
improvements that exceed agency budget resources. Considerable tax
dollars have been invested in renovating the Beaufort Laboratory;
dollars invested toward this end since 2006 currently approach $14
million. A new administration building, that serves not only NOS and
NMFS operations at the Beaufort Laboratory, but also the North
Carolina, Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Coastal Management and the Rachael Carson, has been constructed, and
has been in operation for 10 years. A new Bridge that accesses Pivers
Island--both the Beaufort Laboratory and the Duke University Marine
Laboratory--has been constructed and is in operation. A new Maintenance
Facility has been constructed. A new scientific collection storage
building has been constructed. Storm-water drainage systems have been
constructed. The seawall that surrounds the Federal half of Pivers
Island is currently being renovated. Yet, the two extant, old
structures that remain have been renovated and are fully functional and
operable. Further, the Beaufort Laboratory contains a large and diverse
array of valuable scientific equipment that cannot be maintained or
effectively used with the loss of support staff. The large Government
investment in facilities and equipment would be wasted should the
Beaufort Laboratory close. Closure would be fiscally irresponsible.
With the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request, NOAA proposes
to shift the funding to the Washington, District of Columbia area,
which is among the most expensive locations nationally: this is not
cost effective! The cost of providing laboratory and office space at
Beaufort is cheaper than most other coastal areas of the United States.
In addition, the District of Columbia area has no access to the marine
environments represented at Beaufort, and District of Columbia does not
have the laboratory space and equipment to replace what would be lost
with the closure of the Beaufort Laboratory.
Since taking over the Beaufort Laboratory from the NMFS in 1998-99,
NOS has withdrawn support and drained resources. There has been an
approximate 45 percent reduction in NOS staff over the past 9 years and
a concomitant approximate 35 percent reduction in funding. This steady
withdrawal of support is inexplicable, counter-productive to NOAA's
mission, and unwarranted.
I urge this subcommittee to oppose the proposed closure of the
Beaufort Laboratory when Congress considers the 2015 Appropriations
Bill. I urge this subcommittee to encourage Congress to inform NOAA
that requests for closure of the Beaufort Laboratory will not be
entertained in the future, and that Congress should direct NOAA to
restore the Beaufort Laboratory staffing, operational support, and
research funding. I urge the U.S. Congress to restore budget line-item
appropriations for the Beaufort Laboratory.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIFWC)
agency involved
Department of Justice.
program involved
COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP) Hiring and Equipment/
Training Program under the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation
(CTAS).
summary of glifwc's fiscal year 2015 testimony
GLIFWC appreciates the increase of $3.5 million proposed by the
Administration for the Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP), providing
a total of $20 million for this critical program. The TRGP has enabled
GLIFWC to solidify its communications, training, and equipment
requirements, essential to ensuring the safety of GLIFWC officers and
their role in the proper functioning of interjurisdictional emergency
mutual assistance networks in the treaty ceded territories. GLIFWC also
supports the administration's recommendation to dedicate $15 million in
COPS Hiring funds for hiring new law enforcement officers in tribal
communities. This program currently allows GLIFWC to maintain one
additional Conservation Enforcement Officer as well as to provide vital
training and equipment for all its Officers.
ceded territory treaty rights and glifwc's role
GLIFWC was established in 1984 as a ``tribal organization'' within
the meaning of the Indian Self-Determination Act (PL 93-638). It
exercises authority delegated by its member tribes to implement Federal
court orders and various interjurisdictional agreements related to
their treaty rights. GLIFWC assists its member tribes in:
--securing and implementing treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish,
and gather in Chippewa treaty ceded territories; and
--cooperatively managing, restoring and protecting ceded territory
natural resources and their habitats.
For over 25 years, Congress and various administrations have funded
GLIFWC through the BIA, the Department of Justice and other agencies to
meet specific Federal obligations under: (a) a number of U.S./Chippewa
treaties; (b) the Federal trust responsibility; (c) the Indian Self-
Determination Act, the Clean Water Act, and other legislation; and (d)
various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case, that
affirm the treaty rights of GLIFWC's member tribes. Under the direction
of its member tribes, GLIFWC operates a ceded territory hunting,
fishing, and gathering rights protection/implementation program through
its staff of biologists, scientists, technicians, conservation
enforcement officers, and public information specialists.
community-based policing
GLIFWC's officers carry out their duties through a community-based
policing program. The underlying premise is that effective detection
and deterrence of illegal activities, as well as education of the
regulated constituents, are best accomplished if the officers work
within the tribal communities they primarily serve. The officers are
based in reservation communities of the following member tribes: in
Wisconsin--Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Red Cliff,
Sokaogon Chippewa (Mole Lake) and St. Croix; in Minnesota--Mille Lacs;
and in Michigan--Bay Mills, Keweenaw Bay and Lac Vieux Desert. To
develop mutual trust between GLIFWC officers and tribal communities,
officers provide outdoor skills workshops and safety classes (hunter,
boater, snowmobile, ATV) to 300 tribal youth in grades 4-8 annually.
GLIFWC's officers also actively participate in summer and winter youth
outdoor activity camps, kids fishing events, workshops on canoe safety
and rice stick carving, and seminars on trapping and archery/bow
safety. GLIFWC officers also work to support drug and alcohol
prevention efforts in the Lac du Flambeau school system by sponsoring a
snowshoe making workshop for tribal youth.
GLIFWC's member tribes realize it is critical to build
relationships between tribal youth and law enforcement officers as a
means of combatting gang recruitment and drug/alcohol abuse in
reservation communities. GLIFWC is taking a pro-active approach to
support these efforts and obtained fiscal year 2013 Department of
Justice (DOJ) funding to hire a Youth Outreach Officer. Over the next 3
years, this Officer will work to improve and expand youth outdoor
recreation activities in partnership with the other GLIFWC officers.
The program's goal is to build and expand these relationships to help
prevent violations of tribal off-reservation codes, improve public
safety and promote an outdoor lifestyle as an alternative to a
lifestyle characterized by youth gangs \1\ and substance abuse.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth population
is more affected by gang involvement than any other racial population.
15 percent of AI/AN youth are involved with gangs compared to 8 percent
of Latino youth and 6 percent of African American youth nationally.
(National Council on Crime and Delinquency: Glesmann, C., Krisberg,
B.A., & Marchionna, S., 2009).
\2\ 22.9 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth
aged 12 and older report alcohol use, 18.4 percent report binge
drinking and 16.0 percent report substance dependence or abuse. In the
same group, 35.8 percent report tobacco use and 12.5 percent report
illicit drug use. (2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary
of National Findings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
interaction with law enforcement agencies
GLIFWC's officers are integral members of regional emergency
services networks in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. They not only
enforce the tribes' conservation codes, but are fully certified
officers who work cooperatively with surrounding authorities when they
detect violations of State or Federal criminal and conservation laws.
These partnerships evolved from the inter-governmental cooperation
required to combat the violence experienced during the early
implementation of treaty rights in Wisconsin. As time passed, GLIFWC's
professional officers continued to provide a bridge between local law
enforcement and many rural Indian communities.
GLIFWC remains at this forefront, using DOJ funding to develop
interjurisdictional legal training attended by GLIFWC officers, tribal
police and conservation officers, tribal judges, tribal and county
prosecutors, and State and Federal agency law enforcement staff. DOJ
funding has also enabled GLIFWC to certify its officers as medical
emergency first responders trained in the use of defibrillators, and to
train them in search and rescue, particularly in cold water rescue
techniques. When a crime is in progress or emergencies occur, local,
State, and Federal law enforcement agencies look to GLIFWC's officers
as part of the mutual assistance networks. In fact, the role of
GLIFWC's officers in these networks was further legitimized in 2007 by
the passage of Wisconsin Act 27, which affords GLIFWC wardens the same
statutory safeguards and protections that are afforded to their
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) counterparts. GLIFWC wardens will
now have access to the criminal history database and other information
to identify whom they are encountering in the field so that they can
determine whether they are about to face a fugitive or some other
dangerous individual.
DOJ has acknowledged that, ``[t]he officer-to-population ratio
still remains lower on Indian reservations than in other jurisdictions
across the country. . . . tribal law enforcement has a unique challenge
of patrolling large areas of sparsely populated land'' (DOJ 2014 Budget
Summary--Public Safety in Indian Country). GLIFWC's participation in
mutual assistance networks located throughout a 60,000 square mile
region directly addresses this problem in an effective and cost
efficient manner.
glifwc programs funded by doj
GLIFWC recognizes that adequate communications, training, and
equipment are essential both for the safety of its officers and for the
role that GLIFWC's officers play in the mutual assistance networks in
the ceded territories. GLIFWC's COPS grants have provided a critical
foundation for achieving these goals. Significant accomplishments with
Tribal Resources Grant Program funds include: (1) assisting the Apostle
Island National Lakeshore in protecting 138,000 recent ice caves
visitors on Lake Superior; (2) working in partnership with the United
States Forest Service to combat illegal marijuana grow sites on public
lands; and (3) participating in drug sweeps held on the Lac du Flambeau
and the Menominee reservations that required large numbers of law
enforcement officers to coordinate arrests simultaneously.
Increased Versatility and Improving Public Safety.--Bayfield County
is the third largest county in Wisconsin, covering 2,042 square miles,
yet it possesses a population of only 15,014 residents.\3\ This vast,
rural county is located on the shores of Lake Superior and contains the
Apostle Island National Lakeshore, which typically hosts 150,000
visitors throughout an entire year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2010 census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2014, the cold winter and multi-media technology resulted in a
dramatic increase in visitors to the ice caves at the Lakeshore.
Suddenly, law enforcement needed to provide safety for the 138,000
unexpected visitors who walked over a mile onto Lake Superior to view
the ice caves. The National Park Service and local law enforcement
quickly became overwhelmed with the large volume of visitors and
requested GLIFWC assistance. GLIFWC responded with certified law
enforcement officers trained in emergency ice rescue and wilderness
first aid. Officers were also equipped with snowmobiles for patrol and
emergency response. GLIFWC's incident command center trailer was used
to provide a base for enforcement activities at the site and a 20-foot
airboat was on standby to respond to medical emergencies. It was the
COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program that provided training for GLIFWC
officers and funding to purchase the snowmobiles, the incident command
center trailer, and the 20-foot airboat.
Partnerships combat illegal marijuana grow sites on public lands.--
With Federal, State and local law enforcement partners, GLIFWC officers
have provided assistance in efforts to intervene in cannabis
cultivation operations. Over the past 3 years, GLIFWC wardens have
participated in three raids of such operations located on public land
within treaty ceded territories, including: (1) an interagency cannabis
arrest of 5 individuals in Ashland county and the destruction of 9,400
plants in 2011; (2) an interagency cannabis arrest of 6 individuals in
Langlade County and the destruction of 9,000 plants in 2012; and (3)
joint grid patrols with the assistance of National Guard helicopters
that identified 2 grow sites in 2013. In 2013, GLIFWC officers also
participated in closing down an outdoor cannabis cultivation operation
on the Menominee Reservation, resulting in the destruction of 1000
plants and 2 arrests. GLIFWC has used DOJ COPS funding to provide
equipment and tactical training to its wardens to enhance their
effectiveness in these rural and heavily-wooded environments.
Operation Pandora.--In 2011, GLIFWC officers utilized the COPS
Tribal Resources Grant Program to participate in training with the
North-Central Drug Enforcement Group to expand professional
relationships and establish a foundation for cooperative initiatives to
protect officers and improve community safety. In 2013, GLIFWC officers
applied their training and participated in Operation Pandora, a multi-
agency effort that brought together 11 law enforcement agencies from
seven counties. Approximately 40 officers and agents participated in
early morning raids at local residences on the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation, serving seven search warrants from an ongoing
investigation into synthetic and prescription drug trafficking on the
reservation. The operation resulted in 35 arrests.
Looking to the Future.--In 2014, GLIFWC applied to the DOJ TRGP
program for $301,071 to: (1) continue participation in the North-
Central Drug Enforcement Group and train GLIFWC officers to identify
and safely control those suspected of using synthetic drugs; (2)
purchase Tasers to improve officer safety; (3) provide training to
maintain law enforcement, first aid, and emergency rescue
certifications; (4) support interagency efforts to control illegal
cannabis cultivation operations on public lands within the 1836, 1837
and 1842 Chippewa ceded territories with training in human tracking
skills and the purchase of night vision equipment; and (5) provide
officers with trucks, boats and ATV's to improve and increase community
policing efforts through safety programs. TRGP resources will allow
GLIFWC conservation officers to conduct essential cooperative
conservation, law enforcement, outreach, and emergency response
activities. We ask Congress to support the DOJ COPS TRGP program at no
less than its proposed fiscal year 2015 level.
______
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Hansen, Madison, Wisconsin
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to discuss the proposed closure of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Laboratory
located in Beaufort, North Carolina. The lab is part of the Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and houses
employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Ocean Service (NOS), and National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR).
I urge the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
removed from the NOS budget. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees
from NMFS, NOS, and NERR. The costs associated with upkeep and
maintenance of the lab were inaccurate and outdated in the NOAA
explanation of budgetary items. There were mistakes in the number of
employees at the facility and incorrect calculations used to detail the
budget item. In the past several years, several activities have been
completed to keep the facility in good working condition including the
replacement of the administration building and maintenance building,
replacement of the bridge to the facility, seawall repair, improvements
to the air conditioning, and other improvements, which totaled
approximately $14 million. Finally, an updated engineering report
(2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science that has produced many well
known scientists. The Beaufort Lab has a good reputation for advancing
science in population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic
menhaden biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms;
hypoxia; pathogens; and snapper and grouper species. NOAA has
repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research teams, and the
Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of scientific work
completed. Several of the area fisheries labs have located in Beaufort
due to the NOAA lab including Duke Marine Lab, North Carolina Division
of Marine Fisheries, the Center for Marine Sciences and Technology
(CMAST), and the Institute of Marine Science. The NOAA Beaufort
Laboratory is the center of productive fisheries science informing
fisheries management for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and is currently
the only NMFS lab between Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and Miami, Florida.
Specific items of note from each line office include:
nmfs
Stock Assessment Science
--The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science
that determines how many fish can be caught in the southeast
United States.
The stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory
focuses on marine fish populations that are ecologically and
economically vital to the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper
and pelagic species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, Atlantic menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Commercial landings from the South
Atlantic have been valued at $176.5 million, supporting a centuries-old
cultural way of life, and saltwater recreational fishing in this region
tops the Nation for its economic impact on sales and jobs (East Florida
and North Carolina generate $5.3 billion and 47,000 jobs). Atlantic
menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S. east coast, and Gulf
menhaden support the largest fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, with a
combined value of $127.7 million.
Fishery-Independent Surveys
--Fishery-independent surveys collect data on fish populations for
stock assessments and research, using standardized sampling
gears and methodologies.
The Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey (SEFIS), run out of the
NOAA Beaufort lab, collects annual information on the abundance,
distribution, sizes, and ages of economically-important reef fish
species like groupers and snappers on the U.S. East Coast between North
Carolina and Florida. Using fish traps and underwater video, SEFIS
determines whether reef fish species are increasing or decreasing in
abundance so fish stocks can be managed with much greater certainty.
The SEFIS staff has developed a close working relationship with
fishermen in the Carolinas due to their co location in Beaufort, North
Carolina. NOAA's Beaufort Lab is ideally situated, centered in the
middle of substantial commercial and recreational fishing industries
and a thriving marine science community. If the SEFIS staff was forced
to move out of their survey region, ties with the fishing industry and
the marine science community would be effectively severed, ultimately
resulting in a significant disconnect between the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the communities to which they serve.
nerr
Impacts of Closure to the Reserve-Strategic Location and Facility
for the Reserve:
--North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
Reserve staff (7) are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort
Lab, which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
--In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . . $5,000,000 for the
Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
Estuarine Research Reserve.'' (Public Law 107-77, See S. Rept.
107-42, p. 106-108.) $1.32 million was invested in NOAA ($1.28
million) and State funds ($42,046) for the construction of a
joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's
mission.
--The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
Education Program activities.
--The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
conduct mission-critical programming including educational
programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
programs, and stewardship of the site including species
monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
access point maintenance.
Reserve Activities at the NOAA Beaufort Lab, 2008-2013
Education
K-12 field trips
-- 177 educational programs
-- 4947 participants
Teacher workshops
-- 28 teacher workshops
-- 412 participants
Summer camps
-- 109 camp sessions
-- 921 participants
Summer public field trips
-- 96 field trips
-- 1123 participants
Stewardship
Volunteer service at the Rachel Carson Reserve
-- 1170 volunteers
-- 2873 volunteer hours
Site management
-- The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from
which to manage the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close
proximity to the Reserve site, location on calm inland
waters, and boat launching facilities. Additionally, many
NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the Rachel
Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional
perspectives that are valuable to Reserve research and
management.
Research
Research permits
-- 31 research permits issued for research conducted at
the Rachel Carson Reserve
Water quality monitoring
-- Water quality inventory and monitoring stations at
Middle Marsh and Shackleford Banks, in partnership with the
National Park Service
Coastal Training Program
Coastal Training Program workshops
-- 31 workshops
-- 1076 participants
nos
NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
University partners to educate the public about the real facts
concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood. Beaufort staff
have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
anxiety regarding seafood safety.
In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
poor choice scientifically, economically, and would leave a large part
of the east coast without the science that they deserve. The numbers
used to estimate the costs of maintaining the facility in good working
order were incorrectly estimated and inaccurate numbers of current
employees were provided for the budget. In addition, the Federal
Government has invested in this laboratory over the long-term, and to
close it now would be a gross misuse of Government resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Craig A. Harms, D.V.M., Ph.D.; Diplomate,
American College of Zoological Medicine; Associate Professor,
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and
Center for Marine Sciences and Technology
Dear Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies: In reference to the proposed closure of the National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Laboratory in Beaufort, North
Carolina, I urge you to ensure that does not occur. Closure of the NOAA
Beaufort Laboratory would be a considerable blow to the marine sciences
and education hub of Carteret County. With it's over 100 years of
history, the NOAA Laboratory has been a catalyst for attracting
excellent scientists and other marine science laboratories, and
conducting important research on harmful algal toxins, invasive
species, protected species, and stock assessments critical to fishery
management decisions. The close aggregation of a slew of top flight
marine laboratory and education facilities in Carteret County
(including the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory, Duke Marine Laboratory,
University of North Carolina (UNC) Institute of Marine Sciences, North
Carolina State University (NCSU) Center for Marine Sciences and
Technology, North Carolina Aquarium at Pine Knoll Shores, North
Carolina Maritime Museum, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries,
Carteret Community College Aquaculture Program, North Carolina
SeaGrant) at the convergence of major marine life zones, is a
tremendous asset. As determined by a recent American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) study of the University of North
Carolina System marine laboratories in North Carolina, the programs of
these multiple facilities are not duplicative, but rather are
synergistic. The loss of the NOAA Laboratory would weaken all aspects
of scientific productivity, marine education, and the economic driver
of marine sciences community.
I moved to Morehead City in 2000 to take up a position at the NCSU
Center for Marine Sciences and Technology (CMAST) as soon as it opened.
As the only full time faculty member from the College of Veterinary
Medicine based at CMAST, people wondered just what a veterinarian would
be doing at a marine laboratory. There has been no shortage of
veterinary applications to marine science to keep me busy. Much of my
work has been shaped by collaborations with scientists at the NOAA
Beaufort Laboratory, particularly at the outset working with scientists
in the protected species division of the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) on sea turtles and marine mammals, but extending to work
on invasive lionfish and development of mariculture. Collaborating with
the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory has lead to far flung collaborations
including participating in the sea turtle rescue response to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, follow-up monitoring of dolphin health in
the Gulf of Mexico, and work with the International Whaling Commission
improving humane responses to large whale live stranding events, among
others.
There are things that a Federal facility can do that academic and
nonprofit institutions are less well equipped to handle. An example was
a mass stranding of pilot whales on the Outer Banks in January 2005.
Having the direct links in Washington both within NOAA and with other
relevant Federal agencies was essential for timely information exchange
as the response and investigation transpired. The area academic and
State agencies could not have managed that response nearly so well
without those links.
Commercial fishermen with whom I served on the Sea Turtle Advisory
Committee of the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission have
similarly expressed concern about the possible closure of the NOAA
Beaufort Laboratory. As much as they bristle at the regulatory arm of
NOAA, they appreciate good science on fisheries stocks for framing the
debates on management decisions. Because of the productive
collaborations NOAA scientist have formed with commercial fishermen
over the years, on both commercial fisheries species and protected
species research, fishers know that NOAA Beaufort Laboratory scientists
will produce good science with unbiased results, to the extent their
resources allow. A recent intent to sue by commercial fishing groups
against the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), and NOAA, seeks to
require carrying out a stock assessment for sea turtles in North
Carolina. The eventual outcome of that legal action is of course an
open question, but if an effective and valid stock assessment of sea
turtles is to be carried out, it would be nearly impossible without the
people, expertise, and facilities currently in place at the NOAA
Beaufort Laboratory, and trying to create that capacity from scratch
would be prohibitive.
With offshore energy exploration and development proposed off of
the North Carolina coast, both fossil fuels and wind, having a Federal
marine science laboratory on site will be vital to monitor effects and
to facilitate responses to adverse events if necessary. This is not the
time to close down a venerable and vital marine science research
facility in this area of critical biogeographic and economic
importance.
______
Prepared Statement of Patricia Harms, Morehead City, North Carolina
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies:
The Atlantic ocean off our East Coast is an irreplaceable treasure
which requires our attention and care. The closure of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory in Beaufort,
North Carolina would be a tragic loss to the vital research it
contributes on coastal and ocean issues. Please take this proposed
closure out of the National Ocean Service (NOS) budget.
I cannot believe siphoning off projects to non-agency scientists
could have the value we have right here, right now. Do look at the
quality research that has come from the Beaufort NOAA Laboratory. This
lab is in an excellent location, the only lab between New Jersey and
Florida, collaborating with Duke University, North Carolina State, and
University of North Carolina marine scientists. all of whom have
facilities in Beaufort and Morehead City. They do work together which
multiplies their value. With concerns over climate change and sea level
rise, it would seem of even more importance to support NOAA in its
present location. Hurricanes and weather related issues are also of
great concern to our maritime and coastal areas. A number of ventures
proposed off our coast such as sonic testing, oil exploration, and wind
turbines will require monitoring of their effects on the ocean and its
inhabitants. I would expect NOAA to be necessary to these and other
possible changes in the ocean and in the estuaries
It is true that we have tourism and beaches, but marine science is
of great importance to our economy as well. Residents and tourists are
very attuned to the work of marine scientists in the area. Volunteers
walk the beaches to spot sea turtle nest sites, our citizens know that
their observations of the ocean and sea life are important. We also
have the Aquarium in Pine Knoll Shores, a renowned Maritime Museum in
Beaufort, the Rachel Carson Reserve, and the Beasley Sea Turtle
Hospital nearby, which relies on NOAA and other marine science
institutions here. Both commercial and recreational fishermen also
depend on NOAA. It has been averred that maintaining the lab would
require too much in infrastructure costs, but according to more recent
appraisals this is not the case. There is an 2014 engineering report
listing improvements that have been made. The loss of the NOAA lab in
Beaufort would be a serious blow to the area and to the country.
The NOAA lab in Beaufort should be supported and expanded, not
removed.
______
Prepared Statement of Howard F. Horton, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of
Fisheries, Oregon State University
Dear Senators:
This letter is to urge you to remove the closure of the Beaufort
Laboratory in North Carolina from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA's) National Ocean Service's budget request. I have
had a long association with colleagues in the Beaufort Laboratory and
consider their work to be essential to protecting and enhancing our
marine species and their environment in coastal areas nationwide.
In particular, their pioneering work in developing methods to
detect the presence of and to assess the impacts of toxic marine algae
is vital to the production of our marine fauna and for the safety of
human and other affected birds, fish and animals. This important
research has application throughout the northern and southern
hemispheres and is not duplicated elsewhere. To stop this activity
would be a major setback to our knowledge and management of toxic
marine algae.
In addition, the location of the laboratory fosters valuable
research on sustainable fisheries; conservation of sea turtles,
dolphins, seagrass estuaries, and offshore reefs; invasive species; and
changes in climate and sea levels. These studies facilities and support
research affecting not just North Carolina, but the East and West
Coasts of the U.S. including Alaska.
Furthermore, the laboratory provides employment for approximately
108 scientists and staff to conduct this much needed research and their
presence contributes over $58 million to the local economy.
From the standpoint of its unique location, the cadre of excellent
scientists producing much needed cutting edge science, and their
contribution toward conserving our natural marine resources, I urge you
to help support existence of this valuable research facility and its
associated personnel.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Donald E. Hoss, Beaufort, North Carolina
Dear subcommittee members: My name is Don Hoss and I am writing
this letter to strongly oppose the request by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Ocean Service (NOS) to close
the NOAA NOS/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) laboratory in
Beaufort, North Carolina (NOAA fiscal year budget summary, page 8,
paragraph 3) because of the long-erm cost of maintaining the facility.
I was employed at the Beaufort Laboratory from 1958 until my retirement
in 2002. I spent my last years as Director of the Laboratory, so I am
familiar with the physical condition of the facility. I also know of
its importance to the marine science community and the local and
national community in general. The Beaufort Laboratory is the second
oldest Federal Fisheries Laboratory in the United States dating to
1899. It was located at Beaufort because of the unique marine and
estuarine ecosystem adjacent to the North Carolina coast. It is
recognized as one of the most respected fisheries laboratories in this
country, and in countries around the world, for the quality of its
research on marine issues that affect the economy of sport and
commercial fisheries, and the health of the marine waters of the United
States.
Statements have been made that this ``aging facility'' requires
infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the Beaufort
Laboratory is the second oldest Federal fisheries laboratory in the
country does not mean that it is operating out of a 19th century
facility. Only two building on the facility dates to the late 1950's
and it has had many renovations over the years. In 1963 a new two story
laboratory was built and it was completely renovated in 1993-94. In
recent years NOAA has invested approximately $14 million in new
construction and renovations at the laboratory. A new administration
building has been constructed with space for the North Carolina
National Estuarine Research Reserve Program. The bridge to Pivers
Island (cost shared with Duke Marine Laboratory) has been replaced and
a new chemical storage building has been built. Other improvements
include air conditioning/air handler replacement and mold abatement as
well as seawall repair, electrical upgrade and State of North Carolina
funded storm water control. An updated engineering report in 2014
documented that the Beaufort facility is NOT unsound.
In their closure request the National Ocean Service understated the
number of Beaufort Laboratory employees that would be affected and the
effect that it would have on them. They did not account for the more
than 40 National Marine Fisheries Service staff or the 8 staff members
of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve, located at
the laboratory.
The current staffing at the Laboratory is as follows: 70 full-time
Federal employees (39 National Marine Fisheries and 31 National Ocean
Service staff); 32.5 contract positions (full and part time); and 6
North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)
staff. While the missions of the laboratory have been increased in
recent years, the budget of the laboratory has decreased by
approximately 30 percent and the NOS staff has decreased by 45
positions. NOS States that all full-time employees will be offered
other positions so that none will lose their jobs due to the closure.
This is of little comfort to the contract employees, some of whom have
worked at the facility for over 10 years. It is also not true (based on
past experience) that all of the permanent employees will be able to
move to other locations (due to various family matters) and, therefore,
they will lose their jobs.
It is ironic that while the National Ocean Service, NOAA is calling
for the closure of one of the most respected NOAA scientific
laboratories in the country it is, at the same time, requesting an
increase of $4 million to another center (located in a more expensive
region and in a non coastal area) to support the same type of research
in which the Beaufort Laboratory is a recognized leader (see budget
summary, page 8, paragraph 1).
In its 100 plus years the Beaufort Laboratory has established an
extraordinary record for scientific excellence in its research in
critical problems related to the public concern for coastal and ocean
issues. This includes, but is not limited to, fisheries stock
assessment (i.e. reef fish and menhaden), species distribution and life
history, hypoxia, marine mammals and sea turtles, critical habitat
evaluation, pollution effects (including oil spills) and harmful algal
blooms to name a few.
NOAA has repeatedly recognized the laboratory, research teams and
individual researchers for the outstanding quality of their work. It is
hard to understand why NOAA would request an increase in funding for
research in many of the above areas in fiscal year 2015 and then
propose to close the Beaufort Laboratory, the very laboratory best
positioned to do this research.
I urge you to reject the proposed closure of the NOAA Beaufort
Laboratory. Should you have additional questions I would be more than
happy to address them.
______
Prepared Statement of the Innocence Project
On behalf of the Innocence Project, thank you for allowing me to
submit testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies as it considers budget requests
for fiscal year 2015, and thank you for the subcommittee's support of
innocence and forensic science research programs in fiscal year 2014. I
write to request fiscal year 2015 funding for the following programs,
please:
--$4 million for the Wrongful Conviction Review and Capital
Litigation Improvement Programs (the Wrongful Conviction Review
Program is a part of the Capital Litigation Improvement
Program), at the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice
Assistance;
--$4 million for the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing
Program (the ``Bloodsworth Program'') at the DOJ, National
Institute of Justice (NIJ);
--$12 million for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement
Grant Program (the ``Coverdell Program'') at the NIJ;
--$6 million for the Department of Justice to support the National
Commission on Forensic Science; research at the National
Institute of Justice; and related forensic science standards
setting activities at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST);
--$11 million for NIST to support forensic science research and
measurement science.
Freeing innocent individuals and preventing wrongful convictions
through reform greatly benefits public safety. Every time DNA
identifies a wrongful conviction, it enables the identification of the
real perpetrator of those crimes. True perpetrators have been
identified in approximately half of the over 300 DNA exoneration cases.
Unfortunately, many of these real perpetrators had gone on to commit
additional crimes while an innocent person was convicted and
incarcerated in their place.
To date, 316 individuals in the United States have been exonerated
through DNA testing, including 18 who served time on death row. These
innocents served on average more than 13 years in prison before
exoneration and release. However, I want to underscore the value of
Federal innocence programs not to just these exonerated individuals,
but also to public safety, fairness, and achieving true justice for
victims of violent crimes. It is important to fund these critical
innocence programs because reforms and procedures that help to prevent
wrongful convictions enhance the accuracy of criminal investigations,
strengthen criminal prosecutions, and result in a stronger, fairer
system of justice that provides true justice to victims of crime.
wrongful conviction review program
Particularly when DNA is not available, or when DNA alone is not
enough to prove innocence, proving one's innocence to a level
sufficient for exoneration is difficult compared to ``simply'' proving
the same with DNA evidence. Innocents languishing behind bars require
expert representation to help navigate the complex issues that
invariably arise in their bids for post-conviction relief. And the need
for such representation is enormous when only a small fraction of cases
involve evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing. (For example,
it is estimated that among murders, only 10 percent of cases have the
kind of evidence that could be DNA tested.) Realizing the imperative
presented by such cases, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
dedicated part of its Capital Litigation Improvement Program funding to
create the Wrongful Conviction Review program.\1\ The program provides
applicants--non-profit organizations and public defender offices
dedicated to exonerating the innocent--with funds for providing high
quality and efficient representation for potentially wrongfully
convicted defendants in post-conviction claims of innocence. The
program's goals, in addition to exonerating the innocent, are
significant: to alleviate burdens placed on the criminal justice system
through costly and prolonged post-conviction litigation and to
identify, whenever possible, the actual perpetrator of the crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reauthorization of the Innocence Protection Act. 111th Cong.,
1st Sess., 8 (2009) (testimony of Lynn Overmann, Senior Advisor, Office
of Justice Programs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous local innocence projects have enhanced their caseloads and
representation of innocents as a result of the Wrongful Conviction
Review grant program, including those in Florida, Ohio, and in North
Carolina at Duke University School of Law. The Reinvestigation Project,
run through the Office of the Appellate Defender in New York, used
funding that led to the exonerations of Latisha Johnson and Malisha
Blyden and the identification of one of the real perpetrators. The
Arizona Justice Project recently exonerated four innocent Arizonians
who had served over a combined 100 years. The Exoneration Initiative in
New York, cleared a backlog of hundreds of cases which allowed them to
secure three exonerations and provided critical support that led to two
other exonerations. The grant also helped California Innocence Project
(CIP) free Daniel Larsen after 13 years in prison, and helped Hawaii
Innocence Project recently secure the release of the first Native
Hawaiian exonerated by DNA testing.
To help continue this important work, we urge you to please provide
a total of $4 million for the Wrongful Conviction Review and the
Capital Litigation Improvement Programs to help bring them to parity
with the critical Bloodsworth Program, that focuses on post-conviction
DNA testing and cases. (The Wrongful Conviction Review Program is a
part of the Capital Litigation Improvement Program.)
the bloodsworth program
The Bloodsworth Program provides hope to innocent inmates who might
otherwise have none by helping States more actively pursue post-
conviction DNA testing in appropriate situations. These funds have led
to great success, and many organizational members of the national
Innocence Network have partnered with State agencies that have received
Bloodsworth funding.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Innocence Network is an affiliation of organizations
dedicated to providing pro bono legal and investigative services to
individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which they have
been convicted and working to redress the causes of wrongful
convictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bloodsworth Program does not fund the work of organizations in
the Innocence Network directly, but State applicants which seek support
for a range of entities involved in settling innocence claims,
including law enforcement agencies, crime laboratories, and a host of
others--often in collaboration with each other, and with Innocence
Network organizations. For example, a Bloodsworth grant allowed the
Arizona Attorney General's Office to partner with the Arizona Justice
Project to canvass the Arizona inmate population, review cases, locate
evidence and file joint requests with the court to have evidence
released for DNA testing. In addition to identifying the innocent,
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has noted that the ``grant
enable[d] [his] office to support local prosecutors and ensure that
those who have committed violent crimes are identified and behind
bars.'' \3\ Such joint efforts have also been pursued in Connecticut,
Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Arizona receives Federal DNA grant, http://
community.law.asu.edu/news/19167/Arizona-receives-Federal-DNA-grant.htm
(last visited Mar. 13, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bloodsworth program is a relatively small yet powerful
investment for States seeking to free innocent people who were
erroneously convicted and to identify the true perpetrators of crime.
The program has resulted in the exonerations of 22 wrongfully convicted
persons in 10 States, and the true perpetrator was identified in 8 of
those cases. We ask that you please provide $4 million to continue the
work of the Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program.
the coverdell program
Recognizing the need for independent government investigations in
the wake of forensic scandals, Congress created the forensic oversight
provisions of the Coverdell Program, a crucial step toward ensuring the
integrity of forensic evidence. Specifically, in the Justice for All
Act, Congress required that
[t]o request a grant under this subchapter, a State or unit of
local government shall submit to the Attorney General . . . a
certification that a government entity exists and an
appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external
investigations into allegations of serious negligence or
misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of the
forensic results committed by employees or contractors of any
forensic laboratory system, medical examiner's office,
coroner's office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical
facility in the State that will receive a portion of the grant
amount.\4\
The Coverdell Program provides State and local crime labs and other
forensic facilities with much needed funding to efficiently and
effectively carry out their work. As forensic science budgets find
themselves on the chopping block in States and localities, the survival
of many crime labs may depend on Coverdell funds. To both support crime
labs and help ensure the integrity of forensic investigations in the
wake of allegations of negligence or misconduct, we ask that you please
provide $12 million for the Coverdell Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3797k(4) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
forensic science improvement
To continue the critical work to improve forensic science, and help
prevent wrongful convictions, we request:
--$6 million for the Department of Justice, including:
--$1 million for the DOJ-NIST National Commission on Forensic
Science to continue its work.
--$2 million for the National Institute of Justice to conduct
laboratory efficiency and implementation research in this
area.
--$3 million to go to NIST to support technical standards
development in forensic science through the proposed
Organization of Scientific Area Committees.
--$11 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) at the Department of Commerce. As the sole entity that
is both perfectly positioned and capable of conducting
measurement science and foundational research in support of
forensic science, NIST's work will improve the validity and
reliability of forensic evidence, a need cited by the National
Academy of Sciences 2009 report, ``Strengthening Forensic
Science in the United States: A Path Forward.'' NIST's
reputation for innovation will result in technolgical solutions
to advance forensic science applications and achieve a
tremendous cost savings by reducing court costs posed by
litigating scientific evidence and redirecting resources to
identifiying the true perpetrators of crime.
additional note on the department of justice's budget requests
DOJ's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, as it has in past years,
would defund the Coverdell and Bloodsworth Programs. Zeroing out these
programs would negatively impact the State requirements and incentives
to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure the integrity of evidence,
which have been critical to the advancement of State policies to
prevent wrongful convictions. Coverdell forensic oversight requirements
have created State entities and processes for ensuring the integrity of
forensic evidence in the wake of scandal and are essential to ensuring
the integrity of forensic evidence in the wake of identified acts of
negligence or misconduct. Innocence Project recommends that Congress
fund these two programs by name, in order to preserve their important
incentive and performance requirements, and to help to achieve their
goals of providing access to post-conviction DNA testing and supporting
State and local crime labs that process a significant amount of
forensic evidence, helping to ensure public safety.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration of these
important programs, and the opportunity to submit testimony. We look
forward to working with the subcommittee this year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives
interest of the ime
IME is a nonprofit association founded over century ago to provide
accurate information and comprehensive recommendations concerning the
safety and security of commercial explosive materials. IME represents
U.S. manufacturers, distributors and motor carriers of commercial
explosive materials and oxidizers as well as other companies that
provide related services. The majority of IME members are ``small
businesses'' as determined by the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Millions of metric tons of high explosives, blasting agents, and
oxidizers are consumed annually in the United States. IME member
companies produce 99 percent of these commodities. These products are
used in every State and are distributed worldwide. The ability to
manufacture, distribute and use these products safely and securely is
critical to this industry.
Commercial explosives are highly regulated by a myriad of Federal
and State agencies. ATF plays a predominant role in assuring that
explosives are identified, tracked, purchased, and stored only by
authorized persons. We offer the following comments to give perspective
about the need to ensure that ATF has sufficient funds to carry out its
mission to ensure that commercial explosives are not misappropriated
for criminal or terrorist purposes.
atf's explosives regulatory program
The administration's fiscal year 2015 budget request envisions a
current services appropriation for explosives industry operations. We
understand the current pressure to reduce the Federal budget deficit
and the shared sacrifice that all segments of the Government are being
asked to make to help the economy recover. We also understand the
public attention to other programmatic responsibilities of ATF, and the
attendant pressure to divert resources to these responsibilities.
However, the success of the Bureau's explosives industry programs in
preventing the misappropriation of commercial explosives should not be
used against us. ATF needs to retain a cadre of trained personnel to
perform services needed by our industry. The commerce of explosives is
so closely regulated that failure to provide adequate personnel and
resources hurts our industry, our customers, and the U.S. economy.
By law, ATF must inspect over 11,000 explosives licensees and
permittees at least once every 3 years and conduct background checks of
so-called ``employee possessors'' of explosives and ``responsible
persons.'' \1\ ATF estimates that the requirement to inspect 100%of the
licensees and permittees within their 3-year license/permit cycle
consumes between 25 percent and 41 percent of available inspector
resources per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2015 ATF Budget Submission, page 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, ATF's fiscal year 2015 budget submission does not
provide retrospective workload indicators such as the number of
compliance inspections that were accomplished, the number of public
safety violations, and what those violations were in fiscal year 2013.
This data have been provided in prior budget submissions. In fiscal
year 2014, ATF reported that, during fiscal year 2012, it:
--Conducted 5,390 explosives licensee and permittee compliance
inspections that identified and corrected 1,528 public safety
violations;
--Completed 1,249 Federal Explosive License (FEL) applicant
inspections;
--Processed 4,222 FEL applications (new & renewal);
--Completed 77,965 explosives employee/possessor background checks;
and
--Completed 12,188 explosives responsible persons background
checks.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fiscal year 2014 ATF Budget Submission, page 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are certain that the subcommittee appreciates the need for
annual reporting of these workload indicators to establish trend-lines
that may point to new resource needs or reallocation and whether or not
new safety concerns are being recognized. For example, we are very
interested in understanding what public safety violations were found in
past inspections. This data helps us to determine whether we need to
enhance our industry best practices. Looking at ATF's fiscal year 2013
and 2014 budget submissions, the Bureau identified 1,392 public safety
violations during fiscal year 2011,\3\ and, as noted above, during
fiscal year 2012, this number rose to 1,528. The subcommittee should
direct ATF to consistently report this data in future budget
submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fiscal year 2013 ATF Budget Submission, page 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF did report that, in 2011, it met its statutory responsibilities
95.8 percent of the time, and in 2012, 105.7 percent of the time.
However, in 2013, this performance rate fell to 88.2 percent. With the
budget agreement enacted earlier this year, ATF estimates that its
productivity will increase to 92 percent in 2014 and has set a target
of 94 percent in 2015, which, while it represents an improvement over
the 2013 number, is still not optimum.\4\ When ATF is unable to meet
its responsibilities, there are adverse impacts on our industry.
Without approved licenses and permits from ATF, our industry cannot
conduct business. Delays in servicing our needs may lead to disruptions
in other segments of the economy that are dependent on the products and
materials we provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Fiscal year 2015 ATF Budget Submission, page 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One key workload indicator is the number of background checks
performed. One component of this investigation is determining whether
any of our employees have terrorist ties. To make that determination,
ATF submits names to the FBI to be run against the Terrorist Screening
Database (TSDB). Currently, ATF does not follow the common practice of
other Federal agencies with vetting programs that re-vet names at will.
Rather, the agency runs the names in association with applications for
new or renewal of ``FELs'' or Federal explosives permits. Because ATF
does not re-vet names when information on the TSDB changes, ATF's
program is not deemed equivalent to the vetting and clearance
procedures used by other agencies. Harmonizing ATF's procedures with
those used by these other programs will allow ATF's vetting program to
be reciprocally recognized by these programs. This outcome would add
intelligence value to all Government vetting programs sharing the same
platform, and provide savings to the Federal Government and the
regulated community. We urge the subcommittee to encourage ATF to
enhance its vetting procedures.
As the subcommittee considers ATF's budget request, we ask that the
Bureau's ability to perform its regulatory oversight of the explosives
industry in a timely fashion not be compromised in the push for fiscal
discipline and that it be given the resources to preform to current
state-of-the-art oversight practices.
atf's regulatory workload
Since 2003 when ATF was transferred to the Department of Justice,
the agency has issued eight rulemakings of importance to IME, including
two which were interim final rules. It has finalized three, withdrawn
two, merged two, and docketed but not published three. Of the four
rulemakings still pending, one is an interim final rule which dates to
2003. In the absence of a process to ensure timely rulemaking that is
capable of keeping up with new developments and safety practices,
industry must rely on interpretive guidance and variances based on
outdated requirements in order to conduct business. While we greatly
appreciate ATF's accommodations, these stop-gap measures do not afford
the surety, continuity and protections that rulemaking would provide
the regulated community, nor do they allow the oversight necessary to
ensure that all parties are being held to the same standard of
compliance. These regulatory tasks are critical to the lawful conduct
of the commercial enterprises that the Bureau controls. ATF should be
provided the resources needed to make timely progress in this area.
ATF is also a key member of the Interagency Working Group (IWG)
convened under Executive Order (EO) 13650.\5\ The EO tasked the IWG
with identifying options to improve chemical security and safety after
the tragic accidental explosion in West, TX as well as other recent
industrial chemical accidents. Earlier this year, the IWG presented
options for stakeholder comment.\6\ Among these options, several
pertain to ATF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/01/
executive-order-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security.
\6\ https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/
Section_6ai_Options_List.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--ATF asks whether it should close the regulatory gap surrounding
black and smokeless powder. An examination of information from
the Bomb Data Center (BDC) on the type and frequency of fillers
used in bombings and attempted bombings supports closing this
regulatory gap. It makes little sense to impose stringent
controls on the explosives industry only to allow a consumer
exemption that can be exploited by those with criminal or
terrorist intent.
--The IWG also asks about updating its regulatory requirements for
physical security at magazines. IME supports ATF's
consideration of the adequacy of current locking standards,\7\
and supports the development of a rule on magazine key control.
IME is ready to assist in any other research projects to help
achieve our common goal of ensuring magazine integrity and
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A study on this topic was conducted by an IME member company,
and the results were reported at an IME meeting where ATF officials
were in attendance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The EO also directs ATF to determine the feasibility of sharing
information with States and localities. While we oppose the
sharing of security-sensitive information about explosives in
public forums, we do support enhancing communications with
local emergency responders. Specifically, we support annual FEL
reporting to local fire safety authorities of the type,
capacity, and location of magazines where explosives are
stored. Current rules require a one-time notification.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 27 CFR 555.210(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of these options, if pursued, would add to ATF's regulatory
workload. ATF should have the resources to keep its regulations up to
date.
atf-industry partnership
The BDC is the sole repository for explosives-related incident
data, and contains information on thousands of explosives incidents
investigated by ATF and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies. While this data helps government entities to perform trend
analysis and to compare incidents for similarities and crime
methodologies, BDC data also helps our efforts to refresh and update
best practice recommendations. Until 2006, this data was routinely
provided to industry stakeholders. We are pleased that after an 8-year
hiatus, ATF has again provided the regulated community with key data on
bomb and improvised device fillers, as well as information on thefts,
losses and recoveries categorized by the type and amount of explosives
involved. The data also indicates the point in the supply chain where
the reported thefts and losses occurred. ATF has committed to releasing
this data on an annual basis and it needs the resources to continue
this important service.
Explosives manufacturers and importers are required to mark
products with codes to aid domestic and foreign law enforcement
agencies in tracing these materials if they are lost or stolen.
Explosives manufacturers and importers and others in the global supply
chain cooperate in tracing efforts. However, various government
entities are imposing their own unique system of identification marks
without reciprocally recognizing each other's marks. These redundant
and competing marks are creating non-tariff barriers to trade. We have
petitioned the United Nations to help develop a harmonized marking
scheme and expect this issue to be considered by the international
community at meetings in July 2014. We have asked ATF to join with us
in working to harmonize a global marking standard.
Since 2003, ATF, with our support, has required background checks
of persons authorized to possess explosives. While, as noted above,
this background check includes vetting against the TSDB, being named on
the database does not disqualify individuals from possessing
explosives. We think this is an oversight. The late-Senator Frank
Lautenberg and Representative Peter King introduced legislation, S. 34
and H.R. 720, respectively, to close this glaring security gap in the
Federal explosives law. This legislative change, advocated by both
Presidents Bush and Obama, will better harmonize the vetting and
clearance procedures used by the ATF with other government agencies
that perform security threat assessments of individuals seeking to
engage in security-sensitive activities. As these standards are
harmonized, opportunities to leverage other vetting programs and
security credentials increase. This outcome would add intelligence
value to all government vetting programs sharing the same platform, and
provide savings to the Federal Government and the regulated community.
Each of these collaborative initiatives requires resources. We
request that ATF be given the requisite funds to advance these
initiatives.
industry standards
We take seriously the statutory obligation that ATF take into
account industry's standards of safety when issuing rules and
requirements.\9\ We continue to fulfill this obligation through our
development of industry best practices for safety and security,
membership in relevant standard-setting organizations, and active
participation in forums for training. We have offered to ATF
recommendations that we believe will enhance safety and security
through our participation in the rulemaking process, in the Bureau's
important research efforts, and in other standard-setting activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 18 U.S.C. 842(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this regard, IME has spent years developing a credible
alternative to strict interpretation of quantity distance tables used
to determine explosives setback distances. IME continues to collaborate
in this effort with the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board
as well as Canadian and U.S. regulatory agencies, including ATF. The
result is a windows-based computer model for assessing the risk from a
variety of commercial explosives activities called IMESAFR.\10\ ATF and
other regulatory agencies recognize the value of IMESAFR and have
participated in development meetings for Version 2.0. ATF is also
evaluating existing licensed locations with this risk-based approach
and has agreed to accept variance requests based on IMESAFR
evaluations. These efforts are vital if ATF is to remain at the
forefront of technologies designed to safeguard the public. We strongly
encourage ATF's continued support of this project. The benefits of
risk-based modeling should continue to be recognized by ATF and
resources should be provided to develop policies that allow the use of
such models to meet regulatory mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ IMESAFR was built on the DDESB's software model, SAFER. The
DDESB currently uses SAFER and table-of-distance methods to approve or
disapprove Department of Defense explosives activities. Not only can
IMESAFR determine the amount of risk presented, but it can also
determine what factors drive the overall risk and what actions would
lower risk, if necessary. The probability of events for the activities
were based on the last 20 years of experience in the U.S. and Canada
and can be adjusted to account for different explosive sensitivities,
additional security threats, and other factors that increase or
decrease the base value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
The manufacture and distribution of explosives is accomplished with
a remarkable degree of safety and security. We recognize the critical
role ATF plays in helping our industry achieve and maintain safe and
secure workplaces. Industry and the public are dependent on ATF having
adequate resources to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. It is up
to Congress and, in particular, this subcommittee to ensure that ATF
has the resources it needs. We strongly recommend full funding for
ATF's explosives program.
______
Prepared Statement of Daniel Jensen, Morehead City, North Carolina
I am writing to specifically discuss the proposed closure of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort
Laboratory located in Beaufort, North Carolina. The lab is part of the
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and houses employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
National Ocean Service (NOS), and National Estuarine Research Reserve
(NERR).
I urge the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
removed from the NOS budget. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees
from NMFS, NOS, and NERR. The costs associated with upkeep and
maintenance of the lab were inaccurate and outdated in the NOAA
explanation of budgetary items. There were mistakes in the number of
employees at the facility and incorrect calculations used to detail the
budget item. In the past several years, several activities have been
completed to keep the facility in good working condition including the
replacement of the administration building and maintenance building,
replacement of the bridge to the facility, seawall repair, improvements
to the air conditioning, and other improvements, which totaled
approximately $14 million. Finally, an updated engineering report
(2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science that has produced many well
known scientists. The Beaufort Lab has a good reputation for advancing
science in population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic
menhaden biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms;
hypoxia; pathogens; and snapper and grouper species. NOAA has
repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research teams, and the
Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of scientific work
completed. Several of the area fisheries labs have located in Beaufort
due to the NOAA lab including Duke Marine Lab, North Carolina Division
of Marine Fisheries, the Center for Marine Sciences and Technology
(CMAST), and the Institute of Marine Science. The NOAA Beaufort
Laboratory is the center of productive fisheries science informing
fisheries management for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and is currently
the only NMFS lab between Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and Miami, Florida.
Specific items of note from each line office include:
nmfs
Stock Assessment Science
--The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science
that determines how many fish can be caught in the southeast
United States.
The stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory
focuses on marine fish populations that are ecologically and
economically vital to the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper
and pelagic species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, Atlantic menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Commercial landings from the South
Atlantic have been valued at $176.5 million, supporting a centuries-old
cultural way of life, and saltwater recreational fishing in this region
tops the Nation for its economic impact on sales and jobs (East Florida
and North Carolina generate $5.3 billion and 47,000 jobs). Atlantic
menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S. east coast, and Gulf
menhaden support the largest fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, with a
combined value of $127.7 million.
Fishery-Independent Surveys
--Fishery-independent surveys collect data on fish populations for
stock assessments and research, using standardized sampling
gears and methodologies.
The Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey (SEFIS), run out of the
NOAA Beaufort lab, collects annual information on the abundance,
distribution, sizes, and ages of economically-important reef fish
species like groupers and snappers on the U.S. East Coast between North
Carolina and Florida. Using fish traps and underwater video, SEFIS
determines whether reef fish species are increasing or decreasing in
abundance so fish stocks can be managed with much greater certainty.
The SEFIS staff has developed a close working relationship with
fishermen in the Carolinas due to their co location in Beaufort, North
Carolina. NOAA's Beaufort Lab is ideally situated, centered in the
middle of substantial commercial and recreational fishing industries
and a thriving marine science community. If the SEFIS staff was forced
to move out of their survey region, ties with the fishing industry and
the marine science community would be effectively severed, ultimately
resulting in a significant disconnect between the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the communities to which they serve.
nerr
Impacts of Closure to the Reserve-Strategic Location and Facility
for the Reserve:
--North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
Reserve staff (7) are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort
Lab, which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
--In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . . $5,000,000 for the
Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
Estuarine Research Reserve.'' (Public Law 107-77, See S.Rept.
107-42, p. 106-108.) $1.32 million was invested in NOAA ($1.28
million) and State funds ($42,046) for the construction of a
joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's
mission.
--The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
Education Program activities.
--The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
conduct mission-critical programming including educational
programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
programs, and stewardship of the site including species
monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
access point maintenance.
Reserve Activities at the NOAA Beaufort Lab, 2008-2013
Education
K-12 field trips
--177 educational programs
--4947 participants
Teacher workshops
--28 teacher workshops
--412 participants
Summer camps
--109 camp sessions
--921 participants
Summer public field trips
--96 field trips
--1123 participants
Stewardship
Volunteer service at the Rachel Carson Reserve
--1170 volunteers
--2873 volunteer hours
Site management
-- The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from
which to manage the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close
proximity to the Reserve site, location on calm inland
waters, and boat launching facilities. Additionally, many
NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the Rachel
Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional
perspectives that are valuable to Reserve research and
management.
Research
Research permits
-- 31 research permits issued for research conducted at
the Rachel Carson Reserve
Water quality monitoring
-- Water quality inventory and monitoring stations at
Middle Marsh and Shackleford Banks, in partnership with the
National Park Service
Coastal Training Program
Coastal Training Program workshops
--31 workshops
--1076 participants
nos
NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
University partners to educate the public about the real facts
concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood. Beaufort staff
have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
anxiety regarding seafood safety.
In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
poor choice scientifically, economically, and would leave a large part
of the east coast without the science that they deserve. The numbers
used to estimate the costs of maintaining the facility in good working
order were incorrectly estimated and inaccurate numbers of current
employees were provided for the budget. In addition, the Federal
Government has invested in this laboratory over the long-term, and to
close it now would be a gross misuse of Government resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Nancy Jensen, Morehead City, North Carolina
I am writing to specifically discuss the proposed closure of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort
Laboratory located in Beaufort, North Carolina. The lab is part of the
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and houses employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
National Ocean Service (NOS), and National Estuarine Research Reserve
(NERR).
I urge the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
removed from the NOS budget. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees
from NMFS, NOS, and NERR. The costs associated with upkeep and
maintenance of the lab were inaccurate and outdated in the NOAA
explanation of budgetary items. There were mistakes in the number of
employees at the facility and incorrect calculations used to detail the
budget item. In the past several years, several activities have been
completed to keep the facility in good working condition including the
replacement of the administration building and maintenance building,
replacement of the bridge to the facility, seawall repair, improvements
to the air conditioning, and other improvements, which totaled
approximately $14 million. Finally, an updated engineering report
(2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science that has produced many well
known scientists. The Beaufort Lab has a good reputation for advancing
science in population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic
menhaden biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms;
hypoxia; pathogens; and snapper and grouper species. NOAA has
repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research teams, and the
Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of scientific work
completed. Several of the area fisheries labs have located in Beaufort
due to the NOAA lab including Duke Marine Lab, North Carolina Division
of Marine Fisheries, the Center for Marine Sciences and Technology
(CMAST), and the Institute of Marine Science. The NOAA Beaufort
Laboratory is the center of productive fisheries science informing
fisheries management for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and is currently
the only NMFS lab between Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and Miami, Florida.
Specific items of note from each line office include:
nmfs
Stock Assessment Science
--The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science
that determines how many fish can be caught in the southeast
United States.
The stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory
focuses on marine fish populations that are ecologically and
economically vital to the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper
and pelagic species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, Atlantic menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Commercial landings from the South
Atlantic have been valued at $176.5 million, supporting a centuries-old
cultural way of life, and saltwater recreational fishing in this region
tops the Nation for its economic impact on sales and jobs (East Florida
and North Carolina generate $5.3 billion and 47,000 jobs). Atlantic
menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S. east coast, and Gulf
menhaden support the largest fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, with a
combined value of $127.7 million.
Fishery-Independent Surveys
--Fishery-independent surveys collect data on fish populations for
stock assessments and research, using standardized sampling
gears and methodologies.
The Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey (SEFIS), run out of the
NOAA Beaufort lab, collects annual information on the abundance,
distribution, sizes, and ages of economically-important reef fish
species like groupers and snappers on the U.S. East Coast between North
Carolina and Florida. Using fish traps and underwater video, SEFIS
determines whether reef fish species are increasing or decreasing in
abundance so fish stocks can be managed with much greater certainty.
The SEFIS staff has developed a close working relationship with
fishermen in the Carolinas due to their co location in Beaufort, North
Carolina. NOAA's Beaufort Lab is ideally situated, centered in the
middle of substantial commercial and recreational fishing industries
and a thriving marine science community. If the SEFIS staff was forced
to move out of their survey region, ties with the fishing industry and
the marine science community would be effectively severed, ultimately
resulting in a significant disconnect between the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the communities to which they serve.
nerr
Impacts of Closure to the Reserve-Strategic Location and Facility
for the Reserve:
--North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
Reserve staff (7) are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort
Lab, which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
--In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . . $5,000,000 for the
Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
Estuarine Research Reserve.'' (Public Law 107-77, See S.Rept.
107-42, p. 106-108.) $1.32 million was invested in NOAA ($1.28
million) and State funds ($42,046) for the construction of a
joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's
mission.
--The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
Education Program activities.
--The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
conduct mission-critical programming including educational
programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
programs, and stewardship of the site including species
monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
access point maintenance.
Reserve Activities at the NOAA Beaufort Lab, 2008-2013
Education
K-12 field trips
-- 177 educational programs
-- 4947 participants
Teacher workshops
-- 28 teacher workshops
-- 412 participants
Summer camps
-- 109 camp sessions
-- 921 participants
Summer public field trips
-- 96 field trips
-- 1123 participants
Stewardship
Volunteer service at the Rachel Carson Reserve
-- 1170 volunteers
-- 2873 volunteer hours
Site management
-- The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from
which to manage the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close
proximity to the Reserve site, location on calm inland
waters, and boat launching facilities. Additionally, many
NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the Rachel
Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional
perspectives that are valuable to Reserve research and
management.
Research
Research permits
-- 31 research permits issued for research conducted at
the Rachel Carson Reserve
Water quality monitoring
-- Water quality inventory and monitoring stations at
Middle Marsh and Shackleford Banks, in partnership with the
National Park Service
Coastal Training Program
Coastal Training Program workshops
-- 31 workshops
-- 1076 participants
nos
NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
University partners to educate the public about the real facts
concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood. Beaufort staff
have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
anxiety regarding seafood safety.
In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
poor choice scientifically, economically, and would leave a large part
of the east coast without the science that they deserve. The numbers
used to estimate the costs of maintaining the facility in good working
order were incorrectly estimated and inaccurate numbers of current
employees were provided for the budget. In addition, the Federal
Government has invested in this laboratory over the long-term, and to
close it now would be a gross misuse of Government resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. David F. Johnson, Former Director of the NOAA
Beaufort Laboratory (Retired)
Testimony.--My statement is submitted in strong and direct
opposition to the closure of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) marine science laboratory located in Beaufort,
North Carolina, as is presently proposed in the President's fiscal year
2015 Budget for:
--NOAA
--National Ocean Service (NOS)
--Coastal Science, Assessment, Response and Restoration:
--National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), (NOAA Blue
Book, page 8), the cost is not specified in the Budget
document.
The recommendation to close this laboratory is based on dated and
faulty information, and has not been well justified in the
administration's budget. I respectfully request this subcommittee to
consider:
--directing NOAA's National Ocean Service to withdraw the request for
closure of the Beaufort Laboratory, and
--prevent the National Ocean Service from withdrawing support,
leading to an operational failure of the Laboratory.
The balance of my statement will provide greater detail and
justification for this position.
The Beaufort Laboratory (the formal name is the NOAA, NOS, Center
for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research located in Beaufort, North
Carolina) is the second oldest Federal marine laboratory in the U.S.,
founded in 1899. This national laboratory is a prime location for
marine science and provides the only Federal access to the most diverse
marine ecosystem in the U.S. Within a short distance of the Beaufort
Laboratory, ecological communities can be accessed which represent the
northern extent of southern species and the southern extent of northern
species. Offshore and adjacent to the Gulf Stream are reef communities
representative of tropical environments. This location provides access
to a ready supply of clean, high salinity, seawater which is so
essential to marine cultures. In addition, this location provides ship
access through a deep water inlet. I submit this location is an asset
which should not be abandoned by NOAA.
In the budget request, the National Ocean Service proposes ``to
reduce its physical footprint and fixed costs by closing the Beaufort
North Carolina laboratory''. A NOAA spokeswoman in Maryland, Ciaran
Clayton (Director of Communications and External Affairs), was quoted
in our local newspaper: ``this aging facility requires infrastructure
repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources. . . .'' In
subsequent discussions and clarifications for this budget, it seems
this argument forms the basis for the requested closure. This argument
is based on outdated information. A recent engineering survey indicates
some previously reported structural concerns were minor and easily
addressed without major cost. Please also be informed NOAA has been
slowly upgrading the facility. In recent years, NOAA has provided
approximately $14.5 million in infrastructure improvements, including
three new buildings and a new bridge. In fact, NOAA just initiated a
new construction project at the Beaufort Laboratory with more than a
million dollars in funding. Under these present circumstances, closure
would be a waste of recent Federal funding.
The proposal for closure was revealed to the Laboratory's partners
and public with the release of the President's budget for 2015. This
was a surprise to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NERRS
and contract partners using the facility, and the many State and
academic partners involved in joint scientific efforts. I am unaware of
formal efforts to evaluate the costs and impacts of such a closure on
these many partner organizations. The loss of the ongoing activities at
the Laboratory and the disruption to partner activities will have
effects which will ripple across numerous agencies and programs. This
lack of evaluation seems programmatically and scientifically
irresponsible.
The Beaufort Laboratory has a long and extraordinary record for
scientific excellence. The laboratory employs a number of
internationally and nationally known scientists, who are providing
support essential to international, U.S., and North Carolina issues.
Without this ongoing support, NOAA programs like Harmful Algal Blooms,
ecosystem forecasting and invasive species (lionfish) will be severely
impacted. NMFS programs which, among others, represent management and
recovery of key commercial species (snapper, grouper, menhaden) will be
disrupted. The pioneering and essential work of these research teams
(composed of leading scientists, junior scientists, technicians and
essential support staff) will be terminated with the dissolution or
dispersal of the teams. I am unaware of any NOAA efforts to evaluate
the impacts to the many scientific programs through the loss of this
scientific prestige.
The local community will be severely impacted. The laboratory
provides jobs for 108 people who include not only NOAA, but also State
and private partners. Beaufort is a small community which would be
heavily impacted by the economic losses associated with these jobs, and
those of related family members. I am unaware of any analysis of the
economic impacts to the community.
The large Government investment in scientific equipment would be
underutilized or wasted. The laboratory contains a large and diverse
array of scientific equipment which cannot be maintained or effectively
used with closure, or the loss of highly specialized support staff. I
am unaware of any evaluation of the disposition of this equipment and
the support requirements.
The cost to provide laboratory and office space at Beaufort is
cheaper than most areas of the United States. With tightening budgets,
it would seem to make more sense to relocate employees to Beaufort.
From this location, NOAA scientists would have access to facilities,
equipment and ecosystems which are unavailable where many NOAA
scientists are presently located.
In summary, this proposal is ill conceived and not supported by any
reasonable evaluation of the circumstances. I urge your subcommittee to
oppose the closure of the Beaufort Laboratory.
______
Prepared Statement of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and other distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies, we thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony
regarding the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a collaborative, bipartisan
effort to catalyze ocean policy reform, urges incremental but
significant increases for programs necessary to understand, protect,
and restore our oceans and coasts, so vital to our Nation's economy and
security. In particular we ask you to continue the progress made in the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget request and provide $5.6 billion
for NOAA to protect those core programs that sustain our oceans.
We greatly appreciate your strong support of ocean and coastal
issues over many years, and we understand the difficult choices made
each year regarding scarce resources to address critically important
issues under your jurisdiction. Our written testimony covers the
following issues: coastal resilience; ocean observations; ocean
acidification; STEM consolidation; ocean exploration; science,
research, and education; and the Arctic.
coastal resilience
The Joint Initiative strongly supports the Regional Coastal
Resilience Grant program in NOAA's fiscal year 2015 budget, and we ask
that you consider funding this program at $10 million, a $5 million
increase from the President's fiscal year 2015 proposal. This program
can provide competitive funding to support multi-State regional ocean
partnerships that coordinate data sharing and decisionmaking across
jurisdictions, implement innovative solutions to shared priorities, and
effectively engage ocean and coastal stakeholders.
These partnerships are critical as coastal States and communities
confront challenges such as ocean acidification, sea level rise,
growing ocean uses, burgeoning populations, and increasing threats from
extreme weather events. Resilient coastal communities are not only able
to minimize loss and negative impacts to life, property, and the
coastal ecosystem, they are also able to quickly return residents to
productive activities and restore essential services. This is
imperative to facilitating full and timely economic, social, and
environmental recovery. Recognizing the importance of regional
solutions, Governors have already joined together to share information
and coordinate with Federal agencies, businesses, nongovernmental
organizations, and local governments to better adapt to changes
underway in our oceans and on our coasts.
Funding the Regional Coastal Resilience Grant program at $10
million will still only address a small fraction of the demand, but it
will enable partnerships to more efficiently apply limited resources to
ensure the health of our oceans and coasts.
sustained ocean observations
Sustained observations are vitally important to ensure coastal
communities have the information necessary to increase overall
resiliency. NOAA's Sustained Ocean Observations and Monitoring program
funds global observing programs, including floats, drifters, and fixed
moorings to provide information essential for accurate forecasting of
hurricanes, typhoons, rivers and associated flooding, heat waves, and
wildfires.
Funding NOAA's Sustained Ocean Observations and Monitoring program
at $41.3 million will help maintain the continuity of long-term data
sets that are essential for ensuring that communities are able to
respond and adapt to today's changing world.
ocean acidification
The Joint Initiative encourages you, at a minimum, to include the
$8.8 million increase in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
request for Integrated Ocean Acidification, bringing the total funding
level to $15 million.
As oceans become more acidic, there is an urgent need to understand
the chemistry, variability, and impact of acidification on the marine
environment. Ocean acidification is happening along every shoreline in
the United States. In the Pacific Northwest, it is killing young
oysters by the billions, threatening the shellfish industry. In 2011,
the State of Washington convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean
Acidification, which identified gaps in scientific knowledge and
recommended strategies to mitigate immediate threats and improve
industry resilience. While shellfish and coral reefs receive most of
the attention related to ocean acidification, fisheries, aquaculture,
and coastal ecosystems around the Nation will be greatly affected.
While ocean acidification is a global problem needing global
solutions, funding the Integrated Ocean Acidification program at NOAA
at increased levels will allow us to measure and assess the emerging
threat of ocean acidification, better understand the complex dynamics
causing and exacerbating it, work to determine its impact, and develop
mechanisms to address the problem.
stem consolidation
The Joint Initiative is deeply alarmed by the major restructuring
in the administration's proposal that would consolidate science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs, including the
elimination of funding for ocean education programs in NOAA. We
appreciate your thoughtful response to the STEM consolidation proposal
in the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations report, noting that the
proposal ``failed to sufficiently recognize or support a number of
proven, successful programs.'' We believe NOAA education programs--
specifically the NOAA Competitive Education Grants Program, Ocean
Exploration and Research education, and Sea Grant STEM education
activities including all State Sea Grant Program STEM activities-- fall
into this category.
By eliminating key ocean education programs at NOAA, we are
concerned that ocean science content may be lost in the proposed
consolidation, as it is not traditionally viewed as a ``core science.''
In addition, removing education programs from mission-driven agencies
such as NOAA, where research is sponsored and conducted, will isolate
scientific research and its results from ocean education efforts.
Educating and cultivating current and future ocean stewards is
critical, especially given the tremendous growth in careers that
require ocean-related education and knowledge. A recent report by the
statutorily-created Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) forecast a
need for approximately one million more college graduates than
currently estimated in STEM fields over the next decade. This report
underscores the need for a STEM literate, and ocean literate, workforce
to fill positions in commerce, energy, transportation, food production,
national security, recreation, and tourism.
The Joint Initiative strongly urges you to fund NOAA education
programs at increased levels.
ocean exploration
The Joint Initiative appreciates your long standing support of
ocean exploration at NOAA and requests that you provide $30 million for
the Ocean Exploration program to increase the pace, scope, and
efficiency of exploration.
A bipartisan effort since inception, the Ocean Exploration program
was strongly endorsed by Congress when created in 2002. The program has
greatly contributed to our knowledge of the ocean, including Arctic
surveys that enabled the U.S. to argue for an extension of our
Exclusive Economic Zone; baseline characterization of the Deepwater
Horizon site in the Gulf before and after the oil spill; discovery of
new gas hydrates stretching from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, with
implications for ocean acidification; and new fishery habitat maps off
the Northeast.
science, research, and education
The Joint Initiative calls attention to the need for consistent and
dedicated funding for ocean science, research, and education. We ask
you to increase funding for ocean science research, infrastructure, and
grant programs at NOAA, National Science Foundation (NSF), and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that are working to improve
our understanding of critical physical and biological ocean processes.
These programs provide local, State, and national decision makers with
the information they need to make informed decisions.
In particular, we encourage you to provide $7.5 billion for the NSF
to support core ocean and coastal research and research infrastructure,
which are critical to understanding processes that impact the health of
the ocean and its role as the ``flywheel'' that drives global
environmental dynamics. Unfortunately, funding challenges within NSF
have has significantly impacted the Geosciences Directorate and its
Division of Ocean Science, thereby seriously eroding funds available to
support core research. We also urge $1.8 billion in funding for the
NASA's Earth Science Division to support critically important ocean and
coastal science and education, including ground support and data
processing for the multiple Earth observation missions scheduled for
launch this year, and key missions currently under development.
arctic
The Joint Initiative recommends that the fiscal year 2015
appropriations bill make a significant investment toward implementation
of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. This will enable the
United States to prepare for taking over chairmanship of the Arctic
Council in 2015 and lay the groundwork for sound international
management of the region while protecting a sensitive and rapidly
changing ecosystem.
The changes occurring in the Arctic are not well understood. The
area is seeing an influx of international activity as changes in sea
ice coverage and thickness open new shipping routes and provide
opportunities for energy exploration. Taking over chairmanship of the
Arctic Council is a real opportunity to be an international leader in
the Arctic; however, increased funding for Federal agencies operating
in the Arctic under your jurisdiction, such as NOAA and NSF, is
essential if we are to do so. NOAA provides a range of important
services essential to our understanding of the Arctic including ocean
observation services, weather and sea ice predictions, mapping and
charting, and sound management of marine resources.
concluding remarks
The Joint Initiative is acutely aware of the challenges you face
addressing the funding needs of agencies and programs across the
government. However, the Joint Initiative believes a commitment to
understanding and protecting our Nation's ocean and coasts is an
investment in the future of our country that will provide significant
economic, social, ecological, and national security benefits.
Thank you for considering our requests as the subcommittee begins
it fiscal year 2015 appropriations process. The Joint Initiative
sincerely appreciates your attention to this matter and stands ready to
assist you in advancing positive and lasting changes in the way we
manage our Nation's oceans and coasts.
Joint Initiative Co-Chairs and Leadership Council Members
The Honorable William Ruckelshaus The Honorable Norman Mineta
Frances Beinecke Don Boesch Lillian Borrone
The Honorable Norm Dicks
Vice Admiral Paul Gaffney Robert Gagosian Sherri
Goodman Scott Gudes
Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher Margaret Leinen
Christopher Lischewski
The Honorable Jane Lubchenco Julie Packard The
Honorable Leon Panetta
John Pappalardo Pietro Parravano Diane Regas
Randy Repass
Andrew Rosenberg Patten White The Honorable
Christine Todd Whitman
______
Prepared Statement of G. Todd Kellison, Carteret County, North Carolina
Resident and Chief, Fisheries Ecosystems Branch, NOAA Fisheries/
Southeast Fisheries Science Center/Beaufort Laboratory
Dear Members of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice
and Science, and Related Agencies: First, allow me to state that while
I am a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) employee,
I have written this letter on my own time, with my own resources and
not as any part of my NOAA-related job. The comments I offer below are
my personal opinion as a citizen regarding the proposed closure of the
NOAA Beaufort Laboratory in Beaufort, North Carolina.
I am gravely concerned about the proposal in the 2015 President's
budget to close the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory. The Laboratory is part of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; it is administered
by the National Ocean Service (NOS), but also houses the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and National Estuarine Research Reserve
System (NERRS). The Laboratory is a stalwart of fisheries and oceanic
science, with an outstanding national and international reputation for
advancing science in numerous areas: population dynamics and stock
assessments; Gulf and Atlantic menhaden biology, movement, and
assessments; harmful algal blooms; hypoxia; habitat science; pathogens;
and science to support management of economically important fisheries.
NOAA and the President have repeatedly recognized individual
researchers, research teams, and the Laboratory as a whole for its
outstanding quality of scientific work. Furthermore, the Laboratory is
the originator and centerpiece of an internationally esteemed
consortium of marine science institutions, including the marine
laboratories of Duke University, North Carolina State University, the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries. Beaufort was chosen because it is a prime
location where northern and southern marine ecological communities
intersect, and as such the Laboratory provides the only Federal access
to the most diverse marine ecosystem in the United States. There is no
other location where these opportunities can be accessed as easily or
as cheaply. The Beaufort Laboratory is the only NMFS facility on the
Atlantic coast between Sandy Hook, New Jersey and Miami, Florida, a
stretch of over 1200 miles of coastline.
The request to close the laboratory was based on current funding
allocation, but inaccurate and outdated information that overstated the
costs of maintaining the facility was used in the analysis that led to
this request. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees from NOS, NMFS,
and NERRS. The NOS initiated the proposed closure, but the request
understated the number of NOS employees and did not account at all for
employees from NMFS or NERRS. In effect, this mistake excluded more
than half the staff of the Laboratory. Furthermore, the request was
based on estimated costs for the Laboratory's upkeep and maintenance
that were in error. Since 2006, several activities have been completed
to keep the facility in good working condition, including replacement
of the administration building, replacement of the maintenance
building, replacement of the chemical storage building, replacement of
the bridge to the facility, repair of the seawall, and other
improvements (air conditioning, electrical, storm water runoff), which
totaled approximately $14 million. After such investments, closing the
Laboratory now would represent a conspicuous waste of tax-payer money.
Finally, contrary to previous claims, an updated engineering report
(2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound. Based
on mistakes both in the number of staff at the facility and in the
costs associated with its upkeep, the budgetary calculations used to
justify the proposed closure were fundamentally flawed.
I highlight below, by line office, the critical role that the NOAA
Beaufort Laboratory has played in helping NOAA achieve its Strategic
Mission (1) to understand and predict changes in climate, weather,
oceans, and coasts, (2) to share that knowledge and information with
others, and (3) to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems
and resources.
nos
While the National Ocean Service is calling for the closure of the
Beaufort North Carolina laboratory, it is requesting an increase of $4
million to another center to support Ecological Forecasting of Harmful
Algal Blooms (HABs), Hypoxia, pathogens, and Species Distributions.
These areas of research are the bread and butter of NOS at the Beaufort
Laboratory. In fact, NOAA would not have the strength it currently has
in forecasting HABs if it were not for the Laboratory's seminal and
award-winning work that has been ongoing from the 1980s to this day.
Furthermore, the Beaufort Laboratory initiated the first-ever study of
the invasive lionfish in the U.S. South Atlantic, and it has continued
to play a pivotal role in monitoring the distribution and abundance of
this invasion throughout the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and
Caribbean, providing information that has been critical for mitigation
and management strategies. It is ironic and perplexing that the fiscal
year 2015 President's budget requests increased research funding for
coastal ocean issues, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and
coastal ecosystem management, while at the same time proposing to close
an existing facility that already has both well-established expertise
and facilities required to address many of those very same issues.
nmfs
The Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science that
allows NOAA to fulfill its obligation toward the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as mandated by Congress. The
stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory focuses on
marine fish populations that are ecologically and economically vital to
the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper and pelagic species
managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Atlantic
menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission. Atlantic menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S.
Atlantic coast, and Gulf menhaden support the largest fishery in the
Gulf of Mexico. To enable robust stock assessments, sampling of the
Atlantic and Gulf menhaden fisheries has been conducted by the Beaufort
Laboratory for decades, and monitoring of snapper-grouper species has
been accomplished by the Laboratory's Southeast Fishery-Independent
Survey. Removing this sampling and monitoring from the Beaufort
Laboratory would not only result in a significant disconnect between
NOAA and the communities that it serves, but would also degrade the
quality of stock assessments at a time when Congress is rightly calling
for improvements.
nerrs
NERRS is partnered with the North Carolina Coastal Reserve, with
program headquarters at the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory. This program
supports long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education, and
coastal stewardship. In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . .
$5,000,000 for the Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to
existing facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and
other facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
Estuarine Research Reserve.'' With this funding, NOAA invested $1.28
million and the State of North Carolina invested $42,000 for the
construction of a joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory to
serve the Reserve's mission. The joint building was completed in 2007
and was constructed specifically with the Reserve's education programs
in mind: the auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program
workshops and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
Education Program activities. The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory is a 5-
minute boat ride from the Rachel Carson component of the Reserve, and
this close proximity is essential for performing Reserve activities
efficiently to conduct mission-critical work, including educational
programs, water quality and habitat monitoring, research programs, and
stewardship of the site, which involves species monitoring, debris
clean-ups, feral horse management, and access point maintenance. In
short, NERRS activities in education, training, and stewardship have
been extensive, and they would not be feasible from any other Federal
laboratory.
In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
detriment to NOAA's ability to accomplish its own Strategic Mission and
to meet its obligations toward such congressional mandates as the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The only
argument for closing the laboratory was financial, but that argument
was based on flawed estimates of maintenance costs and an outdated
engineering report, which has since been revised with opposite
conclusions regarding the lab's structural integrity. Relative to
NOAA's budget, any cost savings associated with closing the Laboratory
would be trivial; however the loss to the Nation would be significant.
______
Prepared Statement of Mary E. Kentula, Corvallis, Oregon
I am writing on opposition of the proposed closure of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Center for Coastal
Fisheries and Habitat Research located in Beaufort, North Carolina
(hereafter the Beaufort Lab), as recommended on page 8 of NOAA's 2015
Budget Summary. As someone who has worked in the field of aquatic
science for over 30 years, I am concerned that one of the Nation's
premier research facilities may be closed. The Beaufort Lab is located
strategically where the entire East and Gulf Coasts can be easily and
cheaply accessed. The Lab is manned by an impressive team of nationally
and internationally known scientists who conduct research critical to
the understanding of the Nation's coastal ecosystems and the protection
of our fisheries and other enterprises supporting the economy of
coastal communities.
I have had the opportunity to work with scientists from the
Beaufort Lab throughout my career. I have been consistently impressed
with the quality of their work and their commitment to the mission of
NOAA. One of the invaluable services such facilities provide is the
ability to assemble technical teams from a variety of backgrounds and
organizations to address difficult problems. This includes expertise
from academia, the private sector, and other government agencies, as
well as scientists from the natural and social sciences. Because of the
mix of skills and perspectives, these teams are highly creative and
productive. The Beaufort team has been very successful in using this
approach, for example, to address the protection and restoration of
coastal ecosystems and to provide guidance to coastal communities on
how best to manage their lands in a productive and sustainable way.
I understand the intension is to move the Federal scientists to
other laboratories; however, the teams that have formed over the years
to conduct what NOAA deemed high priority research will be disbanded,
along with the associated institutional history. The time and effort
lost while the capability is rebuilt will be costly in real dollars as
well as in delays to important work. In addition, the investment in the
large and diverse array of equipment at the Beaufort Lab will be lost
and the funds used to purchase and maintain the equipment wasted. In
this time of budget constraints, it is ``penny wise and pound foolish''
to destroy a well-functioning unit and lose the investment in the staff
and equipment.
There is also the impact to the community of Beaufort to consider.
I have read articles expressing concerns about the potential closure of
the NOAA Lab. One account mentions the NOAA lab is the largest member
of the North Carolina Marine Science and Education Partnership which
accounts for over 58 million dollars in funding for research and, with
the addition of the education component, more than 100 million dollars
is brought into Carteret County. Loss of a key component of this hub
for research and education would be devastating to the economy of the
area and its citizens.
I urge the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, Science and Related Agencies to remove the recommendation to
close the NOAA Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research from
NOAA's budget for 2015 and thus prevent the loss of an outstanding
center for high priority and critical research on coastal systems and
fisheries.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Nikolai Klibansky Ph.D., Atlantic Beach, North
Carolina
Dear subcommittee members,
I am writing this letter as a private citizen using only my own
resources on my own time. I write on behalf of myself and no other
agency to express my opposition to the closure of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Laboratory in Beaufort
North Carolina, proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget. The Beaufort
Lab is a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
within the U.S. Department of Commerce. Employees of National Estuarine
Research Council (NERR), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
and the National Ocean Service (NOS) are housed at the Lab.
Though I am currently a post-doctoral research associate for the
National Research Council working at the Beaufort Lab I am there
temporarily and closure of the lab would likely occur after I am gone.
But as a citizen, a voter, and a scientist I find that closing the lab
would be a loss for us all, for the gain of none.
While I am strongly in favor of fiscal responsibility, and I
appreciate public officials trying to save taxpayers money, it is clear
to me that closure of the Beaufort Lab would cost far more in
intellectual capital and scientific information than would be gained in
dollars and cents. The Beaufort Lab is the second oldest marine lab in
the United States, commemorated in downtown Beaufort by the kind of
historical marker that honors battlefields and the birthplaces of
presidents. It is the only lab of its kind on the East Coast from Cape
May, New Jersey to Miami, Florida, situated in an ideal location near
Cape Hatteras which serves as the most significant marine ecological
boundary on this coast. As a North Carolina resident for nearly 7
years, I assure you that this Federal facility is a point of pride to
North Carolina voters, who live and breathe to enjoy a healthy ocean,
and many who feed their families from it.
The organizations housed within the Beaufort Lab perform essential
functions for us all, providing information needed to properly manage
marine fisheries like red snapper, mahi mahi, and shrimp; and to
mitigate harmful algal blooms and the formation of marine dead zones.
Other personnel dedicate their time to managing barrier beach islands
and marshes that protect the mainland, human lives, and billions of
dollars in coastal real estate from the damaging effects of massive
hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy.
Though the argument has been made that closure of the Beaufort lab
would save money, this is apparently based on inaccurate numbers. In
the budget it was claimed that the buildings are all falling apart and
the costs to repair them would be prohibitively expensive, and yet the
largest building on the property was built less than 10 years ago and
houses the largest proportion of employees. Of all the NOAA labs on the
East Coast, the Beaufort Lab is situated on some of the least expensive
property. It seems highly unlikely that proper accounting would show a
financial benefit of the closure the Lab that would come close to the
damage it would inflict. I don't expect that the calculations in the
budget were intentionally biased, but they are quite clearly wrong.
Therefore I urge you to do what is in your power, to see that the
Beaufort Lab is maintained and protected.
______
Prepared Statement of Lund's Fisheries Incorporated
Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby: On behalf of
the 150 employees of our family-owned, vertically-integrated seafood
processing facility and the company-owned and independently-owned
commercial fishing vessels and crew whom work to support us here in the
port of Cape May, New Jersey, I am writing in strong opposition to the
fiscal year 2015 budget proposal to close the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS)/National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Fisheries Laboratory in Beaufort, North
Carolina.
While the Beaufort Fisheries Laboratory is the second oldest marine
fisheries lab in the United States, contrary to the budget proposal's
justification that the lab be closed because it is structurally
unsound, a recent engineering report, reflecting more than $14 million
in new construction and renovations, states that this is not an
accurate description of the facility's capabilities or infrastructure.
More importantly, from the perspective of our fishing company, the
Beaufort Laboratory is strategically located, geographically, to
monitor the ecological resources and communities of both the northern
range of southern species and the southern range of northern species,
which are vitally important to marine fisheries on both the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts. This location is critical for continued study of
emerging issues, like climate change-related warming of ocean habitats,
so that fishery managers may be informed of resulting species regime
shifts, which are challenging our ability to sustainably manage the
region's living marine resources.
Specifically, the Beaufort Laboratory houses a state-of-the-art
population dynamics and stock assessment program that focuses on a
number of important, regional commercial fishery species, including
Atlantic and Gulf Menhaden, which provide a critical source of bait for
the lobster fisheries of the northeast and the crab and crawfish
fisheries of the mid-Atlantic, south and southeast.
Atlantic menhaden, for example, support the largest fishery on the
Atlantic coast, and Gulf menhaden support the largest fishery in the
Gulf of Mexico, worth more than $125 million, combined, to local and
regional coastal economies including the Port of Cape May. Decades of
experience in assessing and monitoring these fishery resources is
housed in Beaufort, the loss of which to the region would be
significant and, we believe, unnecessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our view of this
important budget issue. It is clear to us that this proposal should be
rejected and that the Beaufort Fisheries Laboratory should be
maintained by NOAA. We urge you and the other members of the
subcommittee to adopt this point of view.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide you or your
staff with any additional information in support of maintaining the
Beaufort Laboratory.
With best regards,
Jeffrey B. Reichle,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Institute
Ms. Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: Marine Conservation
Institute, based in Seattle, Washington, is a nonprofit conservation
organization that uses the latest science to identify important marine
ecosystems around the world and advocates for their protection for us
and future generations. We wish to thank the members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the
fiscal year 2015 appropriations for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Marine Conservation Institute was instrumental in President Bush's
designation of the Papahaanaumokuaakea Marine National Monument
(Northwest Hawaiian Islands) and the Pacific Remote Island Marine
National Monuments, which has given rise to our concern for the only
species of endangered marine mammal, the Hawaiian Monk Seal, that is
found entirely within U.S. territorial waters. Marine Conservation
Institute supports $5.0 million in base funding for the Hawaiian Monk
Seal recovery program, which is one element of the Marine Mammal
program within the Protected Resources budget line. If funded at $5
million, the Hawaiian Monk Seal program would receive approximately 35-
45 percent more than allocated in the fiscal year 2014 spending plan
and about double what has been requested in the last two Presidential
budgetn. Though these suggested percentage increases, by themselves,
would seem large, the amount that the Protected Resources budget would
increase in order to accommodate this request is quite small: 1.3
percent ($2.5 million increase to $186 million).
why hawaiian monk seal recovery is important
NOAA is responsible for recovering populations of the Hawaiian monk
seal, one of the most critically endangered marine mammals in the
world. The monk seal is also the only marine mammal whose entire
distribution range lies within our national jurisdiction; thus the U.S.
is solely responsibility for its continued survival. Over the last 50
years, the Hawaiian monk seal population has experienced a severe
decline of 60 percent, and now the population is slightly more than
1,000 individuals. Various factors have contributed to the seal's
decline including: human hunting of the species to near extinction in
the mid-1800's; entanglement in marine debris and fishing gear; loss of
habitat for pupping and resting; and competition for food in the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; to name a few.
There is reasonable hope for the monk seal if a small subpopulation
in the main Hawaiian Islands can continue to grow beyond its current
level of 130-200 individuals. However, this population growth has
generated increased conflicts with citizens and recreational fishermen
who unintentionally hook or entangle monk seals. In 2012 alone, there
were 15 confirmed hooking incidents, and three seals died as a result.
Hostility toward the seal has become toxic in some communities,
prompting at least four intentional seal killings on Kaua'i and
Moloka'i in a little over a year. Due to the efforts of private
foundations and funders, Marine Conservation Institute has been able to
successfully conduct culturally appropriate anger reduction activities
on Kaua'i in the last 2 years, and there has not been an intentional
killing since then. But this kind of private funding is not a permanent
solution for plugging a hole in NOAA's budget.
It has been conservatively estimated that 30 percent of the monk
seals are alive today due to direct actions by NOAA and its
partners.\1\ However, we are concerned that funding for the monk seal
has severely decreased in recent years (a level as low at $2.7 million
in 2011). Furthermore, our analysis indicates that cuts to the monk
seal program have been disproportionate compared to other marine mammal
species under NOAA's jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ McAvoy, Audrey. ``Feds--Efforts to rescue monk seals helping
species.'' Associated Press in West Hawaii Today, January 26, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower funding levels in recent years have already severely affected
recovery efforts by reducing seasonal field camps essential for
population monitoring and seal protection in the Northwest Hawaiian
Islands; hampering critical community liaison efforts to explore and
explain the importance of the monk seal in Native Hawaiian culture;
removing specialists who eliminate sharks preying on seal pups; and
diminishing research programs that develop mitigation measures for
fisheries interactions and other human-seal interactions.
funding level necessary for monk seal recovery
Marine Conservation Institute strongly recommends the subcommittee
devote a modest absolute increase in funding, an additional $2.5
million, to reach $5.0 million in fiscal year 2015 to begin to
reinstate NOAA's lost capacity to recover the species.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Marine Laboratories
The National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) is pleased
to submit testimony to the subcommittee with a series of
recommendations that we believe would strengthen the Nation's research
and education enterprise. NAML is a nonprofit organization representing
the ocean, coastal and Great Lakes interests of member laboratories
that employ thousands of scientists, engineers and professionals
nationwide. NAML labs conduct high quality research and education in
the natural and social sciences and translate that science to improve
decisionmaking on important issues facing our country. NAML requests
the subcommittee to:
--Provide strong support for competitive, merit-based ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes research, infrastructure and education programs
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This issue is
discussed in detail later in this statement;
--Support the research infrastructure of marine laboratories that
will lead to better integration of environmental data networks
into Federal information and observing system networks and in
so doing achieve cost effective science-based decisionmaking
regarding the management of marine, coastal and Great Lakes
ecosystems and related resources;
--Increase the co-location of Federal scientists and Federal research
infrastructure initiatives at NAML laboratories as well as
increased coordination and cooperation between NOAA's ocean,
coastal and Great Lakes research and education programs; and
--Advance a diverse, distributed ocean science education agenda
through strong support for ongoing programs within NSF, NOAA,
and NASA. NAML is concerned that the administration `s STEM
education consolidation plan will terminate K-12 STEM education
and fellowship activities within the Sea Grant program as well
as terminate important ocean literacy activities in the Office
of Education at NOAA. NAML urges the committee to reinstate
these activities within NOAA.
the role of marine laboratories in the nation's research and education
enterprise
Ocean, coastal and Great Lakes marine laboratories are vital, cost-
effective, place-based ``windows on the sea.'' They connect communities
with cutting edge marine, coastal and social sciences, while also
providing students and citizens with meaningful learning experiences.
The members of the National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML)
work together to improve the quality and relevance of ocean, coastal
and Great Lakes research, education and outreach. In particular, NAML
laboratories compete for support for the:
--Conduct of basic and applied research of the highest quality making
use of the unique capabilities of coastal laboratories;
--Revitalization of research infrastructure through increased cost-
effective networking of capabilities;
--Unique role that coastal laboratories play in conducting education,
outreach and public service;
--Encouragement of wise use and conservation of marine and coastal
habitats and resources using ecosystem-based management
approaches;
--Coastal and other observing systems that collect front line data
needed to improve predictions of natural and human-caused
disasters, the management of marine resources, research, and
education; and
--Increased public ocean and Great Lakes literacy to promote greater
environmental stewardship.
oceans, coasts and great lakes--vital for economic growth and enhanced
coastal resiliency
The ocean, coasts, coastal watersheds, and the Great Lakes play a
central role in the well being of the Nation. Over 8.5 million people
reside in the 100-year coastal flood hazard area. More than half of the
United States population lives in 673 coastal watershed counties, and
these counties generate 58 percent ($8.3 trillion) of the Nation's
gross domestic product (GDP)--even though they comprise only 25 percent
of the Nation's land area. Every day, the marine environment supplies a
multitude of products and services that enhance and support the lives
and livelihoods of citizens. In 2011, Americans, on average, ate 15
pounds of fish and shellfish per person--4.7 billion pounds all
together--making the U.S. second in the world in total seafood
consumption. Offshore oil production in Federal waters accounts for 24
percent of total U.S. crude oil production. If American coastal
watershed counties were considered an individual country, that country
would have a GDP higher than that of China. The United States has
jurisdiction over 3.4 million square miles of oceans--an expanse
greater than the land area of all 50 States combined. This vast marine
area offers many environmental resources and economic opportunities,
but also presents threats such as damaging tsunamis and hurricanes,
industrial accidents and outbreaks of water borne pathogens. The 2010
Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the 2011 Japanese
earthquake and tsunami, and the 2012 Superstorm Sandy are vivid
reminders that our understanding of our oceans and coastal areas is far
from complete. Developing sufficient capabilities to sustain ocean-
based economies and protect our coasts and coastal communities from
natural and man-made hazards will require a sustained investment in
research, infrastructure and education and training. NOAA's budget
request contains several programs designed to reduce coastal and
community vulnerability to future storms, inundation and sea level
rise. NAML encourages the Committee to support these resilience
programs
naml priority--investing in research
NAML believes America is driven by innovation--advances in ideas,
products and processes that create new industries and jobs, contribute
to our Nation's health and security, and support a high standard of
living. In the past half-century, educated people and the knowledge
they produce have increasingly driven innovation. It is essential that
the Nation reaffirms and revitalizes the unique partnership that has
existed between the Federal Government, the States and business and
industry with the Nation's research and education enterprise. In doing
so, we encourage the innovation that leads to high-quality jobs,
increased incomes, security, health, and prosperity for the Nation.
Investing in the Nation's research enterprise should be seen as a high
priority that has contributed significantly to our long-term prosperity
and technological preeminence through interdisciplinary research
spanning a landscape of disciplines, from physics to geology, chemistry
to biology, engineering to social sciences and modeling to observation.
NAML believes that research and education programs at the major Federal
science agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities should be
viewed as priority investments in the future health and well being of
the Nation.
Programs that support the extramural community via competitive,
merit-based research provide highly cost-effective returns on
investment, leverage additional resources to meet science and
management priorities, and distribute economic and societal benefits
over a broad array of communities. While NOAA has acknowledged his
assertion on many occasions, its support for its extramural partners
has continued to decline. From background information developed for the
NOAA Science Advisory Board's R&D Portfolio Review Task Force support
by the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) for extramural
R&D has declined by $60 million since 2005--from $171.6M to $107.1M
while the percentage of OAR's research activities to support extramural
programs has dropped from just over 50 percent down to 34 percent of
the total. In the National Ocean Service (NOS), support for extramural
R&D has declined from a level of $21.6M in 2005 to $13.7M in 2011 while
intramural support has grown from a level of $53 million in 2005 to a
level of $58 million in 2011. Moreover NOAA has repeatedly proposed the
termination of numerous extramural programs--such as the John H.
Prescott Marine Mammal Grants program--and the consolidation of
research programs--such as Ocean Exploration and Research--which has
led to the dramatic reduction in extramural research and education
support.
Beyond cutting back on its extramural support, NOAA now seeks
permission to ``receive and expend funds made available by, any . . .
private organization, or individual (proposed Section 108 of the
General Provisions in the NOAA Section of the Appendix to the fiscal
year 2015 Budget).'' This would enable NOAA to compete against non-
Federal and private entities for private sector support. Thus not only
is NOAA cutting back its own support, it intends to further exacerbate
the situation by competing against its partners for the limited
available non-Federal resources needed to fill the gaps created by
NOAA's decision to scale back its extramural support.
NAML urges the Committee to restore to the maximum extent possible
NOAA support for its extramural research, education, and other related
programs while also limiting NOAA's ability to compete with the private
sector for non-Federal resources needed for research, education, and
conservation programs.
Much attention has been justifiably focused on the need for our
Nation to continue its support of premier basic research programs. It
is also important to maintain strong support for mission-oriented
ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research, observing and monitoring
programs. Further, NAML believes that developing exchange programs
between Federal agencies and marine laboratories--such as co-location
of Federal scientists and Federal research infrastructure initiatives
at NAML laboratories--will further strengthen the capacity of both
sectors while also reducing costs by eliminating duplicative
activities.
naml priority--investing in research infrastructure
NAML believes that a comprehensive range of ocean and coastal
research infrastructure will be needed to meet growing demands for
scientific information and to enable the safe, efficient, and
environmentally sustainable use of the ocean. Institutional barriers
have inhibited collaborative efforts to plan for the deployment,
operation and maintenance of high-cost critical infrastructure assets
such as ships, satellites, observing systems and cyber-infrastructure
for data sharing, networking and collaborative use of available
facilities. Marine laboratories often play a critical role in
supporting studies that extend across decades. Marine laboratories can
provide the infrastructure to collect data throughout a lifetime, and
even maintain important data streams that extend well beyond any single
researcher. Marine laboratories are often a hotbed of sensor
development and testing. With technology changing rapidly, marine
laboratories provide the expertise to maintain a level of
standardization that ensures such data can be interpreted accurately
even as protocols change in response to improving technology. Marine
laboratories are playing an increasing important role in supporting
networks that extend beyond any single lab. Because environmental
processes occur on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, data
streams are standardized and networked to varying degrees to facilitate
cross-site and long-term analyses. Finally, given the complexity and
interconnected nature of many environmental processes, marine
laboratories provide important opportunities to weave together the work
of many researchers across diverse disciplines to detect patterns and
understand processes that would not be apparent from any single study
or data stream.
naml priority--science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem)
education
NAML's education mission is two-fold: to enhance ocean STEM
education to ensure that all citizens recognize the role of the oceans,
coasts and Great Lakes in their own lives and the impacts they
themselves have on these environments; and to provide formal research
and training opportunities at K-12, college, and post-graduate levels
to ensure a technically-qualified, and ethnically diverse workforce
capable of solving problems and answering questions related to the
protection, restoration and management of coastal and ocean resources,
climate variability and society's needs. An informed and engaged public
is essential to understand complex ocean- and coastal-related issues,
balance the use and conservation of marine resources, and maximize
future benefits from the ocean. The public should be armed not only
with the knowledge and skills needed to make informed choices, but also
with a sense of excitement about the marine environment. Public
understanding of human impacts on the marine environment should be
balanced with recognition of the benefits to be derived from well-
managed ocean resources. Inland communities need to be just as involved
as seaside communities, because of the connection among the ocean, the
atmosphere and the land. Ocean-related education also has the potential
to help stem the tide of science illiteracy threatening to undermine
the Nation's health, safety and security. The scientific literacy of
U.S. high school graduates is well below the international average.
This progressive loss of literacy weakens the Nation's ability to
maintain its traditionally strong foundation in science and
mathematics. NAML laboratories seek to expand the engagement of
individuals from groups that have been historically under-represented
in ocean research, education and outreach. This is particularly
important in fulfilling the goal of achieving a diversified STEM
pipeline to meet future science and ocean workforce needs.
NAML remains concerned with certain elements of the
administration's STEM Education Consolidation proposal for fiscal year
2015. A total of 31 STEM education programs at nine key R&D mission
agencies (including NOAA, NSF, and NASA) will be impacted by this
proposal. It is important for mission agencies to help support the next
generation of scientific and technical talent--much of which will be
needed by these agencies in future years. We urge the subcommittee to
reject these particular consolidation proposals and support the
continuation of these programs within their current agencies.
NAML appreciates the opportunity to present these views to the
subcommittee as it begins work on the development of the fiscal year
2015 appropriations bill.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), this
testimony addresses important programs in the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and Department of Commerce. NCAI is the oldest and largest
American Indian organization in the United States. Tribal leaders
created NCAI in 1944 as a response to termination and assimilation
policies that threatened the existence of American Indian and Alaska
Native tribes. Since then, NCAI has fought to preserve the treaty
rights and sovereign status of tribal governments, while also ensuring
that Native people may fully participate in the political system. As
the most representative organization of American Indian and Alaska
Native tribes, NCAI serves the broad interests of tribal governments
across the Nation. As Congress considers the fiscal year 2015 budget
and beyond, leaders of tribal nations call on decision-makers to ensure
that the promises made to Indian Country are honored in the Federal
budget.
introduction
Annual funding decisions by Congress are an expression of our
Nation's moral priorities. Numerous treaties, statutes, and court
decisions have created a fundamental contract between tribal nations
and the United States: tribes ceded millions of acres of land that made
the United States what it is today, and in return tribes have the right
of continued self-government and the right to exist as distinct peoples
on their own lands. And for its part, the United States has assumed a
trust responsibility to protect these rights and to fulfill its solemn
commitments to Indian tribes and their members.
Part of this trust responsibility includes basic governmental
services in Indian Country, funding for which is appropriated in the
discretionary portion of the Federal budget. Tribal governments exist
to protect and preserve their unique cultures, identities, and natural
environments for posterity. As governments, tribes must deliver a wide
range of critical services, such as education, workforce development,
and first-responder and public safety services, to their citizens. The
Federal budget for tribal governmental services reflects the extent to
which the United States honors its promises to Indian people.
department of justice
The bi-partisan Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC) recently
released its report to Congress and the President emphasizing that
``[n]ow is the time to eliminate the public safety gap that threatens
so much of Native America.'' \1\ The public safety problems that
continue to plague tribal communities are the result of decades of
gross underfunding for tribal criminal justice systems; a uniquely
complex jurisdictional scheme; and the historic, abject failure by the
Federal Government to fulfill its public safety obligations on American
Indian and Alaska Native lands. Residents and visitors on tribal lands
deserve the safety and security that is taken for granted outside of
Indian Country. The time is now to remedy the disparities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Indian Law & Order Commission. (November 2013). A roadmap for
making Native America safer: Report to the President & Congress of the
United States, Executive Summary, p. v. Retrieved on January 10, 2014,
from www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/files/A_Roadmap_
For_Making_Native_America_Safer-Full.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has taken historic steps in recent years with the passage
of the Tribal Law and Order Act in 2010 and the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013), both of which begin to address
some of the structural barriers to public safety in tribal communities.
For the promise of these laws to be fully realized, however, these laws
must be fully implemented, which requires sufficient resources for
tribal justice systems and ongoing coordination and consultation
between various Federal agencies and tribal governments. The Department
of Justice recognized this reality in its recently issued Proposed
Statement of Principles. The Proposed Statement articulates DOJ's
belief that stable funding at sufficient levels for essential tribal
justice functions is critical to the long-term growth of tribal
institutions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Justice. (November 2013). Proposed statement
of principles for working with federally recognized Indian tribes, p.
2. Retrieved on January 10, 2014, from www.justice.gov/tribal/docs/
statement-of-principles-for-working-with-tribes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased and targeted funding in the following program areas will
have a huge impact on safety in tribal communities for tribal citizens,
residents, and visitors to tribal lands. This would also help foster
economic development on tribal lands and improve the quality of life in
immeasurable ways. As the Federal Government balances the Federal
budget, it must also pledge to honor its distinct legal, treaty, and
trust obligations to assist tribal nations in providing public safety
to their citizens. Highly-functioning criminal justice systems and
basic, on-the-ground police protection are fundamental priorities of
any government; tribal governments are no different.
As the ILOC asserts, ``[h]ow we choose to deal with the current
public safety crisis in Native America--a crisis largely of the Federal
Government's own making over more than a century of failed laws and
policies-- can set our generation apart from the legacy that remains
one of [the] great unfinished challenges of the Civil Rights Movement.
Lives are at stake, and there is no time to waste.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Indian Law & Order Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide at least $395.4 million for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
public safety initiatives in Indian Country (including $375.4 million
in discretionary funds and $20 million from the Crime Victims Fund, a
mandatory account).--The Crime Victims Fund, administered by the Office
for Victims of Crime (OVC) within DOJ's Office of Justice Programs
(OJP) includes the $20 million set-aside for tribal victim assistance
within the Crime Victims Fund, which was initiated in fiscal year 2014.
The Crime Victims Fund was initially established to address the need
for victim services programs, and to assist tribal, State, and local
governments in providing appropriate services to their communities. The
Fund is financed by collections of fines, penalty assessments, and bond
forfeitures from defendants convicted of Federal crimes, but until last
year, tribes have only been eligible to receive a very small portion of
the discretionary funding from the Fund. The tribal funding is
requested as part of OVC's Vision 21 Initiative, a strategic planning
initiative based on an 18-month national assessment by OJP that
systematically engaged the crime victim advocacy field and other
stakeholder groups in assessing current and emerging challenges and
opportunities facing the field. The initiative focuses on supplemental
victims services and other victim-related programs and initiatives in
areas like research, legal services, capacity building, national and
international victim assistance, and--of course--tribal assistance.
The Department proposes bill language for a 7 percent tribal set-
aside from all discretionary Office of Justice Programs to address
Indian Country public safety and tribal criminal justice needs. Under
the fiscal year 2015 request, the 7 percent set-aside totals
approximately $102.8 million--a slight increase from last year's
request.
This year's DOJ budget also requests a total of $1.6 million for
the Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ) to, amongst other things, help fund
a total of six attorney positions in fiscal year 2015. This request is
identical to fiscal year 2014. The request for additional staffing
resources was made in recognition of the increased workload and duties
of OTJ staff in recent years, particularly since the Tribal Law & Order
Act of 2010 established OTJ as a permanent component of the Department.
Hundreds of Federal cases, in addition to other conflicts needing
resolution are generated in Indian Country each year, and OTJ serves as
the primary point of contact between all 566 federally recognized
tribes and DOJ on these matters. Additionally, with the special
domestic violence criminal jurisdiction (SDVCJ) tribal provisions of
the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, OTJ plays an
important role in implementation. OTJ coordinates these complex
matters, the underlying policy, and emerging legislation between more
than a dozen DOJ components active in Indian Country. As such, it is
imperative that OTJ has the necessary resources to sufficiently fulfill
all of these obligations.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2015 budget request for tribes under
the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to fund tribal
law enforcement expenses is $35 million, an increase of $15 million
from the fiscal year 2014 requested amount. This program provides
funding and resources to meet the public safety needs of law
enforcement and advance community policing on tribal lands. The
President's fiscal year 2015 increase brings the amount closer to his
request in fiscal year 2012 (which was closer to $42 million). These
funds are critical for the hiring and retention of tribal law
enforcement officers.
DOJ's fiscal year 2015 Budget Request for Indian Country programs
is an increase over its fiscal year 2014 numbers, which is particularly
encouraging given the current budget climate in Washington, DC.
Moreover, DOJ's request provides tribes with more flexibility in how
they spend their DOJ grant dollars, demonstrating the Justice
Department's continued commitment to tribal self-determination and the
improved administration of justice on Indian lands.
office on violence against women--violence against native women
NCAI urges Congress to fully fund the programs authorized in the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), including the funds authorized for
tribal implementation of VAWA special domestic violence criminal
jurisdiction. In fiscal year 2015, VAWA in CJS should be funded at the
authorized level of $569.5 million instead of $422.5 million. Tribes
receive statutory set-asides.
VAWA is a cornerstone of our Nation's response to domestic
violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Its effective
coordinated community response model helps hundreds of thousands of
victims find safety and receive services while holding thousands of
perpetrators accountable for their actions. VAWA also supports victims'
long-term stability and security, and it addresses the unique barriers
that many victims face in accessing services and finding justice.
It is estimated that one in three Indian women will be raped and
that 6 in 10 will be physically assaulted in their lifetimes. This
violence threatens the lives of Native women and the future of American
Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages. No area of need is more
pressing or compelling than the plight of American Indian and Alaska
Native women and children fleeing physical and sexual violence.
On March 7, 2013, President Obama signed into law the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA 2013) which recognizes and
affirms the inherent sovereign authority of Indian tribes to exercise
Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) over all
persons--Indian and non-Indian--who commit crimes of dating violence,
domestic violence, and violations of protection orders within Indian
Country. The bill authorized $5 million for tribes to implement the new
VAWA provisions and otherwise strengthen tribal justice systems.
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present
Name of Grant Program Fiscal year Fiscal year fiscal year Authorized
2013 enacted * 2014 budget 2015 level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE APPROPRIATIONS
STOP--Grants...................................... $176.18 $193 $193 $222
Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP)............ 23.30 27 27 40
Services for Rural Victims........................ 34.02 36 33 50
Civil Legal Assistance for Victims................ 38.22 37 42.5 57
Transitional Housing (OVW)........................ 23.30 24.75 25 35
Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies............... 46.61 50 50 73
CHOOSE Youth Program.............................. 4.66 5 5 15
SMART Program..................................... 4.66 5 5 15
Grants to Support Families in the Justice System.. 14.45 15 16 22
Research on Violence Against AIAN Women........... 0.93 1 1 1
Nat'l Clearinghouse on Sexual Assault of AI/AN 0.47 0.5 0.5 0.5
Women............................................
National Tribal Sex Offender Registry............. 0 0 -- 1
Tribal Jurisdiction............................... -- -- -- 5.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
VAWA CJS Total.............................. 388.24 417.0 422.5 569.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* With sequestration and rescissions.
department of commerce
Provide $35 million for the Minority Business Development Agency
(MBDA).--Created by Executive Order in 1971, the MBDA was established
to support minority business development centers and received funding
of almost $63 million to carry out this mission. Since then, MBDA's
funding has shrunk by over 50 percent to an estimated $30.5 million for
fiscal year 2013 and $29.3 million for fiscal year 2014. After MBDA
revamped its cooperative assistance grants to Minority Business Centers
(MBCs), the Native American Business Enterprise Centers (NABECs) were
eliminated and their services were consolidated with the MBCs. About
$13 million of MBDA's budget is disbursed to the MBCs to provide
business consulting; advice on business financing; and some procurement
technical assistance to minority businesses, entrepreneurs, and tribal
enterprises.
With the service gap created by the elimination of NABECs, the need
for an increased level of funding for MBDA is even greater. MBDA must
sustain and expand support for these centers, which provide important
assistance to businesses that help them grow and develop, thereby
creating a stronger private sector and healthier national economy. The
MBDA also supports minority contractors' teaming efforts to pursue
Federal contracts, directs efforts to track minority business data,
collaborates with the Office of Native American Affairs, and is
increasing its focus on global trade.
Fund the Office of Native American Affairs (ONNA) at a minimum of
$1.25 million as part of the Commerce Department Management Budget.--In
the late 1990s, the Secretary of Commerce established ONAA) within the
Secretary's office that was codified by the enactment of the Native
American Business Development, Trade Promotion and Tourism Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-464) (the 2000 Act). Since then, funding for the Office
has been partial and very limited. In order to carry out its mission,
ONAA must receive adequate support to implement Indian policy
initiatives and expand Native American business development initiatives
both domestically and internationally. Funding made available through
Commerce's Departmental Management budget would help ONAA's efforts,
particularly given the reduced focus of MBDA on specific Native
American business assistance.
conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. For more
information, please contact Natasha Anderson, Staff Attorney, at
nanderson@ncai.org, Amber Ebarb, NCAI Budget and Policy Analyst, at
aebarb@ncai.org or Brian Howard, Legislative Associate, at
bhoward@ncai.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Court Appointed Special Advocate
Association
Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit remarks on the
Department of Justice (DOJ) fiscal year 2015 budget. On behalf of the
National Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Association's network
of 933 State and local CASA and guardian ad litem (GAL) programs in 49
States, including Maryland and Alabama, I strongly urge the
subcommittee to fully fund the Court Appointed Special Advocates
program through DOJ's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention at the Congressionally authorized level of $12 million. This
funding, along with significant local and State sources, will be used
to expand advocacy on behalf of abused and neglected children, a
vulnerable population that is highly at-risk of juvenile delinquency
and incarceration.
We appreciate the subcommittee's long standing recognition of the
overwhelmingly positive impact CASA programs have in the lives of
abused and neglected children, and we urge your ongoing support as we
strive to achieve our national goal of providing a CASA volunteer for
every child in foster care. In the U.S. today, too many of our 646,000
foster youth are going it alone. They want and need advocates to help
them reach their full potential, and every day, CASA programs across
the country provide an important voice in the lives of children beyond
the walls of the courtrooms in which their cases are heard.
The effectiveness of the CASA/GAL program model in achieving
positive, long-term outcomes for children in care is well documented
and well supported. CASA volunteer advocates are an influential
protective factor in children's lives. A child with a CASA/GAL
volunteer is more likely to receive needed counseling services, less
likely to experience disruptive changes of placement, and more likely
to pass all their courses in school. As community members with a vested
stake in the long-term success of the children they serve, CASA
volunteers advocate against tremendous odds for the fundamental right
of every individual to live in a safe and secure environment.
As the subcommittee is acutely aware, foster youth face an
extensive range of risk factors, including a much greater chance of
juvenile delinquency and incarceration than the general youth
population. According to data last collected by the National Institute
of Justice in 2011, children who suffer from abuse and neglect are 28
percent more likely to be arrested as adults and 59 percent more likely
to be arrested as juveniles.
Through smart, targeted investments in a program that provides a
stable, supportive advocacy-based presence in children's lives,
together, we can stem the tide of youth delinquency in this Nation and
move our young people--high-risk foster youth included--toward a safe
and promising future. The value of saving a high risk youth from a life
of crime has been reliably estimated to range between $2.6 and $5.3
million. Our programs provide one-on-one advocacy and mentoring
throughout the course of a child's case that is critical to keeping the
lives of foster youth on a positive trajectory and away from a
devastating future.
As with a number of programs across the Federal Government, the
Court Appointed Special Advocate program has weathered its share of
funding cuts over the past few fiscal years as Congress works to
achieve deficit reduction. I assure you that our programs have left no
stone unturned in our quest to serve children, but we need the support
of Congress to help vulnerable children, a population to whom we all
share a significant obligation. These Federal funds, which are
leveraged with other State and local resources, have been a significant
driver of increased service to children.
While CASA funding has decreased by half of the fiscal year 2011
enacted level, the need for effective advocacy for foster youth in the
courtroom--and the need for the robust training, technical assistance,
and other resources that make this advocacy possible--has not at all
diminished. Additionally, CASA/GAL programs across the Nation are
reporting that their cases are increasingly complex and challenging--
including cases involving the overmedication of foster youth as just
one example--which require additional time, energy, and resources, all
of which are stretched significantly across our programs.
We ask the subcommittee to provide funding for a program that not
only transforms the lives of foster youth, but is also an effective
cost investment of taxpayer dollars at a time in which every single one
of those dollars must be spent wisely. CASA/GAL programs, in addition
to advocating for a child's best interest in the courtroom and ensuring
that he/she has the services needed to succeed, work to move the child
out of the foster care system as quickly and as safely as possible.
Less time in care is a better outcome for the child and it is a better
outcome for State governments and Federal child welfare programs,
compared to the cost of keeping a child in care.
CASA volunteers save tens of millions of dollars in child welfare
and other costs to society, as we work to keep at-risk youth out of the
burgeoning prison system and on the path to promising, fulfilling
futures. More than 90 percent of children with CASA volunteers never
re-enter the foster care system. By reducing long-term placements,
subsequent victimization, and reentry into the system, the CASA program
substantially reduces foster care costs and significant costs
associated with long-term services for children who have endured
traumatic and difficult circumstances through no fault of their own.
To put this in simple accounting terms, it costs the Federal
Government $3,250 per month to keep a child in the foster care system.
Every child with a CASA volunteer saves the taxpayer approximately
$24,375 per year, because our volunteers are moving these children
safely out of the system. While a more efficient use of resources is of
paramount importance, let me also emphasize the value of our work in
purely human terms. Every day a child spends in the foster care system,
is a day he or she can never get back. It is a day that they are unable
to do many of the things that we take for granted in the lives of our
own children--making lasting friendships, forming a bond with a
teacher, enjoying the movements of everyday life with a loving family
that is truly their own. All children deserve a safe, nurturing,
permanent home.
I would also like to thank the subcommittee for continuing to
provide strong funding for DOJ's competitive youth mentoring grants
program. This funding is critical to strengthening and expanding the
reach of organizations across the country that positively impact the
lives of at-risk and underserved youth through one-on-one mentoring.
The mentoring programs funded through these grants build needed assets
in young people and change their lives for the better.
We again ask the subcommittee to fund the Court Appointed Special
Advocates program at $12 million in fiscal year 2015 to address an
overwhelming need for advocacy on behalf of abused and neglected
children. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC)
Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby, for the
opportunity to submit testimony to the subcommittee in support of
funding for the U.S. Department of Justice's crime prevention programs.
In fiscal year 2015, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to
appropriate $25 million for the Byrne Memorial Competitive Grants
Program, $15 million for the Economic, High-Technology, Cybercrime
Prevention program, and $75 million to continue the Comprehensive
School Safety Program.
Within the funds for the Byrne Competitive Grants program, we
respectfully request that the subcommittee provide specific guidance to
the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to continue its historic support
for two essential crime prevention functions. The first is ensuring the
existence of independent, non-governmental national repositories of
best practices and evidence-based crime prevention. This ensures that
State and local law enforcement have access to the best materials on
effective crime prevention practices--to get the best possible outcomes
from the subcommittee's investments in Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
and in OJP's other State and local assistance programs. The second
essential function is a strong national public education campaign to
reach the general public with evidence-based crime prevention
messages--a tactic which has been shown to have tremendous impact in
changing individual and collective behavior to prevent crime.
We also want to applaud the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a well
thought out, comprehensive grants program that supports the work of its
Intellectual Property Crimes Task Force. In the last few years, OJP has
awarded grants to State and local law enforcement to encourage strong
investigations and effective prosecutions of Intellectual Property
crimes, which cost our economy 373,000 jobs and $58 billion per year,
and pose serious threats to Americans' health and safety.
The Department also wisely included a demand reduction component to
this comprehensive effort. In partnership with DOJ, late in 2011 NCPC
launched a public education campaign to increase public awareness of
the consequences of purchasing counterfeit and pirated products. The
campaign addresses the impacts to health and safety, support for
organized criminal elements, and job loss. We hope the subcommittee
will support this effort and encourage OJP to continue this sensible
approach of including demand reduction and public education in the
effort to fight Intellectual Property crime. Grants through the
Economic, High-Technology, Cybercrime Prevention program can continue
this important purpose.
Like all Americans, we remain troubled by the increase of violent
activity in our schools, and support efforts to continue the
Comprehensive School Safety Initiative with $75 million in fiscal year
2015. School safety must be addressed through a sustained commitment
nationally--both to reassure schools that they have a partner, and to
reassure parents that work is being done to make their schools a safe
place for their children. Though new, the initiative is a research-
focused plan to increase the safety of schools nationwide. DOJ has just
begun work to detail the root causes of school violence, develop
technologies and strategies for increasing school safety, and provide
pilot grants to test innovative approaches to enhance school safety
across the Nation. Significant funding in fiscal year 2015 will
continue this commitment and realize the gains made in fiscal year
2014.
School safety has been at the heart of NCPC's work for much of our
history. Our signature Be Safe and Sound in School (B3S) initiative
combines target hardening and Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design techniques with concrete ideas on engaging the school and
surrounding community in activities to promote a culture of respect in
schools. These techniques include: participation by students, staff,
parents, teachers and administrators in strategic planning for school
safety; improved surveillance and maintenance; training; and ongoing
evaluation.
Background.--NCPC's mission is to be the Nation's leader in helping
people keep themselves, their families, and their communities safe from
crime. Through different media and methods, NCPC enables communities
and law enforcement to work together to create safe environments,
especially for children and youth. Established in 1980, the NCPC-led
National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign and related initiatives
have featured our beloved icon McGruff the Crime Dog and his signature
message that beckons all Americans to ``Take a Bite Out of Crime.''
McGruff has had lasting impact. Eighty-three percent of adult
Americans recognize McGruff. Over 80 percent of kids would follow his
advice on crime prevention. Over 90 percent of adults describe McGruff
as informative, trustworthy, and effective. And 72 percent think he's
cool. Further, Federal resources invested in the National Citizens'
Crime Prevention Campaign have been well leveraged. For every $1 of
Federal investment, the Campaign generated $100 or more in donated
media. Over its history, the Campaign has produced $1.4 billion worth
of donated advertising.
Since the inception of the Campaign, NCPC, a private, non-profit,
tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, has maintained a close partnership
with DOJ and local law enforcement. Together we create cost-effective
and award-winning public education campaigns, launch groundbreaking and
comprehensive support initiatives for crime-besieged cities, provide
training and technical assistance, produce and distribute hundreds of
ready-to-use publications filled with practical tips, expand the reach
of crime prevention tools through online resources, conduct
conferences, and more. Our goal is to give Americans the tools they
need on the ground and in the field.
Supporting Crime Prevention Practitioners.--To the greatest extent
possible, NCPC designs messages and trains law enforcement, community
leaders, and other individuals on crime prevention practices with
proven outcomes based on the highest standards of research. NCPC's
commitment to promoting the most effective crime prevention tools is
based our capacity to monitor crime prevention research and translate
that research into practice.
With additional support from DOJ, NCPC provides National Training
and Technical Assistance to address the nationwide gap in education
opportunities for new law enforcement officers, which was a result of
local department cuts in training and crime prevention budgets. NCPC
has also recorded or released five podcast interviews with experts in
the field on topics such as Neighborhood Watch and Citizen Corps,
crime-free multi-housing, and what a crime prevention officer is worth.
Soon NCPC will develop a toolkit for new officers, which will include
PowerPoint presentations, fact sheets, and resources on basic crime
prevention that they can share with their communities.
National Crime Prevention Activities.--NCPC works closely with
State and local law enforcement and their national organizations to
anticipate and respond to persistent crime challenges, emerging crime
trends, and changing crime prevention needs nationwide.
Through a Byrne Competitive grant, NCPC is working with DOJ and a
number of other partners to conduct a crime prevention awareness
campaign to address the dangerous and costly problem of intellectual
property (IP) crime, such as pirating and counterfeiting. Our goal for
the campaign is to engage the public in demand reduction and decrease
threats to public health and safety. We are also working with law
enforcement to bring the consequences of IP theft to the forefront for
the public. Through focus groups and survey assessments NCPC uncovered
that consumers do not expect to get caught. They do not believe that
law enforcement is overly concerned about this problem because if law
enforcement were concerned, the public would be more aware of the crime
and subsequent IP prosecutions. In order to educate the public, we need
to encourage and equip those officers and agencies who understand the
impact to talk about IP investigations and arrests in the same way they
would about a big drug bust or capture of a violent criminal.
We are also working on several other public education campaigns to
help people protect themselves, particularly from fraud. In 2013, NCPC
hosted a virtual conference for consumers and organizations that
support them in avoiding and recovering from mortgage fraud. It
provided valuable information to homeowners on how to protect
themselves against mortgage scams. This complements our individual- and
community-focused work on foreclosure fraud and vacant property crime.
Its reach will soon be expanded through public service advertising.
Additionally, we are tailoring crime prevention information to the
overlooked population of young people ages 18 to 24. As teens and young
adults leave their homes to pursue education and employment for the
first time they are often the victims of criminals and scams that prey
on their inexperience. That is why we are developing programs to help
these young people ``Be Smarter,'' live safely and protect themselves
as they handle their first credit cards, first apartments, first cars,
first college campuses, first vacations on their own, and first jobs.
We are providing practical, ready-to-use resources on crimes
against senior citizens. Senior citizens are vulnerable to
telemarketing and financial fraud that threaten their financial
stability. We are also educating the public on the underreported crime
of elder abuse. An alarming number of senior citizens are physically,
emotionally, sexually, or financially abused--frequently by people they
trust. We are striving to ensure that people of all ages can speak out
and act to prevent abuse and victimization and live in safe
communities. On April 10, we held a virtual conference to protect
senior citizens from physical abuse and financial exploitation. For law
enforcement and direct service organizations, this is also a wonderful
opportunity to learn how to better serve the victims of such scams. It
remains available online at http://engage.vevent.com/rt/
ncpcsafeseniors.
Four years ago, NCPC set out to work on a new crime prevention
initiative that would ``inspire us to live in ways that embody
respect... where we live, learn, work, and play.'' That is our vision
for the Circle of Respect. Lack of respect contributes to school
violence, property theft, online aggression, and cyberbullying among
teens. Studies show that young people join gangs because it is the only
place they get respect.
The Circle of Respect is a national initiative that engages and
challenges children, young people, adults, families, and communities to
promote a culture of respect that transcends what has been a
traditional tolerance of unacceptable behavior. The Circle of Respect
website will also host VOICES--a user-generated site for teens to speak
about personal experiences of respect within their families, peers, and
communities. We will use their submitted artwork, poetry, short
stories, music, and films to guide development on respect-centered
materials for other youth, service providers, and crime prevention
practitioners.
When McGruff and NCPC came on the scene almost 35 years ago,
community groups and individual citizens thought that crime prevention
was the sole responsibility of law enforcement. Working together with
DOJ, local law enforcement, and communities all across the Nation, we
have ``moved the needle'' so that today, we know that crime prevention
is everyone's business. McGruff has carried the message that all
people--whether they are 7 or 107--can do their part to prevent crime
and make America safer. That's what ``Take A Bite Out of Crime'' means.
Three out of four adults now know they have a personal responsibility
for helping to keep their communities safe from crime.
New forms of crime are growing, such as identity theft, mortgage
and foreclosure fraud, and cybercrimes of every stripe. We must
effectively deploy our tightening resources to combat crime. Crime
extracts a significant financial cost--approximately $3.2 trillion per
year--borne by victims and their families, employers, communities, and
taxpayers. In 2011, governments at all levels spent more than $236
billion for police protection, correctional facilities, and legal and
judicial costs--corrections alone costs $81 billion annually. In 2010
violent crimes (murder, rape, assault, and robbery) cost Americans $42
billion. In 2011, consumers lost an estimated $1.5 billion to fraud.
There is also an unknowable opportunity cost both financial and social.
We cannot afford these upwardly trending costs in today's economy.
Research concludes that crime prevention initiatives are cost
effective; we can pay modest costs now or exorbitant ones later.
Crime Prevention in fiscal year 2015.--In an era of tightening
budgets, investment in prevention initiatives reduces the need for
government spending on intervention, treatment, enforcement, and
incarceration. Therefore, investment in crime prevention has never been
more critical. There is no doubt that when individuals, community
groups, and businesses work closely with law enforcement to help keep
watch over their communities, crime is prevented.
Though most crime prevention activities are local, the Federal
Government sets the tone by promoting crime prevention strategies that
work. It provides leadership through funding, education, technical
assistance, and support for State and local programs. Research and
identification of what works, and translation and transmission of
evidence-based best practices and lessons learned to and among the
field require national leadership.
Thank you again for allowing NCPC to submit written testimony and
for your ongoing commitment to State and local crime prevention
programs. NCPC is proud to have worked with Congress, DOJ, State and
local law enforcement and other agencies, and the private sector in the
past, and we believe we can continue to be an effective partner going
forward. As Congress continues its work to prevent crime, please
consider NCPC and McGruff as a resource and as your active
collaborators in building safer communities.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Estuarine Research Reserve
Association
Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is William Reay
and I am the Director of the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve in Virginia, administered by the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science. I submit this testimony in my capacity as President of the
National Estuarine Research Reserve Association (NERRA). NERRA is a
not-for-profit scientific and educational organization dedicated to the
protection, understanding, and science-based management of our Nation's
estuaries and coasts.
For fiscal year 2015, NERRA strongly recommends the following
reserve system programs and funding levels within the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
NERRS Operations.......................... $22.9 million
NERRS Procurement, Acquisition, and $1.7 million
Construction (PAC).
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) program and
its sites bring the strength of NOAA science and stewardship to
important coastal regions across the Nation. NERRS encompasses 28
protected reserves located in estuaries that are home to our most
productive habitats and populated communities--that support science-
based coastal resource management, research, and education to meet
national priorities as mandated by Congress in the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. The States have been entrusted to
operate and manage NOAA's program in 22 States and Puerto Rico, where
over 1.3 million acres of land and water are protected in perpetuity.
What distinguishes the NERRS is the community and State implementation
of programs and local control of these places that form this Federal-
State partnership program.
The administration's fiscal year 2015 request for the NERRS is a
total of $21.3 million. This amount will result in a reduction of
funding to each State because a 29th reserve, located in Hawaii, will
be added this year. Therefore, the administration's budget represents
reduced funding to States from last year's appropriation (enacted
fiscal year 2014 budget at $21.3 million). After reviewing the detailed
NOAA budget request sent to the Congress, it is clear that States
implementing this national program are left short-changed in their
ability to fulfill the vision of Congress in its creation of the NERRS
program.
NERRA is deeply concerned with the administration's funding levels
that we believe are inconsistent with key tenants of NOAA's own
strategic plan--specifically, enhancing community and economic
resiliency and strengthening science in support of coastal management.
The administration's fiscal year 2015 requested funding level will
diminish the NERRS's capacity to deliver important research, education
and training to its State, local, and regional partners.
First, the administration budget requests flat-funds the program at
the fiscal year 2014 level of $21.3 million. Flat-funding in the face
of the program adding a 29th reserve in fiscal year 2015 will in effect
result in reduced budgets for each of the current reserves. This
funding level is problematic because in addition to the new Hawaii
reserve that is on track to join the system in fiscal year 2015, there
are two more known--one in Louisiana, and one in Connecticut--in
process for future years. Equally troubling is the absence of any
mention of the expected expansions in NOAA's fiscal year 2015 budget
submission. In addition to projected losses to the States operating
NERRS sites, the administration's budget will mean less funding for
science and monitoring of sea level rise change impacts at a time when
community need is great.
Investments in the NERRS are dollar-smart because funding for the
program is matched by the States and leveraged significantly, resulting
in an average of more than five other local and State partners
contributing to the work at each reserve. Funding of $22.9 million for
the NERRS would be a minimal level to provide each reserve with the
necessary funding to assist our coastal communities, industries and
resource managers to enhance coastal resiliency in a changing
environment.
Second, within the budget request for NOAA, the administration is
again proposing the elimination of funding for the Bay-Watershed
Education and Training (B-WET) regional programs--a reduction of $7.2
million in funding. The rationale provided for program reductions is
misleading in stating that NOAA education experiences will continue to
be provided by programs including the NERRS. Where States are eligible
for B-WET funding, reserves are able to increase their educational
capacity by as much as 50 percent, as documented in the Chesapeake Bay
NERR (VA) for example. NERRA strongly opposes the cut of B-WET regional
programs and any of the other NOAA STEM educational programs.
making coasts more resilient and saving the nation dollars through the
national estuarine research reserve system
NERRS assists our coastal communities, industries and resource
managers to enhance coastal resiliency in a changing environment. As
severe weather events become more common, Federal, State, and local
officials are recognizing that estuaries have the capacity to provide
green resilience infrastructure. Through NERRS, NOAA can tailor science
and management practices to enable local planners to use estuarine
habitat as a tool for resilience and adaptation.
Through science and science-based management of more than 1.3M
acres of protected land, NERRS provides numerous benefits to
communities that result in improved water quality, increased upland
flood and erosion control, and improved habitat quality that support
local fisheries and provide storm protection to coastal communities.
The approximate $10 million Federal contribution in science supports
NERRS research and a coastal observing system capacity that informs
regional policy that saves communities money. For example, research
conducted by the Rookery Bay NERR at Naples, Florida, resulted in
modified best management practice training for Florida's landscape
industry, thus saving local businesses hundreds of thousands of
dollars. It is important to emphasize that the work at each reserve
goes beyond its property boundaries and creates a number of
environmental and economic benefits for the communities and regions
where they exist.
Additionally, NERRS supports community planning initiatives by
providing training to local officials and residents about critical
resource management issues such as impending hazards, storm water
control, shoreline management, and habitat restoration. The NERRS
training is designed to help people on the ground and to get resources
in the hands of the community--all of which amount to saving States and
local communities more than $13.4 million annually.
The reserves have a tremendous positive impact on our economy
including work to maintain clean water, keep the seafood and fishing
industry viable, provide opportunities for local tourism, and provide
communities with practical help and science-based information to
address coastal hazards. Estuaries, where rivers meet the sea, provide
nursery ground for two-thirds of commercial fish and shellfish.
Protected and well managed estuaries including those managed by the
NERRS keep commercial and recreational fishermen sustainable,
contributing over $2.7B to the shellfish and seafood industry in 2012
and 2009 respectively in States that have a reserve and over $28
billion in ocean-dependent industries in 2011 along our coasts (Source:
National Ocean Economic Program and NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science
and Technology). In 2010, coastal counties that included a NERR
supported more than 468,000 jobs in ocean-dependent industries (Source:
Bureau of Labor Statistics; NOAA).
Protection of these important estuaries within the NERRS can have a
significant impact on specific ecologically and economically important
species. For example, Apalachicola Bay, Florida, home to one of three
reserves in the State, produces approximately 90 percent of Florida's
oyster harvest and 10 percent of the total U.S. harvest (Source:
Wilber, 1992).
Beyond the economic benefits to our national, State, and local
economies, reserves operate national infrastructure that brings science
to the management of our coasts and helps our communities prepare for
weather and accident related disasters. NERRS is a leader in coastal
monitoring that provides immediate and long-term data to assess water
quality in support of State environmental programs and water dependent
industries, enhance understanding of harmful algal blooms, guide and
track habitat restoration and reconstruction strategies, identify
ecosystem impacts from changing sea levels and temperature, aid in
weather and marine forecasting, and improve emergency and insurance
industry response to storm surges and inundation.
Being integral members of coastal communities is a key element to
NERRS successful delivery of science and monitoring data as evidenced
in the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill of 2010, a coastal area that is
home to five reserves. We know that the billion dollar tourism and
seafood industries depend upon clean water, and during the Deep Water
Horizon Oil Spill crisis the communities and industries along the Gulf
Coast relied on disaster support efforts including the wide variety of
data supplied by the five Gulf Coast NERRs, some of which continues
today.
Each reserve receives operation funds from NOAA that are matched by
the States and are used to leverage significantly more private and
local investments that results in each reserve having, on average, more
than five program partners assisting to implement this national
program. In addition, the program significantly benefits from
volunteers that are engaged in habitat restoration, citizen science and
education which offset operation costs at reserves by donating
thousands of hours. Annually, volunteers contribute more than 100,000
hours to the NERRS with an estimated value of over $2.2 million.
NERRS have made countless economic contributions to their local
communities, States, and the Nation. In the aftermath of Superstorm
Sandy, the Jacques Cousteau Reserve in New Jersey was cited by CNN as
being ``a natural sponge . . . for absorbing storm and tidal surges.''
(November 3, 2012). In the category of eco-tourism, more than 2 million
people annually visit the NERRS: an estimated more than $20 million is
generated annually in direct benefit from these visitor use
opportunities (estimated using Federal, State, and local park entry
fees). Visitors to our reserves walk and snowshoe the trails, paddle
the waterways, watch wildlife, hunt and fish, engage in community
stewardship and restoration programs, and participate in numerous
public outreach activities and events at each of our 28 reserves.
In addition, NERRS strategically contributes more than $4.9M
annually in education relief to offset costs to communities that face
tight budgets in meeting the needs of local school districts. Through
Estuaries 101 curriculum, NERRS prepares the next generation workforce
in the key disciplines of science, technology, engineering and math
(STEM education). The B-WET regional program funding is money that is
spent in addition to the annual NERRS money invested in the education
programs. The NERRS educate more than 83,000 children annually.
The NERRS Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) funding
is designated for land conservation, through acquisition of priority
lands, and essential facilities construction and upgrades. This
competitive funding program is matched by State funds and has resulted
in not only the preservation of critical coastal lands as described
above, but also in the increase of construction jobs. For example NERRS
creates more than 60 jobs for each $1 million of Federal construction
(PAC) money spent. In addition, NERRS leveraged investments of more
than $115 million to purchase over 30,000 acres of coastal property
over the last 12 years.
conclusion
NERRA greatly appreciates the past support the subcommittee has
provided. This support is critical to sustain and increase the economic
viability of coastal and estuary-based industries.
With NERRA's fiscal year 2015 request of $22.9 million for the
NERRS and $1.7 million for NERRS PAC, the program will be able to
maintain delivery of credible scientific research that contributes to
the resiliency of the natural and built communities and that yields a
high rate of return to the 28, soon to be 29, coastal gems around the
country. We urge the subcommittee to support this request, and to
restore funding for the B-WET regional programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these remarks. On behalf
of NERRA, I would be happy to answer questions or provide additional
information to the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
fiscal year 2015 appropriations request
The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (NMSF) works with Congress
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
connect fellow citizens to the underwater places that define the
American ocean--the National Marine Sanctuary System. We remain
concerned that NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) has
not received sufficient appropriations for several budget cycles.
Recognizing the coastal job creation benefits provided by sanctuaries,
NMSF respectfully requests that the subcommittee remedy this situation
by appropriating:
--$5.5 million to the National Marine Sanctuary Program--
Construction/Acquisition Base, within NOAA's Procurement,
Acquisition, and Construction account; and
--$51 million to the Sanctuaries and Marine Protected Areas Base,
within NOAA's Operations, Research, and Facilities account.
Joining NMSF in this request is the national network of community-
based, non-profit organizations that support sites within the sanctuary
system. On behalf of their members, the Channel Islands Sanctuary
Foundation (California), Cordell Marine Sanctuary Foundation
(California), Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association (California),
Friends of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Michigan), Hawai`i
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (Hawaii), Monterey Bay Sanctuary
Foundation (California), Olympic Coast Alliance (Washington), Sanctuary
Friends Foundation of the Florida Keys (Florida), and Stellwagen Alive!
(Massachusetts) support funding the National Marine Sanctuary System at
these levels (Appendix I).
While we recognize the challenges of providing increased funding in
the current budget climate, we believe that the President's fiscal year
2015 budget request fails to address critical sanctuary contributions
to job creation and economic growth. It also continues a disturbing
trend of underfunding the sanctuary program--despite signals from
Congress that the program warrants additional funds.
the national marine sanctuary system and noaa's office of national
marine sanctuaries
Encompassing over 170,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes
waters, the National Marine Sanctuary System includes 13 national
marine sanctuaries and Papahaanaumokuaakea Marine National Monument.
Sanctuaries protect vibrant ocean ecosystems, conserve essential
habitat for endangered and commercially important marine species, and
safeguard historical and cultural resources.
Congress provides funding to ONMS through separate accounts for
operations and procurement; both are vital components for maintaining a
robust and effective sanctuaries program.
--The Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) account funds
operation of a variety of education, research, monitoring and
management programs managed by ONMS, including development and
implementation of research and monitoring programs, cultural
resource programs, education and outreach activities;
permitting; and management of volunteer programs and citizen
advisory councils.
--The Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account funds
the purchase and overhaul/restoration of assets managed by
ONMS, including construction of vessels, visitor facilities,
and exhibits; development of partnerships for education and
outreach; and safety improvements and repairs to NOAA-owned
facilities.
national marine sanctuaries are unique and successful ocean
conservation tools
Generations of Americans have grown up, worked jobs, and supported
their families on the waters of our national marine sanctuaries. Among
all the statutes enacted by Congress to govern ocean resources, the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act stands alone in terms of the
comprehensiveness, community participation, transparency and balanced
approach provided for all stakeholders. An independent legal analysis
concluded that ``the National Marine Sanctuaries Act is the best
existing mechanism available for preserving ocean ecosystems,'' due to
sanctuaries' commitment to public participation, community engagement,
and use of a place- and ecosystem-based approach.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Perkins Coie LLP. (2013)'' Area-Based Management of Marine
Resources: A Comparative Analysis of the National Marine Sanctuaries
Act and Other Federal and State Legal Authorities.'' Available: http://
www.nmsfocean.org/files/ABMReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike other ocean resource laws, the National Marine Sanctuaries
Act protects nationally significant places and their natural,
historical, and cultural riches. Experience shows that this approach is
vital to maintaining the healthy seascapes that underpin our productive
economies, supporting thousands of businesses while maintaining public
access for recreation, research, and education.
national marine sanctuaries are economic engines for coastal
communities
National marine sanctuaries are vital to the success of coastal
businesses and job creation. According to the National Ocean Economics
Program, 70 percent of ocean and coastal employment in the tourism and
recreation sector depend on visitor opportunities requiring clean
beaches, clean water, and abundant fish and wildlife promoted by
national marine sanctuaries. Benefits of funding national marine
sanctuaries far outweigh the Federal outlays that support them:
--Over 64,000 jobs and $4.5 billion in GDP contributed annually from
the marine tourism and recreation sector in the two counties
adjacent to Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Ocean Economics Program. (2011) ``Ocean Economy
Data.'' Available: http://www.oceaneconomics.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Over $126 million in whale watching revenue and 600 jobs at 31
businesses resulting from less than $2 million invested in the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off of
Massachusetts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ O'Connor, Simon et al (2009). Whale Watching Worldwide: tourism
numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits, a special report
from the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Prepared by Economists
at Large. Available: http://www.ifaw.org/Publications/Program
_Publications/Whales/asset_upload_file841_55365.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--2,100 jobs and a $291 million budget from marine science and
education at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, more
than 100 times the $3 million investment by taxpayers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean Research Consortium. (2012) ``Major
Marine Sciences Facilities in the Monterey Bay Crescent- 2012.''
Available: http://web.me.com/paduan/mbcorc/
Membership_Info_files/MontereyBayLabs2012-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
national marine sanctuaries start and stay in local communities
Public participation is a hallmark of the sanctuary program.
Coastal communities have a controlling influence on sanctuary
priorities to ensure unique, local circumstances are addressed. All
sanctuary rules and regulations are developed on a site-by-site basis,
and, from the outset, sanctuaries are designed to accommodate multiple
uses of the ocean.
National marine sanctuaries are created by and for the people:
citizens and communities around the Nation recognized the benefits of
sanctuaries and expressed strong interest in establishing sanctuaries
in their own coastal waters. Over 700 Sanctuary Advisory Council
representatives from the fishing, tourism, and maritime commerce
industries; Tribes, State and local government; and researchers,
educators, and conservationists help manage sanctuary operations. Over
100,000 hours are contributed by local sanctuary volunteers each year.
national marine sanctuaries and education
Through education and outreach programs, sanctuaries function as
living classrooms that provide students with the knowledge and tools to
act as responsible ocean stewards. Science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) education programs are a key part of national marine
sanctuaries mission. Eliminating important education infrastructure,
such as NOAA Office of Education's Bay Watershed Education and Training
(B-WET) and NOAA's Teacher at Sea program, hinders the ability to
deliver meaningful watershed education initiatives in sanctuaries.
We strongly encourage you to oppose any efforts to move or
terminate the Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program (NFSP). The direct
connections between students and researchers in sanctuaries are
critical for the effectiveness of the NFSP. While we support the
administration's efforts to recognize efficiencies across STEM
education initiatives, NFSP should remain administered by ONMS, as
consistent with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
national marine sanctuaries' programmatic outlook under reduced fiscal
year 2015 funding levels
Funding decreases and level-funding have resulted in layoffs and
cutbacks to mission critical sanctuary programs. A lack of funds
results in cuts to public access and recreation opportunities,
cancellation of partnerships that leverage private funds for taxpayer
benefit, and the dismantling of successful education initiatives.
Budget cuts may result in reduced operations at visitor centers; a lack
of contingency funding needed in case of emergencies like oil spills;
and additional inoperable vessels. Of particular concern are proposals
to reduce funding for necessary and ongoing renovation and construction
projects.
The potential impact of reducing sanctuary appropriations goes far
beyond the individual sanctuaries themselves: limiting visitor center
hours, eliminating research programs, and diminishing enforcement
capacities prevents ONMS from fulfilling its statutory mandates, while
also reducing the economic activity and job creation from which healthy
communities benefit. Funding sanctuaries below recommended levels could
force the program to:
Reduce public access and recreation opportunities for all
Americans.--Funding cuts risk the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary's 767 mooring buoys, which provide public access and
recreational opportunities within the sanctuary while protecting coral
reefs and shipwrecks from anchor damage.
Restrict enforcement operations that protect legal fishermen.--Lack
of funding jeopardizes on-water patrols for illegal fishermen in the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. In a single 2013 case, illegal
fishermen were charged with over 1,300 violations for pilfering 664
yellowtail snapper from a closed area that was shown to have provided
benefits to both fish populations and commercial and recreational
anglers.
Cut visitor center hours.--Sanctuary visitor centers act as a
public face of NOAA to over 350,000 visitors per year, including
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center (California),
Mokupaapapa Discovery Center (Hawaii), Great Lakes Maritime Heritage
Center (Michigan), and Florida Keys EcoDiscovery Center (Florida).
Cancel education and outreach programs that leverage private
funds.--Reduced funding jeopardizes education and outreach activities
on the water, at sanctuaries and visitor centers, and in classrooms.
noaa needs sufficient funds to fulfill its responsibilities to the
american people
We strongly support the Friends of NOAA Coalition request to fund
the agency at no less than $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2015.--From
weather forecasts to fisheries management, NOAA provides decision
makers with critical data, products, and services that promote and
enhance the Nation's economy, security, environment, and quality of
life. Insufficient funding will only serve to diminish the economic
activity and job creation that is successfully revitalizing communities
across America.
Jason Patlis,
President and CEO.
letter from the national marine sanctuary foundation, cordell marine
sanctuary foundation, farallones marine sanctuary association, friends
of thunder bay national marine sanctuary, hawai`i national marine
sanctuary foundation, monterey bay & channel islands sanctuary
foundations, olympic coast alliance, sanctuary friends foundation of
the florida keys, and stellwagen alive!
April 25, 2014.
Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
Chairwoman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Science, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby:
As Congress begins negotiations on the fiscal year 2015 Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, we
respectfully request that you prioritize programmatic requests for:
--National Marine Sanctuary Program--Construction/Acquisition, within
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) account at a
level of $5.5 million; and
--Sanctuaries and Marine Protected Areas Base, within NOAA's
Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account, at a level
of $51 million.
We are deeply concerned by recent decreases to sanctuaries' PAC
account, which result in multiple, unfinished construction projects,
and prevent NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) from
acquiring the vessels necessary to complete core research, education,
and law enforcement missions that simply cannot be accomplished from
land alone. Facilities supported by PAC funds anchor tourism and
recreation economies and serve as the public face of the government's
ocean management. We strongly encourage you to support PAC funds that
provide critical links between our ocean and the millions of Americans
who visit the coast each year.
Among all the statutes enacted by Congress to govern ocean
resources, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act stands alone for its
comprehensive, community-driven, transparent and balanced approach.
While seeking to sustainably protect resources within sanctuaries, the
law allows compatible commercial and recreational activities.
Sanctuaries serve as economic engines for our communities and
businesses, supporting thousands of jobs and generating billions of
dollars in local revenues. Sanctuaries serve as living laboratories for
research and centers for civic pride.
Sanctuaries are making essential contributions to marine ecosystem
health and coastal job creation, and sufficient ORF funding will allow
ONMS to sustain progress to date. ONMS has not received adequate
appropriations in past budget cycles, despite the program's increased
responsibilities. Lack of funds will force ONMS to cut public access
and recreation opportunities, cancel collaborative efforts with museums
and universities that leverage private funds for taxpayer benefits, and
terminate education initiatives. We strongly encourage you to ensure
that funding for these priorities is added to the base level for the
Marine Sanctuary Program.
Closing visitor centers, eliminating research programs, diminishing
enforcement capacities, and abolishing education initiatives will
prevent ONMS from implementing management plans--driven and informed by
local communities--for yet another year. We strongly urge you to remedy
this situation by supporting an overall appropriation of $56.5 million
for sanctuaries in fiscal year 2015.
Thank you for your consideration. We wish you all the best for the
remainder of the 113th Congress.
Sincerely,
Jason Patlis, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation;
Tom Lambert, Cordell Marine Sanctuary
Foundation; Chris Kelley, Farallones Marine
Sanctuary Association; Charles N. Wiesen,
Friends of Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary; Lynette Poncin, Hawai`i National
Marine Sanctuary Foundation; Dennis J.
Long, Monterey Bay & Channel Islands
Sanctuary Foundations; Jill Silver, Olympic
Coast Alliance; George Neugent, Sanctuary
Friends Foundation of the Florida Keys; and
William Grafton, Stellwagen Alive!
______
Prepared Statement of the National Network to End Domestic Violence
Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby and distinguished members
of the Appropriations Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
provide testimony on the importance of investing in Violence Against
Women Act programs and the Victims of Crime Act. I sincerely thank the
Committee for its ongoing support for these lifesaving programs.
I am the President and CEO for the National Network to End Domestic
Violence (NNEDV), the Nation's leading voice for victims of domestic
violence and their advocates. We represent the 56 State and territorial
domestic violence coalitions, their over 2,000 member domestic violence
and sexual assault programs, and the millions of victims they serve.
Our direct connection with victims and those who serve them gives us a
unique understanding of their needs and the vital importance of these
continued investments.
The purpose of this testimony is to request an investment of the
full authorized amount of $569.5 million in the Violence Against Women
Act (VAWA) and the release of $1.5 billion from the Victims of Crime
Act Fund administered by the U.S. Department of Justice in the fiscal
year 2015 Budget.
Incidence, Prevalence, Severity and Consequences of Domestic and
Sexual Violence.--The crimes of domestic and sexual violence are
pervasive, insidious and life-threatening. In 2011, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the first-ever National
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, which found that domestic
violence, sexual violence, and stalking are widespread. Domestic
violence affects more than 12 million people each year, and nearly
three in ten women and one in four men have experienced rape, physical
violence, or stalking in his or her lifetime. The terrifying conclusion
of domestic violence is often murder, and every day in the U.S. an
average of three women are killed by a current or former intimate
partner.\1\ The cycle is perpetuated as approximately 15.5 million
children are exposed to domestic violence every year.\2\ One study
found that men exposed to physical abuse, sexual abuse and adult
domestic violence as children were almost four times more likely to
have perpetrated domestic violence as adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008). Homicide Trends in the
U.S. from 1976-2005. U.S. Dept. of Justice.
\2\ McDonald, R., et al. (2006). ``Estimating the Number of
American Children Living in Partner-Violence Families.'' Journal of
Family Psychology, 30(1), 137-142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the terrible cost of domestic and sexual violence to
individual victims and their families, these crimes cost taxpayers and
communities. According to the Centers for Disease Control, based on
1999 figures, the cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $5.8
billion each year, $4.1 billion of which is for direct healthcare
services.\3\ Translating this into 2012 dollars, based on share of GDP,
the annual cost to the Nation is over $9 billion per year, more than
two-thirds of which is for direct healthcare services. In addition,
domestic violence costs U.S. employers an estimated $3 to $13 billion
annually.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Costs of
Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Atlanta
(Georgia): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2003.
\4\ Bureau of National Affairs Special Rep. No. 32, Violence and
Stress: The Work/Family Connection 2 (1990); Joan Zorza, Women
Battering: High Costs and the State of the Law, Clearinghouse Rev.,
Vol. 28, No. 4, 383, 385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite this grim reality, we know that when a coordinated response
is developed and immediate, essential services are available, victims
can escape from life-threatening violence and begin to rebuild their
lives. To address unmet needs and build upon their successes, VAWA
programs and the Victims of Crime Act fund release should receive
significant increases in the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice,
Science Appropriations bill.
The Need for Increased Funding to Maintain Programs and Bridge the
Gap.--At a Congressional briefing in March, NNEDV released Domestic
Violence Counts (the Census), a 24-hour national snapshot of domestic
violence services. The report revealed that in just one day in 2013,
while more than 66,000 victims of domestic violence received services,
over 9,640 requests for services went unmet due to lack of funding and
resources. In 2013, domestic violence programs reported that they had
laid off nearly 1,700 staff positions, including counselors, advocates
and children's advocates, and also had to reduce or completely
eliminate over 1,280 services, including emergency shelter, legal
advocacy, and counseling. I strongly encourage you to read the Census
at www.nnedv.org/census2013 to learn more. Additionally, since 2011, at
least 19 local domestic violence programs have been forced to close
entirely and sequestration meant that approximately 140,000 more
victims were unable to access services last year.
For those individuals who are not able to find safety, the
consequences can be dire, including homelessness or continued exposure
to life-threatening violence. In order to meet the immediate needs of
victims in danger and to continue to prevent and end domestic violence,
VAWA funding must be increased and additional funds must be released
from VOCA.
violence against women act (vawa)
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)--$569.50 million funding
request.--Since its passage in 1994, VAWA has been the cornerstone of
our Nation's response to domestic violence. Now in its 20th year, VAWA
has contributed to substantial progress toward ending domestic
violence. Despite this progress, an unconscionable need remains for
victim services. The progress and promise of VAWA, and related programs
aimed at addressing domestic and sexual violence, can only be only be
fulfilled if the programs receive continued investment through the
appropriations process. We have highlighted the following programs as
key priorities and we urge you to support full funding for these and
all VAWA programs as you work on the fiscal year 2015 CJS bill.
VAWA STOP Program--$222 million funding request.--VAWA's STOP Grant
Program is at the core of effective coordinated community responses to
domestic violence and sexual assault. These coordinated responses help
hundreds of thousands of victims find safety and get the services they
need to start over, while holding perpetrators accountable. As the
foundational VAWA program, the STOP program awards funds to every State
and territory through a formula-based system. States use this STOP
funding for law enforcement, prosecution, and courts training and
response. Many States establish special units in law enforcement
agencies and prosecutors' offices to address domestic and sexual
violence. Victims benefit from services including advocacy, crisis
intervention, local crisis hotlines, counseling and support, and victim
witness notification. We urge you to provide $222 million to support
these essential, comprehensive services.
Additionally, we urge you to include report language that would
exempt the STOP program from the Prison Rape Education Act (PREA)
penalty, which would cut 5 percent of the STOP funding in States that
are not in compliance with PREA.
Legal Assistance for Victims (LAV)--$57 million funding request.--
Research indicates that the practical nature of legal services gives
victims long-term alternatives to their abusive relationships. However,
the retainers or hourly fees for private legal representation are
beyond the means of most victims of domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault and stalking. In fact, almost 70 percent of all victims
are without legal representation. The Civil Legal Assistance for
Victims Program is the only federally funded program designed to meet
the legal needs of victims. Due to the high demand for these services,
the Office on Violence Against Women receives almost 300 applications
per year, and only one-third of these are funded. Last year, funding
for LAV was cut by $4 million despite its efficacy and the great demand
for these services. Targeted increases to the LAV program are a sound
investment in long-term solutions to violence. We urge you to provide
$57 million for this program.
Rural Grant program--$50 million funding request.--The Rural Grant
Program supports services for victims of domestic violence and sexual
assault living in rural and isolated areas. Rural victims face unique
barriers including lack of access to child care, legal services, and
public transportation, under-resourced law enforcement, and a shortage
of safe shelter and services. Funding for this program has either been
cut or remained stagnant for the last several years despite the great
need and a number of States becoming newly eligible through the most
recent VAWA reauthorization. We urge you to provide $50 million for
this program.
Transitional Housing program--$35 million funding request.--This
vital VAWA program helps communities in every State offer victims a
safe place to begin to rebuild their lives. In just one day in 2013,
5,270 adults and 7,561 children were housed in domestic violence
transitional housing programs. On the same day, however, 5,778 requests
(60 percent of the unmet requests) for emergency shelter or
transitional housing were denied due to a lack of capacity. The extreme
dearth of affordable housing produces a situation where many victims of
domestic violence must return to their abusers because they cannot find
long-term housing, while others are forced into homelessness. Increased
investment in the Transitional Housing program will allow more States
and localities to ensure that victims indo not have to make these
unfathomable choices. We urge you to provide $35 million for this
program.
Grants to Encourage Arrest (GTEAP)--$73 million funding request.--
GTEAP helps communities develop and sustain a seamless and
comprehensive criminal justice response to domestic violence, enhancing
victims' safety and holding perpetrators accountable. GTEAP encourages
State, local, and tribal governments and State, local, and tribal
courts to treat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking as serious violations of criminal law requiring the
coordinated involvement of the entire criminal justice system. The
homicide reduction initiative set aside ($4 million) is designed to
address the risk of homicide of abuse victims, especially those in
escalating domestic violence situations. Increased investment in GTEAP
at $73 million will allow communities to continue this lifesaving work.
Sexual Assault Services Program--$40 million funding request.--The
Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP) is the only Federal funding
source dedicated to providing direct services to adult and minor
victims of sexual violence and is distributed through a State formula
grant. Services include hotlines, crisis intervention, advocacy, and
accompaniment through medical and legal systems. Increased funding will
help eliminate waiting lists and respond to the unmet needs of victims.
We urge you to provide $40 million for this vital program.
Remaining VAWA programs--full funding (see chart below).--All VAWA
programs work together to improve the system-wide response domestic and
sexual violence and to meet the unique and pressing needs of victims.
VAWA programs should be funded at their full authorization levels, as
indicated in the table below.
VAWA AND OTHER RELATED PROGRAMS--Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015--Campaign for
Funding to End Domestic and Sexual Violence
[All numbers are expressed in millions.]--Updated: March 6, 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2013 reduced by President's
Name of Grant Program Fiscal year Fiscal year sequestration Fiscal year fiscal year Authorized
2012 budget 2013 budget and rescissions 2014 budget 2015 budget level
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE APPROPRIATIONS.......................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STOP--Grants to Combat $189.00 $189.00 $176.18 $193.00 $193.00 $222.00
Violence Against Women.......
Sexual Assault Services 23.00 25.00 23.30 27.00 27.00 40.00
Program (SASP)...............
Services for Rural Victims.... 34.00 36.50 34.02 36.00 33.00 50.00
Civil Legal Assistance for 41.00 41.00 38.22 37.00 42.50 57.00
Victims......................
Transitional Housing (OVW).... 25.00 25.00 23.30 24.75 25.00 35.00
Grants to Encourage Arrest 50.00 50.00 46.61 50.00 50.00 73.00
Policies \2\.................
CHOOSE Youth Program \3\...... 5.00 5.00 4.66 5.00 5.00 15.00
SMART Program \3\............. 5.00 5.00 4.66 5.00 5.00 15.00
Grants to Support Families in 16.00 15.00 14.45 15.00 16.00 22.00
the Justice System...........
Violence on College Campuses 9.00 9.00 8.39 9.00 11.00 12.00
(Campus Grants)..............
Protections and Services for 5.75 5.75 5.36 5.75 5.75 9.00
Disabled Victims.............
Elder Abuse Grant Program..... 4.25 4.25 3.96 4.25 4.25 9.00
National Institute of Justice 3.00 3.50 3.26 3.25 3.00 --
(NIJ)........................
Research on Violence Against 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00
Indian Women.................
National Resource Center on 1.00 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.50 1.00
Workplace Responses..........
Nat'l Clearinghouse on Sexual 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.50 0.50
Assault of American Indian
and Alaska Native Women......
Outreach to Underserved 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 2.00
Populations..................
National Tribal Sex Offender 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 1.00
Registry.....................
Tribal Jurisdiction........... -- -- -- -- -- 5.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAWA CJS Total.......... 412.50 416.00 388.24 417.00 422.50 569.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year Fiscal year 2013 reduced Fiscal year President's Funding
2012 budget 2013 budget by 2014 budget fiscal year request
sequestration 2015 budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOCA Fund Cap \4\............. $705.00 $730.00 N/A $745.00 $810.00 $1.50B
State Victim Assistance 379.00 425.20 N/A -- -- 500.00
Grants...................
Tribal VOCA Funding Stream -- -- -- -- 20.00 20.00
Vision 21 & Trafficking -- -- -- 12.50 35.00 35.00
Initiatives..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2013 reduced by President's
Name of Grant Program Fiscal year Fiscal year sequestration Fiscal year fiscal year Authorized
2012 budget 2013 budget and rescissions 2014 budget 2015 budget level
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS..................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Violence Prevention $129.50 $129.50 $121.19 $133.50 $135.00 $175.00
and Services Act (FVPSA)
\5\/Domestic Violence
Shelters...................
National Domestic Violence 3.20 3.20 3.04 4.50 5.00 5.00
Hotline \5\................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL...................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rape Prevention and $41.70 $41.70 $39.39 $38.00 $38.00 $50.00
Education..................
DELTA--Domestic Violence 5.40 5.40 5.13 5.20 5.20 6.00
Prevention Enhancement and
Leadership Through
Alliances \5\..............
Preventive Health and Health 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00
Services Block Grant
(PHHSBG) Sex Offense Set-
Aside \6\..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE ON WOMEN'S HEALTH.....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence Against Women $2.30 $2.30 $2.30 $2.30 $2.30 $10.00
Health Initiative..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L-HHS Total........... 189.10 189.10 178.05 190.50 185.50 253.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: This chart will continue to be updated throughout the fiscal year 2015 Appropriations process.
Updates can be found at www.nnedv.org/funding.
\1\ Rescissions and sequestration: The L-HHS programs were reduced by a 0.189 percent across the board cut for
fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2012, VAWA DOJ programs were subject to an across-the-board rescission of
1.877 percent. In fiscal year 2013, most discretionary programs, including those at OVW, were subjected to
Sequestration cuts between 5-7 percent. Also, in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, the final bills each
included a $12 million rescission from OVW from unobligated or deobligated funds.
\2\ In fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014, and in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget, $4 million has been
set aside in GTEAP for a homicide reduction initiative.
\3\ VAWA 2013 consolidated youth and prevention programs into two programs. Appropriations funded these programs
as one consolidated program for the past several years. The chart above divides the amounts given to the
Consolidated Youth program into the two new programs to demonstrate the funding history. Both the President's
fiscal year 2014 budget and the final fiscal year 2014 bill consolidated these programs and funded them at $10
million overall. This chart estimates that roughly $5 million will be spent on each.
\4\ VOCA Notes: State victim assistance grants are a portion of the total VOCA ``cap'' and are distributed to
States on a population-based formula. The total annual amount for State victims assistance grants is
determined by a formula and is not specified in Appropriations bills or Presidential budgets. We highlight
this portion of VOCA because it funds local victim service programs and is a priority for the field. Vision
21: The President's fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 Budgets proposed setting aside $25 million dollars
from the amount of money released from the VOCA fund for the Vision 21 initiative, $20 million for tribal
victim services and $10 million to address trafficking. In the final fiscal year 2014 bill, Congress
appropriated $12.5 million for the Vision 21 initiative from its general CJS funds and not as a set-aside of
VOCA funds. We support $35 million for Vision 21 through CJS funds. Tribal funding: We support the President's
request for a VOCA Tribal funding set-aside.
\5\ FVPSA, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and DELTA are authorized through the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA).
\6\ PHHSBG is authorized through the Public Health Services Act and includes a mandatory set-aside for providing
services to rape victims and for rape prevention. The sex-offense set-aside was not cut by sequestration in
2013.
victims of crime act (voca) funding
VOCA uses non-taxpayer money from the Crime Victims Fund for
programs that serve victims of crime, including State formula victim
assistance grants. These funds, which are generated by fines paid by
Federal criminals, provide support for services to four million victims
of all types of crimes annually, through 4,400 direct service agencies
such as domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and child
abuse treatment programs. Additional VOCA funds are critically needed
to respond to the crisis caused by the dangerous lack of services for
victims of domestic and sexual violence.
With an obvious need for increased funding, and a more than ample
balance of at least $11 billion in the Fund, now is the time to
establish a long-term, logical and consistent basis for determining the
annual VOCA cap in order to release additional money for the purpose
Congress intended and for which it has been collected. The balance in
the Crime Victims Fund is more than enough to significantly increase
VOCA funding without jeopardizing the Fund's future sustainability.
We urge you to request that the committee set the annual VOCA
funding release level at no less than the amount deposited into the
Fund during the previous full fiscal year. This number is approximately
$1.5 billion for fiscal year 2014. We urge you to release $1.5 billion
from the VOCA fund in fiscal year 2015 to address the needs of victims
of crime.
In addition, once at least $500 million is guaranteed for the State
victim assistance grants, we request that there also be a Native
American tribal funding stream for victim services. We also request
funding for the Office for Victims of Crime's Vision 21 Initiative
through CJS appropriations.
conclusion
These programs work together to prevent and end domestic and sexual
violence. While our country has made continued investments in the
criminal justice response to these heinous crimes, we need an equal
investment in the human service, public health and prevention responses
in order to holistically address and end the violence. These vital,
cost-effective programs help break the cycle, reduce related social
ills, and will save our Nation money now and in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Native American Rights Fund
The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) \1\ submits this written
statement for the record. We respectfully request this subcommittee's
consideration as you develop the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice,
Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill of maintaining funding
within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of Justice Program's
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance account, at approximately $3
million as provided in recent years to the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA), within assistance to Indian tribes, for the Tribal Civil and
Criminal Legal Assistance, Training and Technical Assistance grant
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Founded in 1970, the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is the
oldest and largest nonprofit law firm dedicated to asserting and
defending the rights of Indian tribes, organizations and individuals
nationwide. NARF's practice is concentrated in five key areas: the
preservation of tribal existence; the protection of tribal natural
resources; the promotion of Native American human rights; the
accountability of governments to Native Americans; and the development
of Indian law and educating the public about Indian rights, laws, and
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five Indian Legal Services programs, which are the Indian
program components of the Legal Services Corporation, operate in 23
States. They annually provide both civil and criminal legal
representation in tribal courts to hundreds of individual Native
American clients, including juveniles, who meet Federal poverty
guidelines.\2\ Legal work encompasses a broad array of cases, including
domestic violence, pro se assistance, family member prisoner visitation
and re-entry, child welfare and adoption, employment and home
foreclosure assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In 2000, Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Technical
and Legal Assistance Act (Public Law 106-559), which specifically
authorized the Department of Justice to provide grants to ``non-profit
entities . . . which provide legal assistance services for Indian
tribes, members of Indian tribes, or tribal justice systems pursuant to
Federal poverty guidelines'' [emphasis added]. The Indian Tribal
Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 was reauthorized
through fiscal year 2015 as part of the Tribal Law and Order Act
(Public Law 111-211).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to individual representation, these Indian Legal
Services programs are currently assisting more than 160 tribes and/or
tribal judicial systems in such activities as tribal court development
and improvement, development of tribal dispute resolution and
peacemaker/mediation systems, drafting of civil and criminal codes and
rules of procedure and other structural development for court
implementation, and training of tribal court and justice systems
personnel and tribal court lay advocates and guardians ad litem.
Specific project examples with recent funding from BJA include a
State-wide tribal court support group; a video-conferencing system for
court appearance; development of Domestic Violence ordinances; work
with a newly-established Tribal Wellness Drug and Alcohol Court;
helping to review a tribal criminal and juvenile justice system and to
recommend reforms based on traditional tribal values and restorative
justice concepts; assisting juvenile clients who have severe truancy,
chemical dependency, and mental health issues to receive education,
treatment, counseling, and other holistic wraparound services to avoid
out of home placements and further criminal/delinquent behavior and
consequences; and partnering with a tribal court and tribal college on
a tribal advocacy certificate program.
In many instances, these Indian Legal Services programs have been
``on the ground,'' in these tribal communities, for decades, an
integral part of the legal structure of the reservation communities
they serve. The programs' representation of individual tribal citizens
and training for and assistance to tribal governments and tribal
judicial systems help keep citizens safe, help assure that tribal
justice systems are grounded in solid codes and laws so that those
communities can better attract business investments, and provide
economic opportunities by training tribal citizens to work in the
justice system as advocates and judges. The Indian Legal Services
programs' work in developing and strengthening the institutions of
tribal justice and creating a solid legal infrastructure on the
reservations ultimately builds sustained economic opportunity and
growth in those tribal communities.
Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013, these Indian Legal
Services programs have competed with other non-profit entities and
received grant funding under DOJ's Office of Justice Programs' Bureau
of Justice Assistance's Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance,
Training and Technical Assistance (TCCLA) grant program to supplement
Legal Services Corporation resources and other Federal grant funds in
order to expand services to tribal citizens and tribal justice
systems.\3\ The Native American Rights Fund serves as the administering
agency for these grant funds to the National Association of Indian
Legal Services (NAILS), an umbrella association of the Indian Legal
Services programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In fiscal year 2010, under TCCLA, NAILS was awarded $1.25
million for civil legal assistance and $1.1 million for criminal legal
assistance; in fiscal year 2011, NAILS was awarded $536,363 for tribal
civil legal assistance, and $1.1 million for tribal criminal legal
assistance; in fiscal year 2012, NAILS was awarded $850,659 for tribal
civil legal assistance, and $875,000 for tribal criminal legal
assistance; and in fiscal year 2013, NAILS was awarded $715,944 for
tribal civil legal assistance, and $515,940 for tribal criminal legal
assistance. We are awaiting announcement of an fiscal year 2014
solicitation, upon which the Indian Legal Services programs plan to
submit applications for both tribal civil and criminal legal assistance
for fiscal year 2014 funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law
113-76) provided $30 million for ``assistance to Indian tribes.'' We
have not yet learned in full detail how DOJ intends to allocate these
funds. However, we note that the reports of both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees accompanying your stand-alone fiscal year
2014 CJS appropriations bills directed again that DOJ allocate fiscal
year 2014 funds based on tribal consultation for such purposes as
tribal courts, alcohol and substance abuse reduction grants, tribal
detention facilities, and tribal civil and criminal legal assistance.
We are hopeful that this report language will encourage the Department
to allocate some fiscal year 2014 funding for the TCCLA grant program.
With respect to the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the
administration has again proposed bill language in General Provisions--
Department of Justice for several setasides for DOJ funding, including
a setaside of 7 percent for tribal criminal (note: not criminal AND
civil, as provided now, through TCCLA) justice assistance.
Because the Indian Legal Services programs are not tribal
governments, and do not want to have to compete with tribes for DOJ
funding,\4\ what is most helpful is to have a specific funding amount
for tribal civil and criminal legal assistance, a reference to the
authorizing statute that allows DOJ to award grants for these services
(Public Law 106-559), and a mention of the inclusion of the purpose of
providing tribal civil and criminal legal assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Having to compete with tribal governments for a portion of the
overall DOJ funds for Indian Country assistance is, as a policy matter,
something that the Indian Legal Services programs have worked hard over
the years to avoid, and which led us to get the initial authorizing
legislation enacted in 2000, Public Law 106-559.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If in fiscal year 2015, as in fiscal year 2014, (though at a lesser
percentage than the administration requested), the Senate
Appropriations Committee should agree with DOJ's request for a tribal
set-aside, or if, as under the final fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, you should, instead, provide an overall ``lump
sum'' amount to OJP for ``assistance to Indian tribes,'' we would ask
for your consideration of report language, as included in recent years,
that would encourage DOJ to make some funding available to non-tribal
governmental entities such as Indian Legal Services programs for the
purpose of the provision of tribal civil and criminal legal assistance
services.
Prior years' instructive report language of the Appropriations
Committees has directed the Office of Justice Programs to consult with
tribal stakeholders in determining how the overall amount of funding
for tribal assistance will be allocated, and has specifically mentioned
tribal civil and criminal legal assistance. That report language has
been helpful in ensuring that the Department of Justice provide
approximately $3 million in funding to the Tribal Civil and Criminal
Legal Assistance, Training and Technical Assistance grant program, for
which Indian Legal Services has competed for funding awards.
Funding of approximately $3 million should be appropriated in
fiscal year 2015, as in recent years, for tribal civil and criminal
legal assistance, and tribal court development work, as undertaken by
Indian Legal Services programs. Thank you for your attention to and
consideration of this submission.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration fiscal year 2015 appropriations. My name is
Billy Frank, Jr. and I am the Chairman of the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is comprised of the 20 tribes
that are party to the United States v. Washington \1\ (U.S. v.
Washington). I am providing written testimony for the record in support
of funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and National Ocean
Service (NOS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of fiscal year 2015 appropriations requests
--$110.0 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (NOAA/
NMFS)
--$14.7 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty, including the
Additional $3.0 million for the 2008 Chinook Salmon Agreement
(NOAA/NMFS)
--$15.8 million for the Mitchell Act Hatchery Program (NOAA/NMFS)
--$20.0 million for the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants Program
(NOAA/NOS)
We are generally pleased with the President's fiscal year 2015
budget request as it establishes a good starting point. However, it's
just that--a starting point--much more needs to be done. It promotes a
strong stewardship in sustaining our vital natural resources. The
natural resources that we depend on are vital to our tribal
communities, economies and jobs. The President's budget provides for
economic growth by paying for new investments while protecting the
environment. Our economy depends on a healthy natural environment. The
land and the many natural resources we depend on are a necessity for
our communities to thrive. We need to continue to improve the condition
of our changing environment for the benefit of future generations.
The western Washington treaty tribes brought to the Federal
Government our Treaty Rights at Risk (TRAR) initiative almost 3 years
ago. We are slowly creating change in the manner in which government
agencies operate but it has not yet been enough to change the
trajectory of salmon recovery in our region from a negative to a
positive direction. In this initiative we asked the Federal Government
to take charge of salmon recovery because it has the obligation and
authority to ensure both the recovery of salmon and the protection of
tribal treaty rights. We requested that the Federal Government
implement their fiduciary duties by better protecting salmon habitat
and the tribes' treaty-reserved resources. The treaty-reserved right of
the western Washington treaty tribes to harvest salmon is at risk. The
danger exists due to diminishing salmon populations, which limits or
eliminates our right to harvest. All of this is due to the inability to
restore salmon habitat faster than it is being destroyed. Wild salmon
and their habitat continue to decline despite massive reductions in
harvest and a significant investment in habitat restoration. We have
all made a huge investment in the recovery of salmon and their habitat.
These good investments must continue and will contribute to recovery as
we work to slow down the continued loss of habitat. Fulfilling these
Federal obligations is not an option and by addressing our TRAR--we
will recover the salmon populations.
Adequate funding is needed in order to restore salmon habitat. A
critical funding source for this work is the Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund (PCSRF). The PCSRF assists tribes in the implementation
of salmon recovery plans and moves us in the direction of achieving the
recovery goals, which is a direct request in our TRAR initiative. As
Congress considers the fiscal year 2015 budget, we ask you to consider
our requests that are further described below.
justification of requests
Provide $110.0 million for NOAA Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
We support the restoration of the PCSRF to the $110.0 million
level, an increase of $60.0 million over the President's request. These
funds have decreased from the peak of $110.0 million in fiscal year
2002. We continue to support the original congressional intent of these
funds that would enable the Federal Government to fulfill its
obligations to salmon recovery and the treaty fishing rights of the
tribes.
The PCSRF is a multi-State, multi-tribe program established by
Congress in fiscal year 2000 with a primary goal to help recover wild
salmon throughout the Pacific coast region. The PCSRF supports projects
that restore, conserve and protect Pacific salmon and steelhead and
their habitats. PCSRF is making a significant contribution to the
recovery of wild salmon throughout the region by financially supporting
and leveraging local and regional efforts. Salmon restoration projects
not only benefits fish populations and their habitat but provides much
needed jobs for the local communities.
The tribes' overall goal in the PCSRF program is to restore wild
salmon populations. The key tribal objective is to protect and restore
important habitat in Puget Sound and along the Washington coast that is
essential for western Washington tribes to exercise their treaty-
reserved fishing rights consistent with U.S. v. Washington and Hoh v.
Baldrige \2\ and also promotes the recovery of ESA listed species and
other salmon populations. These funds support policy and technical
capacities for tribes to plan, implement, and monitor recovery
activities. The tribes use these funds to support the scientific salmon
recovery approach that makes this program so unique and important. In
addition to watershed restoration and salmon recovery work they also
help fund fish hatchery reform efforts to allow for the exercise of
tribal treaty fishing rights. It is for these reasons that the tribes
strongly support the PCSRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hoh v. Baldrige--A Federal court ruling that required fisheries
management on a river-by-river basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide $14.7 million for NOAA Pacific Salmon Treaty, including the
Additional $3.0 million associated with the 2008 Chinook Salmon
Agreement
We support the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC)/U.S. Section's
request of $14.7 million, an increase of $3.9 million over the
President's request. We also support as part of their request $1.5
million for the Puget Sound Critical Stock Augmentation Program and
$1.5 million for the Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Program as required by the
2008 Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) Chinook Annex Agreement. The Puget
Sound Critical Stock funding covers the operation and maintenance costs
for the hatchery augmentation programs established for Dungeness,
Stillaguamish, and Nooksack Chinook. These hatchery efforts were
initiated in connection with the 2008 Chinook Agreement of the U.S./
Canada PST as the conservation needs of these populations could not be
met by harvest restriction actions alone. The CWT funding allows for
continued maintenance and efficiency improvements of the coast-wide CWT
program. This is essential for the sustainability and management of our
fisheries resources. Currently there is not enough funding allocated to
carry out the requirements of the PST, which causes the PSC to not be
able to perform all of its responsibilities required in the treaty and
its Chinook and coho annexes.
The PST was implemented in 1985 through the cooperative efforts of
tribal, State, U.S. and Canadian Governments, and sport and commercial
fishing interests. The PSC was created by the United States and Canada
to implement the treaty, which was most recently updated in 2008. The
PSC establishes fishery regimes, develops management recommendations,
assesses each country's performance and compliance with the treaty, and
is the forum for all entities to work towards reaching an agreement on
mutual fisheries issues. As co-managers of the fishery resources in
western Washington, tribal participation in implementing the PST is
critical to achieve the goals of the treaty to protect, share and
restore salmon resources.
Adult salmon returning to most western Washington streams migrate
through U.S. and Canadian waters and are harvested by fisherman from
both countries. For years, there were no restrictions on the
interception of returning salmon by fishermen of neighboring countries.
The 2008 update of the treaty gave additional protection to weak runs
of Chinook salmon returning to Puget Sound rivers. The update also
provided compensation to Alaskan fishermen for lost fishing
opportunities, while also funding habitat restoration in the Puget
Sound region.
Provide $15.8 million for NOAA Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs
We support the President's request of $15.8 million for the
Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs. Funding is provided for the operation
of 17 fish hatcheries that release between 50 and 60 million juvenile
salmon and steelhead in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. This program has
historically provided fish production for tribal treaty fisheries, and
recreational and commercial fisheries in the Columbia River and the
ocean. It is especially important to us in that they provide
significant fish production for harvest opportunities for tribal treaty
fisheries along the Washington coast. Providing adequate funding to
maintain the current production levels from the Mitchell Act hatcheries
on the Columbia River is important as this production not only supports
coastal salmon fisheries but dampens the impact of Canadian fisheries
under the terms of the PST Chinook Annex on Puget Sound and coastal
stocks.
Overall production from these hatcheries has been reduced from more
than 100 million to fewer than 60 million fish. This hatchery
production is intended to mitigate for the lost production caused by
the hydropower dam system on the Columbia River. Substantial changes
have been made, and will continue to be required of the Mitchell Act
Program, due to the application of the ESA throughout the Columbia
Basin. Adequate funding will also allow these facilities to be
retrofitted to meet current ESA standards as identified through the
hatchery reform process.
Provide $20.0 million for NOAA Regional Ocean Partnership Grants
Program
We request $20.0 million for the Regional Ocean Partnership. It
appears the President's fiscal year 2015 budget didn't include a
request for this program but we feel it is necessary to highlight it
since it is so critical to our regional approach to coastal management.
Funding for this competitive grant program has in the past been
included within the National Ocean Service/Coastal Management account
and supports regional ocean partnerships, including coastal and marine
spatial planning. This program was developed to advance effective
coastal and ocean management through regional ocean governance by
improving communications, aligning priorities and enhancing resource
sharing.
The Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Tribes, and the Quinault Indian Nation
helped form the Intergovernmental Policy Council with the intent to
strengthen management partnerships through coordination and focus of
work efforts. They have pioneered cooperative partnerships with the
State of Washington and the Federal Government in an effort to advance
management practices in the coastal waters. Through this partnership,
the entities hope to coordinate rockfish research, habitat mapping, and
deep sea coral and climate change considerations. The four coastal
tribes and the State also wish to engage in an ocean monitoring and
research initiative to support and transition into an ecosystem-based
fisheries management plan for the Washington coast. This tribal-State
effort would be in collaboration with NOAA and consistent with regional
priorities identified by a regional ocean planning body. Effective
management of the ocean ecosystem and its associated resources requires
the development of baseline information against which changes can be
measured. For the tribes and State to conduct an ocean monitoring and
research initiative off the Washington coast, they will need funding to
support this effort. Healthy oceans are essential if we value stable
climates that will sustain our economies and our lives. Tribes must be
partners in the efforts to research, clean up and restore the
environment in order to deal with identified problems.
conclusion
We are sensitive to the budget challenges that Congress faces.
However, we need your continued support in upholding the treaty
obligations and fulfilling the trust responsibility of those treaties
in order for tribes to be successful. We respectfully urge you to
continue to support our efforts to protect and restore our great
natural heritage that in turn will provide for thriving economies.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ocean Conservancy
Thank you for this opportunity to provide Ocean Conservancy's
recommendations for fiscal year 2015 funding for National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Ocean Conservancy has worked for 40
years to address ocean threats through sound, practical policies that
protect our ocean and improve our lives. We support funding for NOAA at
or above the President's request of $5.5 billion, and we support
balanced investments across NOAA's atmospheric and oceanic missions. We
recommend the following funding levels for specific programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2015
Account, Program or Activity enacted President's request recommended level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATIONS RESEARCH AND FACILITIES
National Ocean Service:
Coastal Science, Assessment,
Response, and Restoration:
Marine Debris.................... $6 million............. $6 million............. $8 million
Arctic Spill Preparedness........ -- $1.315 million increase $1.315 million increase
Coastal Management Grants:
Regional Coastal Resilience -- $5 million............. $10 million
Grants.
National Marine Fisheries Service:
Marine Mammals..................... $49.717 million........ $47.217 million........ $49.717 million
Fisheries Research and Management $177.833 million....... $181.833 million....... $181.833 million
Programs.
Expand Annual Stock Assessments.... $69.745 million........ $72.245 million........ $75.6 million
Fisheries Statistics............... $22.361 million........ $22.361 million........ $23.9 million
Climate Regimes & Ecosystem $2.031 million......... $2.879 million......... $2.879 million
Productivity.
Distributed Biological Obs. -- $848,000 increase...... $848,000 increase
(Arctic).
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research:
Integrated Ocean Acidification..... $6.051 million......... $14.922 million........ $15 million
Regional Climate Data and $37.312 million........ $52.312 million........ $52.312 million
Information.
NOAA Arctic Research Program..... -- $2.190 million increase $2.190 million increase
Program Support:
NOAA Wide Corporate Services & $113.139 million....... $125.139 million....... $125.139 million
Agency Mgmt. Base.
Marine Operations & Maintenance.... $172.181 million....... $175.032 million....... $175.032 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
regional coastal resilience grants: $10 million
The resilience of our coastal communities is a critical mission for
NOAA and the National Ocean Service. But resilience means more than
just storm-ready; truly resilient communities are prepared to face
changing ocean conditions, from acidification to sea level rise,
changing economic conditions, from recession to emerging ocean uses, as
well as major catastrophes, from Superstorm Sandy to marine debris
clogging waterways. Resilient communities invest up-front today to
ensure they avoid unnecessary costs--economic, social, and
environmental--in the future. Regional approaches are an effective and
efficient way to address the full range of changing ocean and coastal
conditions and risks--bringing communities, States, and Federal
agencies together to share their collective knowledge and experience
and move forward on shared priorities. Regional Coastal Resilience
Grants from NOAA support work to advance resilience by supporting
regional priorities for ocean and coastal science and activities.
Because regional grants were left unfunded for the first time in
fiscal year 2014, ongoing efforts through States and partnerships (like
the Regional Ocean Partnerships) have been threatened--interfering with
progress to support local and regional ocean and coastal needs and
priorities, or leverage the Federal Government's expertise and data
collection capacity. Failure to restore the regional competitive grant
funding and provide an increase to $10 million will undermine and
threaten the progress these partnerships have made. For these reasons,
we request that the Regional Coastal Resilience Grants within NOAA's
National Ocean Service be funded at $10 million.
preparing for a changing arctic
We support the three funding increases requested by NOAA in fiscal
year 2015 that make investments we need now to be prepared for economic
and ecological challenges of a changing Arctic.
--Arctic Spill Preparedness: $1.315 million increase.--Currently,
there is no demonstrated technology, technique or
infrastructure to respond effectively to an oil spill in icy
Arctic waters. Funding to support improved models, increased
capacity and coordination, and research is urgently needed.
Along with a precautionary approach, these efforts can guide
decisions about whether development activities should occur in
the Arctic and, if so, when, where, and how they occur.
--Distributed Biological Observatory (Arctic): $848,000 increase.--
The Arctic marine ecosystem provides irreplaceable benefits,
but our understanding of this ecosystem is hampered by a lack
of reliable baseline data, critical science gaps, and limited
documentation and application/use of traditional knowledge.
Funding will provide much-needed support for collection of
baseline data and analysis of ecosystem functions in Arctic
marine waters so we better understand Arctic fisheries and
other valuable ecosystem services. Without this better
understanding our ability to make informed decisions is
compromised.
--NOAA Arctic Research Program: $2.190 million increase.--
Temperatures in the Arctic are warming at twice the rate of the
global average and seasonal sea ice is diminishing rapidly.
Funding to expand and improve NOAA's Arctic Observing Network
is critical to track and understand these profound changes and
provide products that inform industries and decision-makers and
support our ability to adapt.
marine debris: $8 million
Marine debris has become one of the most pervasive pollution
problems facing the world's oceans, coasts and waterways. Research has
demonstrated that persistent debris has serious effects on the marine
environment, wildlife and the economy. Marine debris causes wildlife
entanglement, ghost fishing, destruction of habitat, navigational
hazards, vessel damage and pollutes coastal areas. There is also
increasing concern over the threat of microplastics to the marine food
web and potentially humans. NOAA's Marine Debris program supports
existing monitoring and research efforts to better understand
accumulation rates of debris and debris source and sink dynamics. The
program catalyzes scientific research efforts to quantify the direct
and indirect economic impacts caused by marine debris on coastal
communities and economies that rely on them. And increasingly, NOAA's
program is emphasizing research on microplastics in the ocean and their
toxicological impacts on marine organisms. NOAA's Marine Debris program
was originally authorized at a level of $10 million. We support funding
for this program at $8 million, a $2 million increase over fiscal year
2014.
marine mammals: $49.717 million
We do not support NOAA's proposed cut of $2.5 million dollars from
the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program.
This cut would harm marine mammal stranding networks, which are the
first responders for sick or dying marine mammals. Marine mammals face
significant threats in the Gulf of Mexico, with the Galveston Bay Spill
providing the latest example. Programs in Texas and Florida in
particular would be harmed by this cut because they are not currently
benefitting from BP Natural Resource Damage Assessment dollars that are
temporarily filling funding gaps in northern Gulf rescue centers, but
not elsewhere.
fisheries science and information
We support funding for programs that implement the ``Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act''. As we review the Act
for reauthorization, it is important to note that the Act is working--
NOAA has made great strides towards ending overfishing and continued
investments in these programs are needed.
--Expand Annual Stock Assessments: $75 million.--This funding line
provides critically needed resources for fisheries managers to
assess priority fish stocks, implement the requirement for
annual catch limits (ACLs), and ensure the successful recovery
of overfished populations. The survey and monitoring and stock
assessment activities funded under this line give fishery
managers greater confidence that their ACLs will avoid
overfishing while providing optimal fishing opportunities.
Because the information provided by stock assessments is so
vital for sustainable management of U.S. fisheries, increased
funding for stock assessments should remain among the highest
priorities in fiscal year 2015.
--Marine Operations and Maintenance: $175.032 million.--Marine
Operations and Maintenance should be funded at or above the
President's Request level of $175.032 million. Days at sea
funded by this line are functionally tied to fishery stock
assessments, and the two programs must be viewed together. In
addition, while not currently requested in the NOAA budget, we
encourage Congress to consider the needs of the NOAA fleet as
well.
--Fisheries Statistics (Marine Recreational Information Program):
$23.9 million.--Despite their often sizeable economic and
biological impacts, much less data are collected from
recreational saltwater fisheries than commercial fisheries due
to the sheer number of participants and limited sampling of
anglers' catches. The low level of data collection and lack of
timely reporting of data in these fisheries is a large source
of uncertainty and has become a flashpoint for controversy in
regions where catch restrictions have been adopted to rebuild
overfished stocks, particularly in the Southeast. By all
accounts, improved sampling and timelier reporting of catch
data are needed for successful management of marine
recreational fisheries.
--Fisheries Research & Mgmt. Programs (elec. monitoring): at least
$181.833 million.--We support increasing funding for electronic
monitoring and reporting by at least the $4 million requested
by NOAA. This funding has been requested for nationwide
efforts, but in the Gulf of Mexico alone, where managers need
electronic monitoring to keep track of catch and prevent
overruns in the red snapper fishery, there is significant need
for additional funding. In conjunction with the charter-for-
hire, seafood, environmental and regulatory communities across
all five Gulf States, we recommend that NOAA direct $2 million
of increased funding to create an electronic data collection
program for the federally-permitted charter boat fishery in the
Gulf of Mexico.
integrated ocean acidification
In recent years, scientists have raised the alarm about ocean
acidification--a process whereby ocean waters' absorption of carbon
dioxide emissions alters marine acidity. These changes can have far-
reaching consequences for marine life, including economically important
species like shellfish. For example, the shellfish industry in the
Pacific Northwest has been devastated in recent years as increasingly
acidic water impacted oyster hatcheries, nearly wiping out several
years-worth of oyster ``seed.''
Given the magnitude of the potential impacts of ocean acidification
we believe this area warrants significantly more research investment.
The President's fiscal year 2015 request of $15 million is a good step
in the right direction of the actual on-the-ground needs for Ocean
Acidification research. Funding at the $15 million level will allow
NOAA to improve the understanding of ocean and coastal acidification
impacts and to develop tools and adaptive strategies for vulnerable
industries and stakeholders. These tools may include advanced
technologies to enhance the U.S. Ocean Acidification Observing System,
develop models to better understand carbonate chemistry dynamics and
impacts, and provide valuable data products for coastal resource
managers and other stakeholders. By increasing funding for Integrated
Ocean Acidification to this level, NOAA will be able to take these
concrete actions to more effectively tackle the economic, on-the-ground
implications of ocean acidification and better plan for future
strategies that will protect our Nation's key ocean and coastal
economic assets.
noaa wide corporate services & agency management base: $125.139 million
We support the administration's request for a $12 million increase
for NOAA wide Corporate Services & Agency Management Base. As
Administrator Sullivan said recently, it is rarely popular to invest in
back-of-house functions, but if you do not support these critical
functions, program delivery suffers. Appropriate funding for
organizational hygiene ultimately allows the agency to more effectively
carry out its mission, and thus results in benefits to ocean programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. James Oliver, University of North Carolina at
Charlotte
Dear Sirs: The President's 2015 budget lists closure of the Center
for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Programs, National Ocean Science, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), at Beaufort North Carolina. I wish
to strongly voice my opposition to this aspect of the budget, which I
feel is not in our Nation's best interests.
The Government has invested heavily in this facility: The Beaufort
Laboratory facility has, over the last few years, had major upgrades of
approximately $14 million. The lab is also rich in manpower, with a
total of 108 staff and contractors who would be directly affected by
the proposed closure.
Scientific expertise.--The President's same budget also includes an
increase of $4 million to another center to support ecological
forecasting of harmful algal blooms (HABs), the effects of the
decreasing levels of oxygen in our coastal waters, and an increase in
human and animal pathogens. This is ironic in that the Beaufort
Laboratory is a recognized leading facility for such studies, and has
the expertise and facilities needed to address them. Their acknowledged
reputation attracts support from other NOAA offices and other
organizations that realize the benefits of this laboratory's
experience.
Along with numerous other ocean scientists, many of whom like
myself who enjoy scientific collaborations with the Beaufort Lab, I
plead for Congress to direct NOAA to restore support and funding to
full operational levels in order to fully utilize the capacity of the
NOAA Beaufort Laboratory.
Thank you for studying this issue for the benefit of our country's
scientific efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of Omega Protein, Inc. and Daybrook Fisheries, Inc.
August 8, 2014.
Dear members: This letter is submitted on behalf of the roughly
1500 men and women employed by the menhaden industry in the Gulf of
Mexico and the Mid-Atlantic, many if not most of whom work and fish
here in Louisiana. The two remaining commercial menhaden fisheries,
Omega Protein, Inc. and Daybrook Fisheries, Inc., which combined,
produce an economic impact in excess of $1 billion to these regions and
manufacture products that support domestic and foreign agriculture,
aquaculture, and human health and nutrition industries, among many
others. To do so, our industry must depend on credible and accurate
scientific and commercial information, which for over a half century
has been provided by the scientists and researchers at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Fisheries
Science Center's (``SEFSC'') Beaufort, North Carolina Lab.
In his fiscal year 2015 budget, President Obama proposes to close
the Beaufort Lab and consolidate its operations at other SEFSC
facilities to be determined in the future. While the President does not
include a separate line item in his budget for this proposal, the
closing accounts for a fraction of the $14 million projected savings
from the Department of Commerce's reorganization of six science and
technology programs; perhaps a million dollars per year, according to
staff. We respectfully and urgently request that you oppose this
proposal and continue funding the Beaufort Lab in the fiscal year 2015
budget and beyond.
The Beaufort Lab and its staff of over 100 employees support the
management activities of the Gulf States and Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commissions, primarily by conducting and leading the menhaden
stock assessment (the Southeast Data Analysis and Review, or ``SEDAR'')
for each region. It also collects, digitizes, and analyzes commercial
catch data provided by the companies' captains in detailed logbook
form. This information is an essential component of the joint Federal/
State menhaden management system and critical for continuing science-
based, sustainable management of these economically and ecologically
important stocks.
As such, we are concerned that the Beaufort Lab's closure presents
a serious risk of disruption and loss of menhaden expertise. The Lab
currently houses personnel with nearly a century of combined experience
with the Atlantic and Gulf menhaden fisheries-biologists who provide
aging data for the stock assessment and who have tracked and analyzed
the fisheries for decades. It is nearly a certainty that longest
serving and most knowledgeable staff will not make transition to a new
location. If the assessment scientists likewise choose to remain in
North Carolina, the National Marine Fisheries Service (``NMFS'') would
essentially be faced with starting its menhaden program from the
ground-up, if it chooses to continue it at all.
While the menhaden industry has received assurances that NOAA
Fisheries is committed to continuing to provide support for these
fisheries, we remain concerned for the future. Given that the States
take the lead in managing the Gulf and Atlantic menhaden fisheries, it
is not difficult to imagine NMFS deciding, as an additional cost-
cutting measure, to forgo its role entirely.
It also should not be overlooked that Beaufort Lab is one of the
few remaining scientific institutions NMFS has in the Mid-Atlantic
region. Beaufort is the center of research on Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. It houses NMFS scientific and
management personnel from SEFSC's Miami and Pascagoula Labs doing
research on fisheries, marine mammals (such as on Northern right
whales, whose calving areas are off the North Carolina coast), sea
turtles, and habitats unique to the area. Beaufort is the only NMFS lab
located in the breeding areas of loggerhead, green, and Kemp's Ridley
sea turtles in the Northern Recovery Unit. In order to continue these
lines of study, NMFS would essentially have to recreate the Beaufort
Lab.
In short, the Beaufort Lab's closure would create a significant gap
in our scientific understanding of the Gulf and Mid-Atlantic marine
systems and fisheries. This action also unnecessarily jeopardizes
America's largest fishery by volume, the Gulf and Atlantic menhaden
fisheries. This is simply too much for such negligible potential
savings. We strongly urge you to support its continued funding.
Sincerely,
Bret Scholtes,
President & CEO, Omega Protein, Inc.
Gregory Holt,
President, Daybrook Fisheries, Inc.
______
Prepared Statement of the Planetary Society
The Planetary Society has serious concerns for the future of NASA's
Planetary Science Division as proposed in the fiscal year 2015 NASA
budget request. For the 3rd year in a row, the White House has proposed
cuts to the program that will ensure the decline of planetary
exploration over the course of this decade. The core recommendation of
the National Academy's planetary science decadal survey--the crucial
balance of small, medium, and flagship missions, combined with steady
research and technology funding--is not supported by this request,
which, at $1.28 billion, is nearly $220 million below the recommended
$1.5 billion per year needed to implement a program consistent with the
intent of the decadal survey.
NASA's Planetary Science program has a clear direction provided by
the Visions and Voyages planetary science decadal survey and has
maintained a productive, successful, and unprecedented program of
exploration throughout the past decade. The Curiosity rover is
approaching the base of an 18,000-foot Martian mountain; the Cassini
spacecraft has confirmed an underground ocean on Saturn's moon,
Enceladus; New Horizons will fly by Pluto next year for the first time
in human history. These are highly engaging, exciting, and compelling
events delivered by NASA's planetary program. They inspire generation
after generation of students and the public to embrace science and
engineering. They dramatically demonstrate the United States'
engineering and scientific prowess. But despite this, the White House
has proposed cuts year after year that threaten the health of this
program.
Previous actions by the Senate and House Appropriations Committees
have mitigated the losses to planetary science that would have come
about had the White House's original requests in fiscal year 2013 and
fiscal year 2014 been enacted. But even with these partial
restorations, the United States' scientific exploration of the solar
system is approaching a nadir not seen since the 1980s. The number of
new missions launching during the period covered by the current decadal
survey has dropped by half compared to the previous decade [Figure 1].
When Cassini at Saturn and Juno at Jupiter end their missions in 2017,
there will be no NASA missions exploring the outer planets for the
first time since the 1970s. Decades of hard-earned capability and
engineering know-how will be placed at risk just as Europe, India,
Russia, and China are committing to solar system exploration.
Even if a new mission to the outer planets were selected tomorrow,
the United States would still face a minimum 6-year gap. The ``fade to
black'' predicted by respected NASA veterans Bobby Braun and Noel
Hinners \1\ has come to pass. The question facing NASA and the Congress
is how long to make this period last.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Planetary Science: Fading to Black. Space News, April 22,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration's budget proposal ensures a long period of
darkness. Based on statements within the budget document, the number of
new planetary science missions in development dwindles to two (Mars
2020 and the next small-class Discovery mission) by 2016, the lowest
level in decades. While NASA officials have stated their intention to
increase the cadence of the Discovery missions by the end of the
decade, the budget makes no statement to this effect. It also suspends
one of the major components of a balanced planetary program: the
medium-class ``New Frontiers'' mission line. If this occurs, exactly
zero of the competitively-selected medium-class missions recommended by
the decadal survey for 2013-2022 will be implemented. This represents a
notable change in policy, as all previous budgets anticipated a new New
Frontiers opportunity in 2016.
The administration did take a tentative step towards a mission to
explore Europa, which would help address the lack of outer planets
exploration. The Planetary Society wishes to recognize the importance
of this mission, and we are happy to see NASA and the White House take
this step.
Europa, the moon of Jupiter with a vast liquid water ocean, is a
destination long sought by the scientific community. It ranked as the
most important flagship mission in the first decadal survey and the
second-most important in the current decadal survey. Last year's
discovery of likely water plumes erupting from Europa's south pole only
served to increase the moon's scientific importance. These plumes
significantly lower the cost of performing initial analysis of Europa's
water, as a spacecraft could far more easily fly through and collect
plume samples instead of landing and boring through a thick ice sheet.
But the White House requests a mere $15 million to study a low-cost
Europa mission concept, despite having received over $140 million in
the past 2 years to advance the Europa Clipper concept mission from the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Applied Physics Laboratory, which had
already reduced the cost of a major scientific mission by over 50
percent from the original decadal concept. To reduce it further, as
NASA is proposing, raises serious questions of the scientific return
possible from such a mission. We are all for cost-savings, but we must
ensure that this once-in-a-generation opportunity to explore Europa
achieves the preponderance of scientific goals as defined in the
decadal survey, and sufficiently moves our understanding of Europa to
the point where NASA could subsequently attempt a landing on the
surface.
The timing for the Europa mission, not mentioned in the fiscal year
2015 request but stated by NASA officials as ``mid-2020s,'' is also a
concern. We support section 321 of H.R. 2687, the NASA Authorization
Act of 2013, which sets key policies for planetary missions, including
the goal to launch by 2021 a major Europa mission that is responsive to
the decadal survey. A similar provision is now the 2014 NASA
Authorization bill currently working its way through the House Science
Committee.
The administration's budget deserves praise for funding continued
operations for several existing planetary science missions, notably the
popular Curiosity rover on Mars and the long-lived Cassini orbiter at
Saturn. The next major mission to Mars appears to have a reasonable, if
tight, budget profile that supports its launch in 2020. Additionally,
the request provides adequate funding to maintain the Department of
Energy's Plutonium-238 infrastructure and restart program, crucial for
continued access to destinations where solar power is not feasible. We
strongly support these decisions, and urge Congress to do so as well.
But the budget proposal does place the continued operation of two
functioning planetary spacecraft at risk. Both the Opportunity rover
and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter are zeroed out in the base
proposal. Instead, they are moved to the President's Opportunity,
Growth, and Security Initiative. The Planetary Society believes in
maximizing taxpayer value for NASA assets by continuing operations as
long as missions remain scientifically valuable. We fully expect the
upcoming senior review at NASA to validate the scientific returns of
both missions, and strongly recommend that both continue operations
whether or not the OGSI is passed into law.
The major NASA achievements in planetary exploration slated for
fiscal year 2015--Curiosity at Mt. Sharp, New Horizons at Pluto, Dawn
orbiting Ceres--represent what's great about the country. They are bold
feats of engineering and scientific prowess. They are optimistic--each
one faced immense challenges that were overcome by careful thought and
planning. They engage the public with their bold feats of discovery.
They are also all initiatives from the previous Presidential
administration.
Spacecraft take time to design, build, and fly. We are not so much
concerned for the health of the current set of missions (Opportunity
and LRO are notable exceptions) so much as we are concerned for the
health of the program going forward. NASA already faces the biggest gap
in solar system exploration in decades, and has dropped its launch rate
for this decade by half, but this can still change. Wise action by the
Congress and a receptive administration can embrace planetary science
for what it is: a unique and hard-earned capability that is worth a
small investment--$1.5 billion per year, less than 9 percent of NASA's
total budget--to maintain a peerless program of exploration that
inspires the country.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1: Funding level of NASA's Planetary Science Division from 2003-
2019, adjusted for inflation and displaying the number of missions
planned to be in development according to NASA Budget requests during
this period. The average budget for 2003-2013 is $1.5 billion per year.
Modifications to the budget have been made to preserve programmatic
consistency. Note that by the end of the decade the Division is working
on only two new missions while maintaining an aging set of spacecraft
and funding Pu-238 development, scientific research, NEO detection, and
instruments on foreign missions. Raw data and methods are available at
http://planetary.org/planetary-funding-chart.
Note: funding projections suggest that the Discovery 14 mission could
begin development in fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year 2019, though this
is unstated in the budget request and therefore not represented here.
about the planetary society
The Planetary Society has inspired millions of people to explore
other worlds and seek other life. Today, its international membership
of over 40,000 individuals makes the non-governmental Planetary Society
the largest space interest group in the world. Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray
and Louis Friedman founded the Planetary Society in 1980. Bill Nye, a
long time member of the Planetary Society's Board, serves as CEO.
______
Prepared Statement of the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS)
Program
RISS serves thousands of law enforcement and public safety agencies
across the country in their effort to successfully resolve criminal
investigations, apprehend and prosecute offenders, maintain security,
and ensure officer safety through nationwide deconfliction. Agencies,
officers, and public safety professionals turn to and rely on RISS to
access intelligence systems, investigative databases, analytical
support, training, and a host of other services and resources. RISS is
a leader and an innovator in technology and investigative support and
has enabled law enforcement to significantly improve information
sharing across jurisdictions, resulting in thousands of arrests and
prosecutions and millions of dollars in seizures. It is imperative that
these advances continue and be built upon in order to ensure a safer
Nation. Fiscal year 2015 funding for RISS is requested at $45 million.
This funding will support the continued operation of the six regional
intelligence centers, the RISS Technology Support Center, and all of
RISS's technology, investigative, and deconfliction services and
resources.
In fiscal year 2012, RISS's funding was reduced 40 percent from $45
million to $27 million. RISS continued to provide the best possible
service and solutions to its agencies and partners. RISS worked
diligently to maintain its core services and secure infrastructure. In
addition, RISS was asked by numerous agencies, including many Federal
agencies, to participate in initiatives and help identify solutions.
However, in some cases, agencies experienced decreases in analytical
and investigative case support, training, and other investigative
services. The RISS fiscal year 2013 appropriation was $35 million, a
significant increase over fiscal year 2012. Because of sequestration
and administrative fees, however, RISS's net funding for fiscal year
2013 was $29.5 million. The fiscal year 2014 appropriation included
RISS at $30 million. After administrative fees are applied, however,
RISS's allocation will be $27 million--less than fiscal year 2013. The
fiscal year 2015 President's budget includes RISS at $25 million, which
at that level would exacerbate an already critical situation for the
local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies RISS serves.
riss provides secure information and intelligence sharing capabilities
RISS operates the RISS Secure Cloud (RISSNET)--a sensitive but
unclassified (SBU) law enforcement cloud provider. RISSNET connects
disparate systems, provides bidirectional sharing, and offers a
federated search of connected systems. RISSNET serves as the secure
infrastructure for hundreds of critical resources and investigative
tools. The owners of these resources rely on RISSNET for its secure
infrastructure. Currently, 84 systems are connected or pending
connection to RISSNET. Without RISSNET and the hundreds of resources it
supports, agencies would be greatly limited in their ability to
retrieve, exchange, and use information to prevent and solve crimes.
Examples of RISS-developed resources accessible via RISSNET include
the RISS Criminal Intelligence Database (RISSIntel), the RISS Officer
Safety Event Deconfliction System (RISSafe), the RISS Officer Safety
Web site, the RISS National Gang Program (RISSGang), the RISS Automated
Trusted Information Exchange (ATIX), and the RISSLeads Investigative
Website. RISS also develops secure hosted websites for partners to
share information, post materials, and communicate. There are more than
30 sites housed on RISSNET, including the Assured SBU Network
Interoperability Working Group, the National Interagency Fire Center,
the Medicaid Fraud Control Units, the Medicaid Integrity Institute, and
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
The RISSIntel user interface provides for a real-time, online
federated search of more than 35 RISS and partner intelligence
databases, including State systems, the California gang intelligence
system (CalGang), and systems connected via the National Virtual
Pointer System (NVPS). This search does not require the RISSNET user to
have a separate user account with the respective partner systems. This
simplified sign-on approach enables officers to save time and quickly
retrieve critical information. Millions of records are available via
RISSIntel and bidirectionally from connected partner systems.
The RISSGang Program consists of the RISS National Gang
Intelligence Database, the RISSGang Website, and information resources.
The database provides law enforcement agencies with access to gang
records, including suspects, organizations, weapons, photographs, and
graffiti. The website provides resources, information, and
publications. RISS completed a system-to-system interface between
RISSIntel/RISSGang and CalGang, enabling authorized users to initiate a
federated search. RISS completed the connection to the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' GangNet and is working to
connect other gang systems.
RISS ATIX provides a secure platform for law enforcement, public
safety, first responders, and the private sector involved in securing
our Nation from terrorism and other disasters to share information.
Community groups include local, county, State, and tribal levels of
emergency management, law enforcement, and government, as well as
public and private utilities, transportation, agriculture, chemical
manufacturing, private security, environmental protection, banking and
finance, and hospitality industries. The RISS ATIX resources include
secure Web pages, secure discussion forums, a document library, and
secure e-mail.
Each RISS Center maintains a secure Web site to provide users with
access to RISSIntel, other RISSNET resources, and investigative
systems, such as the RISS Property and Recovery Tracking System, the
Cold Case Database, and the Pseudo Violator Tracking System. The number
of investigative records available through these different systems
exceeds 37 million. During fiscal year 2013, more than 73 million
transactions occurred via RISSNET.
riss supports the nation's public safety mission
RISS is a key player in Federal information sharing initiatives.
RISS supports and partners with Federal agencies, such as the Law
Enforcement National Data Exchange (N-DEx); the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center; the Office of the Program Manager, Information Sharing
Environment (PM-ISE); the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN);
the National Criminal Intelligence Resource Center; the United States
Secret Service's Targeted Violence Information Sharing System; the
Medicaid Fraud Control Units; and the National Motor Vehicle Title
Information System.
The N-DEx and RISS Information Sharing Partnership aims to expand
the availability of case management, investigative, and intelligence
data as well as critical analytical tools. Access to N-DEx will be
available to authorized RISSNET users via the Law Enforcement
Enterprise Portal without requiring an additional username or password.
This capability enables officers to obtain needed information quickly,
saves officers' time, streamlines operations, and enhances law
enforcement's ability to respond to crime in their community
effectively and efficiently. This effort was launched in the Rocky
Mountain Information Network (RMIN), a RISS Center, and plans are under
way to expand it to the other RISS Center regions throughout 2014.
RISS is the only non-Federal entity participating in the Assured
SBU Interoperability Initiative under the auspices of the White House
and the PM-ISE. This initiative seeks to expand federated access to
resources and to provide simplified sign-on capabilities for officers
to access multiple systems simultaneously. RISS is at the forefront in
providing simplified, federated access. More than 18,000 users from
trusted partner systems are using Federated Identity to access RISSNET
resources. In addition, RISS built and hosts the NVPS Message Hub to
provide access to the NVPS participant agencies and to RISS member
agencies that submit records to the RISSIntel databases via RISSNET.
Through these partnerships, RISS offers cost-effective and time-saving
solutions while further strengthening information sharing, public
safety, and officer safety.
The RISS Centers have strong partnerships with fusion centers.
Almost all fusion centers have access to RISSNET. RISS intelligence
analysts interact daily with staff at various fusion centers. Some
analysts are collocated. RISS provides technical on-site assistance to
fusion centers to integrate RISS services and resources into their
daily operations and coordinates the delivery of RISS services with
fusion center personnel. During fiscal year 2013, RISS initiated the
Northeast Fusion Center Intelligence Project, which will connect 17
existing fusion centers' intelligence systems to RISSIntel via RISSNET.
By leveraging RISSNET and RISSIntel, fusion centers can securely share
intelligence data among themselves and other entities and analyze
criminal and terrorism data across jurisdictional boundaries, while
safeguarding privacy and civil liberties.
RISS is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Narcotic
Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Alliance of Gang
Investigators Associations, and many others. RISS's partnerships have
resulted in an unprecedented level of information and intelligence
sharing.
riss enhances officer safety through deconfliction
RISSafe is an essential component in helping to ensure officer
safety. RISSafe stores and maintains data on planned law enforcement
events--such as raids, controlled buys, and surveillances--with the
goal of identifying and alerting affected agencies and officers of
potential conflicts impacting law enforcement efforts. The interaction
between RISSafe and RISSIntel provides comprehensive officer safety
event and subject deconfliction services. RISSafe Mobile enables
officers to access RISSafe from their smartphones and other mobile
devices. RISSafe is accessible and monitored on a 24/7/365 basis and
available at no cost to all law enforcement agencies regardless of RISS
membership. It is impossible to put a monetary value on the number of
officers that RISSafe has helped protect from harm or, worse, death.
Since its inception, more than 757,000 operations have been entered
into RISSafe, resulting in more than 263,000 identified conflicts.
Currently, 22 RISSafe Watch Centers are operational, 16 of which are
operated by organizations other than RISS, such as State agencies,
fusion centers, and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA). As
of March 4, 2014, RISSafe and HIDTA's Case Explorer have been connected
in the six RISS regions. Work is under way to expand connectivity with
other deconfliction partners.
The RISS Officer Safety Website serves as a nationwide repository
for issues related to officer safety, such as concealments, hidden
weapons, armed and dangerous threats, officer safety videos, special
reports, and training.
riss provides critical investigative and case support
RISS offers law enforcement agencies and officers comprehensive
investigative services, from the beginning of an investigation to the
ultimate prosecution and conviction of criminals. An officer can
simultaneously query connected intelligence databases; retrieve
information from specialized investigative databases and resources; use
analytical products, such as crime scene diagrams, link-analysis
charts, digital forensics, and audio/video services; solicit assistance
from research staff to help sift through information, conduct research,
and help identify the missing piece of the puzzle; borrow surveillance
and investigative equipment; obtain training on new and emerging
topics; and access critical publications and law enforcement-sensitive
briefings. In fiscal year 2013, the RISS Centers developed 27,015
analytical products, loaned 4,062 pieces of specialized equipment,
responded to 210,404 requests for research and technical assistance,
and trained 46,579 individuals.
RISS is an excellent return on investment for our Nation. Over the
last 10 years, officers leveraging RISS's services arrested almost
48,000 offenders and seized more than $765.8 million in narcotics,
property, and currency. Without RISS's services and resources,
criminals, drugs, stolen property, and other contraband might still be
on our streets. Every day, officers use RISS to help solve cases and
stay safe. To view success stories from every State and other
information regarding RISS, visit www.riss.net/Impact.
It would be counterproductive to require local and State RISS
members to self-fund match requirements or to reduce the amount of
Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary funding. Agencies require
more funding to fight the Nation's crime problem. RISS is unable to
make up the decrease in funding that a match would cause, for it has no
revenue source of its own. RISS has been instrumental in breaking down
the communications barriers among the criminal justice community and
providing seamless access to critical information, intelligence, and
investigative resources. RISS is A Proven Resource for Law Enforcement.
RISS's services and programs directly impact law enforcement's ability
to successfully resolve investigations and prosecute criminals while
providing the critical resources and officer safety deconfliction
necessary to safeguard law enforcement officers and citizens. With the
ongoing threats to our communities and Nation, more support for RISS is
needed, not less. RISS is grateful to provide this testimony at your
request and appreciates the support this committee continuously
provides to the RISS Program.
______
Prepared Statement of Research!America
Research!America, a public education and advocacy alliance
committed to advancing medical and other scientific research and
development, appreciates the Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies'
stewardship over such a critical subset of our Nation's discretionary
funding priorities. As the subcommittee begins the process of
prioritizing fiscal year 2015 funding, we urge you to consider the
following thoughts on the National Science Foundation (NSF) which is
entrusted with sustaining our Nation's sophisticated research
infrastructure, partnering with the private sector to accelerate
innovation, and maintaining our global leadership. For fiscal year
2015, we request that the National Science Foundation receive at least
$7.6 billion in Federal funding to allow its continued growth as a
driver for basic research.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) plays a pivotal role in
advancing basic and social sciences research. The funding, or lack of
it, allocated to NSF will bear on our Nation's ability to compete in
key export markets within the global economy, foster business
development that grows and maintains jobs across the country, utilize
social sciences research for more efficient Federal spending based on
advanced understanding of the use of social services, devise evidence-
based strategies for empowering Americans to overcome the need for such
services, meet our solemn obligations to our troops, bolster national
security, and ensure top-line education for scientists and medical
researchers at our Nation's colleges and universities. The stakes truly
are that high.
nsf as an innovation incubator
In fiscal year 2015, we urge you to fund NSF with at least $7.6
billion to continue the trajectory of increased basic research which is
so critical to society. NSF supports research in fundamental sciences
and engineering to keep the United States at the forefront of
scientific discovery. The source of approximately 21 percent of all
federally funded basic research, NSF funds over 300,000 scientists,
engineers, educators, and basic researchers through more than 11,000
grants annually. The fruits of NSF basic research are integral to our
Nation's innovation cycle. Countless innovations that Americans depend
on every day, like laser technologies and Internet search functions,
are products of NSF-supported research. NSF has also supported the work
of more than 200 Nobel Prize winners in the past 60 years.
nsf as a conduit to evidence-based, strategic use of government dollars
NSF's support of social sciences research is grossly underestimated
in its value to taxpayers, the wellbeing of children and other
vulnerable populations, and the prosperity of our Nation. Designing and
executing social services programs without evidence-based foundations
is akin to shooting in the dark, wasting resources, and comprising the
mission. When you think of child welfare programs, the need for social
sciences research is crystal clear. It would be tragic if programs
inadvertently created disincentives for proper foster care, for
example. Social sciences research enables a better understanding of
international markets, boosting the ability of businesses to succeed in
our globalized economy. It is a dangerous mistake to dismiss the
importance of such research.
nsf as an educator
In an era when a capable scientific workforce is crucial, NSF funds
the education and training of the future STEM staff and leaders through
various K-12, undergraduate, and graduate education programs. The only
agency with a federally-mandated mission requiring incorporation of
science and engineering education in all funded research, NSF helps to
develop skilled researchers who not only extend scientific innovations
but also educate future generations. For more than 20 years, the
Advanced Technological Education program (ATE) has offered scientific
educational support and opportunities to more than 54,000 undergraduate
and associate degree students via almost 300 active grants. Without
sufficient Federal funding, fundamental educational programs like ATE
are at risk for cutbacks which will weaken the future scientific
workforce of America and hinder our countries growth as a global
innovator.
the threat of sequestration's return
The Ryan-Murray Bipartisan Budget Act provided America with 2 years
of partial relief from sequestration after across the board budget cuts
dramatically impacted the Nation's research capability in March 2013.
Unfortunately, sequestration will go back into full effect in 2016
unless Congress takes action, and it will be in effect for 2 years
longer than originally established under the 2011 Budget Control Act.
The return of sequestration's budget cuts to discretionary spending,
including that for NSF, poses potentially devastating setbacks to our
Nation's research. Short-changing scientific innovation and basic
research is not a solution to the Federal deficit or debt. For example,
neglecting medical research undercuts strategies to fight chronic
disease and the multipronged Federal costs that arise from it, while
squandering opportunities to increase private sector and Federal
revenues through new medical innovations.
Research!America appreciates the difficult task facing the
subcommittee as it seeks to simultaneously confront the budget deficit,
strengthen the United States, and promote the well-being of Americans.
There are few Federal investments that confer as many benefits as
medical research--new cures, new businesses, new jobs, new solutions to
healthcare cost inflation, and new fuel to drive U.S. leadership in a
global economy shaped by the ability of countries to continuously
innovate. We firmly believe that investing in NSF is a means of
advancing our Nation's innovative capacity in both the short- and long-
term. Thank you for your leadership and consideration; we know that
your task is extraordinarily difficult, and that our Nation is
fortunate to have such pragmatic, committed and gifted leaders at the
helm.
______
Prepared Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
Restore America's Estuaries is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
greatest estuaries. Our mission is to restore and protect estuaries as
essential resources for the Nation. Restore America's Estuaries is a
national alliance of community-based coastal conservation organizations
across the Nation that protect and restore coastal and estuarine
habitat. Our member organizations include: American Littoral Society,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save
the Sound--a program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment,
Conservation Law Foundation, Galveston Bay Foundation, North Carolina
Coastal Federation, EarthCorps, Save The Bay--San Francisco, Save the
Bay--Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay Watch. Collectively, we have over
250,000 members nationwide.
As you craft your fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science and
Related Agencies appropriations bill, Restore America's Estuaries
encourages you to provide the funding levels below within the
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) for core programs which greatly support coastal community
economies:
--$24 million for Fisheries Habitat Restoration
(CJS: NOAA: ORF: NMFS: Habitat Conservation & Restoration:
Fisheries Habitat Restoration)
--$3 million for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
(CELCP)
(CJS: NOAA: PAC: NOS: CELCP Acquisition)
--$22.9 million for National Estuarine Research Reserve System
(CJS: NOAA: ORF: NOS: Ocean and Coastal Management and Services:
National Estuarine Research Reserve System)
--$1.7 million for National Estuarine Research Reserve Construction
(CJS: NOAA: PAC: NOS: NERRS Construction)
These non-regulatory investments strengthen and revitalize
America's communities by buffering against storms, supporting
commercial fisheries, preventing erosion, protecting vital
infrastructure, eliminating public safety hazards, and providing new
recreational opportunities.
noaa, fisheries habitat restoration--community-based restoration
program
(CJS: NOAA: ORF: NMFS: Habitat Conservation & Restoration: Fisheries
Habitat Restoration)
NOAA's Fisheries Habitat Restoration line provides critical funding
for the Community-based Restoration Program and newly transferred
Estuary Restoration Program which was transferred to NMFS in fiscal
year 2014 from the National Ocean Service. The request includes a
modest $3.3 million increase above fiscal year 2014 enacted levels for
the Community-based Restoration Program to allow funding of new
projects in fiscal year 2015, while maintaining current funding levels
for the Estuary Restoration Program.
NOAA's Community-based Restoration Program (CBRP), accomplishes on-
the-ground projects to restore the Nation's coastal, marine, and
migratory fish habitat. The program provides technical expertise--
including engineering, construction, and monitoring--as well as funding
to regional and national partners, and directly to local communities to
carry out science-based restoration projects. Federal investments in
restoration are highly leveraged with local, State, and private funds
to provide long-lasting benefits to communities and economies.
The community-engagement aspect of the program is critical to long-
term restoration efforts because restoration projects occur over time
and require long-term community support. To date, the program has been
highly successful at improving the health of coastal habitats across
the Nation, benefiting both the environment and the economy through
partnerships involving community members in direct, hands-on service.
By working collaboratively with more than 1,500 organizations, the
program has restored over 97,000 acres of habitat and involved more
than 290,000 volunteers, contributing more than 1 million volunteer
hours.
We also request the committee include report language strongly
encouraging NOAA to implement programmatic enhancements in fiscal year
2015 to ensure inclusion of a broader, ecosystem-based management
philosophy and expand their selection criteria. We would strongly
support the following report language and urge the committee to include
the following:
The Committee maintains strong support for the Community-based
Restoration program. The committee recognizes the importance of
fish habitat restoration for threatened and endangered species.
The Committee also recognizes the importance of habitat
restoration activities for protecting communities, preventing
species from being listed, and providing enhanced tourism and
recreational opportunities. Moving forward, the committee urges
NOAA to implement the following recommendations: (A) Expand
criteria for project selection to include a broader ecosystem-
based management philosophy and expand criteria to
recreationally important species, managed commercial species,
and their forage species; (B) Select diversity of project sizes
based on watershed impact and prioritize proposals that include
multiple projects in single watersheds, in addition to
individual large projects; (C) Encourage public and direct
community engagement: from training seminars to volunteer
engagement; (D) Support overarching science investments to
advance monitoring, improve techniques, and advance valuation.
In the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations, the Estuary
Restoration Program was transferred from the National Ocean Service to
the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Fisheries Habitat
Restoration line without additional funding. The Estuary Restoration
Act established a comprehensive interagency organization, the Estuary
Habitat Restoration Council, which is comprised of five key Federal
restoration agencies and leads a coordinated approach to enhance
estuary habitat restoration. Under the Act, NOAA is responsible for
maintaining the National Estuaries Restoration Inventory (NERI).
In November 2012, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council approved
the 2012 Estuary Habitat Restoration (EHR) Strategy and 5-year action
plan. The action plan identifies outcomes and milestones to ensure that
restoration efforts are coordinated, evaluated, and tracked across
agencies with the goal of ensuring efforts are effective and efficient.
Without modest funding, cross-agency collaboration will be disrupted,
causing duplicative and potentially clashing efforts.
Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the
Estuary Restoration Council and NOAA's Estuary Restoration Program and
asks that you provide no less than $500,000 within requested funding
for fiscal year 2015.
noaa, coastal and estuarine land conservation program (celcp)
(CJS: NOAA: PAC: NOS: CELCP Acquisition)
The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) was
created in 2002 to provide State and local governments with matching
funds needed to protect the most significant coastal and estuarine
areas under threat of development and not presently protected through
regulatory mechanisms. CELCP is the only Federal land protection
program with an explicit focus on coastal lands and natural resources.
The program is implemented cooperatively with willing sellers and
matched with State and local funds, often playing a key role in uniting
local, State and Federal efforts to protect an area. While our Nation's
coastal protection need is far greater, Restore America's Estuaries
respectfully requests $3 million in funding for the program in fiscal
year 2015 to ensure the future of this critical tool for coastal
habitat conservation. This investment will allow the program to
continue to address our Nation's most pressing coastal resource needs,
especially in an age of increasing extreme weather and other coastal
hazards.
noaa, national estuarine research reserve system (nerrs)
(CJS: NOAA: ORF: NOS: Ocean and Coastal Management and Services:
National Estuarine Research Reserve System)/(CJS: NOAA: PAC:
NOS: NERRS Construction)
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is comprised
of 28 protected reserves that support long term research, education,
training, and stewardship. Through an effective partnership between
NOAA and coastal States, the NERRS plays a critical role in sustaining
resilient coasts and coastal communities.
The States have been entrusted to operate and manage NOAA's program
in 22 States and Puerto Rico, where over 1.3 million acres of land and
water are protected in perpetuity.
Restore America's Estuaries respectfully requests $22.9 million for
NERRS operations in fiscal year 2015. At this funding level, the 28
existing reserves will maintain level funding and provide support for
the addition of the 29th reserve in Hawaii. The designation of a Hawaii
NERR will fill an unrepresented bio-geographic region in the NERR
system.
NERRS assists our coastal communities, industries and resource
managers to enhance coastal resiliency in a changing environment. As
severe weather events become more common, Federal, State, and local
officials are recognizing that estuaries have the capacity to provide
green resilience infrastructure. Through NERRS, NOAA can tailor science
and management practices to enable local planners to use estuarine
habitat as a tool for resilience and adaptation.
Through science and science-based management of more than 1.3
million acres of protected land, NERRS provides numerous benefits to
communities that result in improved water quality, increased upland
flood and erosion control, and improved habitat quality that support
local fisheries and provide storm protection to coastal communities.
conclusion
Restore America's Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this
subcommittee has provided in the past for these important programs.
These programs help to accomplish on-the-ground restoration work which
results in major benefits:
--Jobs.--Coastal habitat restoration projects create between 17-33
jobs per $1 million invested. That's more than twice as many
jobs as the oil and gas sector and road construction industries
combined.
--More fish.--Traditional fisheries management tools alone are
inadequate. Fish need healthy and abundant habitat for
sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries.
--Resiliency.--Restoring coastal wetlands can help knock down storm
waves and reduce devastating storm surges before they reach the
people and property along the shore.
--Leverage.--Community-based restoration projects leverage 3-5 times
the Federal investment through private matching funds,
amplifying the Federal investment and impact.
Thank you and we greatly appreciate you taking our requests into
consideration as you move forward in the fiscal year 2015
appropriations process. We stand ready to work with you and your staff
to ensure the health of our Nation's estuaries and coasts.
______
Prepared Statement of Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc.
April 22, 2014.
Dear Senators: I am president of Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting
Service, Inc. I am writing this testimony to ask you to keep the
Beaufort, North Carolina National Marine Fisheries Laboratory open.
This lab has a long history of cooperative research with the Duke
University, North Carolina State University, and University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill, among many others. We have had positive
experiences working with staff at this lab over many years. While being
well known for working with Atlantic menhaden, sea grasses, red tide,
and salt marshes they are integrated in the stock assessment process of
many species from king mackerel to snappers and groupers, triggerfish
and other coral reef species, shrimp, as well as, turtles and marine
mammals. See http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/labs/beaufort/ for more details
on their important work including their work with the Chevron fishery
independent survey. They work with the head boat fisheries as well.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had recently
invested in approximately $14 million in upgrades. It has been
estimated that this lab affects $58 million into the local economy
(http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/01/3750561/false-savings-in-
cutting-beaufort.html) and it seems to us that this investment should
be allowed to generate intellectual profit.
These are critical times in fisheries management and we need the
contributions from these scientists and staff. This important research
laboratory has had a renowned history since its origin in 1899. It is
the second oldest marine laboratory in the United States. It presently
employs approximately numerous people, including scientists who are
recognized both internationally, nationally and regionally for the
excellent quality work they do to support objective ecosystem based
fisheries management. They may not be seen as a high profile lab. as is
the Miami Laboratory, but they are the only Federal Fisheries lab
between Miami, Florida, and Sandy Hook, New Jersey. In my opinion we
don't need less labs studying fish and our fisheries for improved
management, we need more. Present employees at other National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) labs are already over subscribed and stretched
thin.
It seems to me that this laboratory may be being closed more for
political reasons rather than objective ones.
Bottom line: Keep this laboratory open. Perhaps assign it
completely to NOAA NMFS and not NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS). Also
more money should be invested in fisheries independent research,
advanced procedures in stock assessment, fisheries oceanographic
research, and for ocean observations.
Sincerely,
Mitchell A. Roffer, Ph.D.,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
Chairman Wolf and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
George L. Thurman, Principal Chief of the Great Sac and Fox Nation.
Thank you for accepting this written testimony which presents to you
our tribal priorities for funding programs with the Office of Justice
Services, Department of Justice.
We understand the fiscal constraints of the country but feel that
there is budget inequity for tribal program funding which has been
further impacted with the cuts we incurred due to the 2013 sequester.
Tribes should not be unfairly targeted for reductions and rescissions
and forced to bear the fiscal constraints of this country alone. A key
intent of the Murray/Ryan budget deal was to soften the blow of the
sequester for Indian Country but unfortunately that was not the case.
As you consider the 2015 appropriations for the Office of Justice
Programs, we ask that you exempt tribes from any further sequestration.
1. Fully fund the Tribal Law and Order Act as authorized.
2. Fully fund the Violence Against Women Act.
3. Tribal Grants--Utilize the Department of Justice (DOJ)
appropriations as base funding with tribes setting own priorities.
4. Tribal set-aside from all discretionary Office of Justice
programs.
The Sac and Fox Nation also support the appropriations requests of
the National Congress of American Indians.
about the sac and fox nation
The Sac and Fox Nation is headquartered in Stroud, Oklahoma, and
our tribal jurisdictional area covers Lincoln, Payne, and Pottawatomie
Counties. Of the 4,000 enrolled tribal members, 2,600 live in Oklahoma.
We are proud to pay tribute to a Sac and Fox descendent and Great
Native American, Jim Thorpe. One of the most revered Olympic athletes
who has ever represented the United States; Mr. Thorpe won the
pentathlon and decathlon in the 1912 Olympics.
fully fund tribal law and order act as authorized
The Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) had three basic purposes:
1. Make Federal departments and agencies more accountable for
serving Native peoples and land;
2. Provide greater freedom for Indian tribes and nations to design
and run their own justice systems; and
3. Enhance cooperation among tribal, Federal and State officials
in key areas such as law enforcement, training, interoperability and
access to criminal justice information.
The Sac and Fox Nation operates a Juvenile Detention Center which
provides services to 46 tribes in Oklahoma, Kanas and Texas, as well as
the State of Oklahoma. We are anxious to advance the opportunities that
TLOA can offer to further expand and increase access to our facility.
However, unless TLOA is fully funded, facilities such as ours will not
be able to attain the full potential and help to guide children in the
system towards a successful future.
The full potential of TLOA cannot be realized or implemented
without sufficient resources for tribal justice systems and ongoing
coordination and consultation between tribal governments and various
Federal agencies. DOJ recognizes the importance of completing the
circle when it issued the ``Proposed Statement of Principles'', in
which is referenced that a stable funding at sufficient levels for
essential tribal justice functions is critical to the long-term growth
of tribal institutions.
fully fund violence against women act as authorized
We applaud the work of Indian Country and Congress to successful
get a comprehensive Violence Against Women Act reauthorized. Prior to
this bill Native women were denied equal access to justice. Thank you
for helping us to protect our mothers, daughters, sisters and wives
from jurisdictional gaps or safe havens for criminals. But without
appropriations, this is an idle victory. We urge you to fully fund at
the authorized amount.
tribal grants--utilize doj appropriations as base funding with tribes
setting own priorities
Eliminate the competitive grant funding process and utilize Justice
Department appropriations as base funding where tribes and tribal
courts themselves determine their own priorities.
Competitive funding for tribal priorities is a no win situation
that continues to pit tribe against tribes. One of the biggest issues
with DOJ funding is that it is competitive. In order to obtain the
funding--on behalf of their tribal courts--tribes must compete against
each other based on DOJ's priorities and guidelines rather than
identifying their own priorities to best serve their citizens at the
local level.
Instead the approach should be to utilize DOJ appropriations as
base funding so that tribes are encouraged to determine their
priorities. It appears that DOJ understands this concept inasmuch as it
posed the idea of base funding in the form of a block grant during
tribal consultation on the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW). We
propose that DOJ not merely propose this for OVW but consider this for
appropriations across the board.
tribal set-aside from office of justice programs
Create a 7 percent tribal set-aside from all discretionary Office
of Justice programs funding. Ensure that they are allocated as flexible
base funding. Also, provide funding above the fiscal year 2010 level
for each formerly separate program area including tribal courts, jail
construction, legal assistance, juvenile delinquency prevention and
substance abuse prevention.
The 7 percent set-aside was cut in the passage of the fiscal year
2012 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. As a
result tribal justice programs were cut across the board and continue
to struggle to address the increasing need of these funds which were
further impacted by the sequestration.
Again, thank you for this opportunity.
______
Prepared Statement of Zeb Schobernd, Morehead City, North Carolina
Dear members of the subcommittee,
I am writing to strongly urge the subcommittee to reject the
proposal in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget to close the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory in
Beaufort, North Carolina, and to instead fund this facility so that the
crucial work being done there can continue on into the future. This
laboratory is uniquely located to address key marine science issues
throughout the east coast of the U.S., and its loss would represent a
devastating blow to the fisheries interests in the region. The decision
to try and close the Beaufort facility represents a narrow-minded
approach to a temporary funding concern that is dwarfed in comparison
by the potential damage done to the research conducted on the marine
resources in the southeast. While I am addressing the subcommittee as a
private citizen concerned about this issue and not representing the
interests of any Federal agency or my employer, I have been a
contractor for NOAA for most of the past decade and can attest to both
the quality of the research done at this facility and the harm that
would be caused by its closing.
The financial reasons given by the leadership of the National Ocean
Service (NOS) for closing the Beaufort facility and have been
misrepresented and overblown. In their justification for closing the
lab, NOS cited only the NOS employees that would be impacted, grossly
underestimating the total number of workers at the site. In addition to
NOS, the lab also houses National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) programs; between
the three groups there are 108 Federal, State, and contract employees
at the facility, a much larger disruption of staff than initially
claimed. Additionally, NOS cited a cost of future maintenance repairs
to the facility that was outdated and did not take into account recent
work that has been done to upgrade the laboratory and its
infrastructure. Since 2006, approximately $14 million in repairs and
upgrades have been accomplished, including the replacement of multiple
buildings. The closure of this facility, after so much has been
invested in its improvement in recent years, seems like a clear waste
of taxpayer money, especially given that a 2014 report showed that the
facility is structurally sound.
Beyond the financial considerations, however, the closure of the
Beaufort lab would be a grave error because of the loss of high-quality
science and scientists associated with the facility. Located at the
intersection of two distinct marine environments, the NOAA laboratory
in Beaufort is uniquely situated to study one of the most diverse
ecosystems in the country. The lab is an international leader in
studies of harmful algal blooms (HABs) and the invasion of lionfish
into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, both of which are currently
having a significant impact on the fisheries resources of the United
States. The NMFS programs at the lab are responsible for the assessment
of the major marine fisheries stocks in the southeast, including
menhaden (the largest fishery along the Atlantic coast as well as in
the Gulf of Mexico) and the commercially and recreationally important
snapper and grouper fisheries. NMFS in Beaufort also provides the only
up-to-date information on the currently-closed red snapper fishery
along the southeast coast through its SouthEast Fishery-Independent
Survey. All of these programs would suffer irreparable damage were the
lab to close because NOAA would be unlikely to retain the world-class
scientists performing this research in the event their Federal
positions were transferred to other NOAA facilities in the southeast;
the NOAA lab is part of a unique conglomeration of research facilities
in the Beaufort area, and the majority of employees would very likely
try and remain in the area at a different institution rather than
relocate to a less desirable location. Thus, NOAA (and NMFS in
particular) would be forced to rebuild these programs from scratch,
programs that are required to meet congressional mandates laid out in
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Just as
importantly for NMFS, the closure of the Beaufort facility would mean
that the Fisheries Service would not have a presence along the coast
between Sandy Hook, New Jersey and Miami, Florida--an extent that
covers over two-thirds of the United States east coast. It is difficult
for the agency to claim they are interested in conserving the marine
resources of the southeast with such a large spatial gap in
representation, especially compared to five NMFS research facilities in
the Gulf of Mexico and another five in the northeast.
In summary, the closing of the NOAA facility in Beaufort is bad
policy--it is a squandering of taxpayer funds, it is a major detriment
to the science being conducted in the southeast, and it makes it more
difficult for NMFS to maintain the quality of the work it is federally
mandated to achieve. The laboratory in Beaufort has been operating
continually since 1899 and was sited here specifically because of its
advantageous position so close to so many of our Nation's valuable
marine resources; Congress owes it to our country to make sure the
high-quality work done here continues on for the next 115 years.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Amy M. Schueller, Research Fishery Biologist
I am writing the following letter as a private citizen on behalf of
myself during off-duty hours using only personal resources. I am not
speaking for the Federal Government or any of its agencies in any
capacity.
I am writing to specifically discuss the proposed closure of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort
Laboratory located in Beaufort, North Carolina. The lab is part of the
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and houses employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
National Ocean Service (NOS), and National Estuarine Research Reserve
(NERR).
I urge the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
removed from the NOS budget. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees
from NMFS, NOS, and NERR. The costs associated with upkeep and
maintenance of the lab were inaccurate and outdated in the NOAA
explanation of budgetary items. There were mistakes in the number of
employees at the facility and incorrect calculations used to detail the
budget item. In the past several years, several activities have been
completed to keep the facility in good working condition including the
replacement of the administration building and maintenance building,
replacement of the bridge to the facility, seawall repair, improvements
to the air conditioning, and other improvements, which totaled
approximately $14 million. Finally, an updated engineering report
(2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science that has produced many well
known scientists. The Beaufort Lab has a good reputation for advancing
science in population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic
menhaden biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms;
hypoxia; pathogens; and snapper and grouper species. NOAA has
repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research teams, and the
Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of scientific work
completed. Several of the area fisheries labs have located in Beaufort
due to the NOAA lab including Duke Marine Lab, North Carolina Division
of Marine Fisheries, CMAST, and the Institute of Marine Science. The
NOAA Beaufort Laboratory is the center of productive fisheries science
informing fisheries management for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and is
currently the only NMFS lab between Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and Miami,
Florida.
Specific items of note from each line office include:
nmfs
Stock Assessment Science
--The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science
that determines how many fish can be caught in the southeast
United States.
The stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory
focuses on marine fish populations that are ecologically and
economically vital to the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper
and pelagic species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, Atlantic menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Commercial landings from the South
Atlantic have been valued at $176.5 million, supporting a centuries-old
cultural way of life, and saltwater recreational fishing in this region
tops the Nation for its economic impact on sales and jobs (East Florida
and North Carolina generate $5.3 billion and 47,000 jobs). Atlantic
menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S. east coast, and Gulf
menhaden support the largest fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, with a
combined value of $127.7 million.
Fishery-Independent Surveys
--Fishery-independent surveys collect data on fish populations for
stock assessments and research, using standardized sampling
gears and methodologies.
The Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey (SEFIS), run out of the
NOAA Beaufort lab, collects annual information on the abundance,
distribution, sizes, and ages of economically-important reef fish
species like groupers and snappers on the U.S. East Coast between North
Carolina and Florida. Using fish traps and underwater video, SEFIS
determines whether reef fish species are increasing or decreasing in
abundance so fish stocks can be managed with much greater certainty.
The SEFIS staff has developed a close working relationship with
fishermen in the Carolinas due to their co location in Beaufort, North
Carolina. NOAA's Beaufort Lab is ideally situated, centered in the
middle of substantial commercial and recreational fishing industries
and a thriving marine science community. If the SEFIS staff was forced
to move out of their survey region, ties with the fishing industry and
the marine science community would be effectively severed, ultimately
resulting in a significant disconnect between the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the communities to which they serve.
nerr
Impacts of Closure to the Reserve-Strategic Location and Facility
for the Reserve:
--North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
Reserve staff (7) are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort
Lab, which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
--In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . . $5,000,000 for the
Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
Estuarine Research Reserve.'' (Public Law 107-77, See S.Rept.
107-42, p. 106-108.) $1.32 million was invested in NOAA ($1.28
million) and State funds ($42,046) for the construction of a
joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's
mission.
--The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
Education Program activities.
--The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
conduct mission-critical programming including educational
programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
programs, and stewardship of the site including species
monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
access point maintenance.
Reserve Activities at the NOAA Beaufort Lab, 2008-2013
Education
K-12 field trips
-- 177 educational programs
-- 4947 participants
Teacher workshops
-- 28 teacher workshops
-- 412 participants
Summer camps
-- 109 camp sessions
-- 921 participants
Summer public field trips
-- 96 field trips
-- 1123 participants
Stewardship
Volunteer service at the Rachel Carson Reserve
-- 1170 volunteers
-- 2873 volunteer hours
Site management
-- The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from
which to manage the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close
proximity to the Reserve site, location on calm inland
waters, and boat launching facilities. Additionally, many
NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the Rachel
Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional
perspectives that are valuable to Reserve research and
management.
Research
Research permits
-- 31 research permits issued for research conducted at
the Rachel Carson Reserve
Water quality monitoring
-- Water quality inventory and monitoring stations at
Middle Marsh and Shackleford Banks, in partnership with the
National Park Service
Coastal Training Program
Coastal Training Program workshops
-- 31 workshops
-- 1076 participants
nos
NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
University partners to educate the public about the real facts
concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood. Beaufort staff
have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
anxiety regarding seafood safety.
In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
poor choice scientifically, economically, and would leave a large part
of the east coast without the science that they deserve. The numbers
used to estimate the costs of maintaining the facility in good working
order were incorrectly estimated and inaccurate numbers of current
employees were provided for the budget. In addition, the Federal
Government has invested in this laboratory over the long-term, and to
close it now would be a gross misuse of Government resources.
______
Prepared Statement of Scientific Diving International
Dear Chairwoman Mikulski: I am a marine scientist who has had
extensive experience in marine bivalve fisheries. I write to offer my
opinion regarding the proposed closing of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort laboratory in Beaufort,
North Carolina. This laboratory has a long and storied history and a
reputation for excellence within the scientific community. It is also
positioned in an excellent place to conduct needed research on marine
finfish and shellfish populations. As these populations come under
increasing pressure from both commercial and recreational interests the
work of fisheries scientists become vastly more important.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has an unparalleled
staff of scientists that perform critical and necessary work on fish
and shellfish stocks. Their work has allowed populations of many
animals to recover and become stable along a number of regions of the
U.S. coast. NMFS scientists have a completely unforgiving task and that
is to prevent the collapse of fisheries stocks and thereby to prevent
the degradation of coastal marine ecosystems. I say unforgiving because
although this seems like an honorable goal it means that NMFS
scientists have to say no to a lot of people, there simple are not
enough fish to go around.
Electronics and the Internet have made adequate fishers out of
people who would have starved in the past. I once visited the small
town of Cortez in Florida and spoke with a member of one of the
original Cortez fishing families. When they arrived in Cortez a
fisherman could feed his family using a row boat or a small sailing
skiff. The area in front of this gentleman's home he called ``the
kitchen'' because they could reliably get a family meal from there if
all else failed. This is not the case any longer nor has it been for
decades, however in many areas fisheries management has prevented the
complete collapse of coastal ecosystems. Despite their valiant effort
fish and shellfish stocks are under constant attack from development
and overzealous fishers whose only understanding of fisheries
management boils down to some scientist in a white lab coat taking
``our'' fish.
The United States put a lot of effort and financial resources into
the NMFS and NOAA in the 1960s-1980s but, like any issue, people lose
interest in issues that are still relevant. Marine research, not just
for exploitation of resources, is an area that has and will pay
dividends to our Nation and also to the environment. It is not a time
to retrench and look only to the bottom line, it is time to renew our
commitment to a healthy marine environment and ecosystems that can
sustain reasonable harvest. Please keep the Beaufort Lab open, we
cannot afford to lose it.
Sincerely,
Dan C. Marelli, Ph.D.,
President and Diving Officer.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sea Grant Association
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, my name is LaDon Swann
and I am the director of the Alabama-Mississippi Sea Grant Consortium.
I submit this testimony in my capacity as president of the Sea Grant
Association (SGA). The SGA appreciates very much the steadfast support
this subcommittee has provided the National Sea Grant College Program
over the years. As a result, Sea Grant has been able to deliver a
number of quantifiable benefits to the residents of our ocean and
coastal communities, which are documented below.
To continue to achieve a high rate of return on Federal investment
and to produce meaningful and quantifiable benefits to coastal
residents in the future, the SGA recommends that the National Sea Grant
College Program within National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) be funded in fiscal year 2015 at $80 million. The request is
consistent with the guidance provided in the fiscal year 2012
conference report that said:
The Committee recognizes the important role the Sea Grant
program plays in connecting coastal and Great Lakes communities
with practical research and results, and encourages the growth
of this program in future budget requests.
The National Sea Grant College Program addresses national
priorities at the local level, by identifying citizens' needs in order
to help guide State and national research agendas. Sea Grant funds the
best competitive science at our Nation's colleges and universities. The
scientific discovery is effectively delivered through Sea Grant's
robust extension, outreach and education programs to inform public and
private decisionmaking in order to enhance the practical use and
conservation of coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources while also
expanding economy and maintaining a sustainable environment.
The administration's fiscal year 2015 request for the National
College Sea Grant Program is a total of $63.4 million of which $2
million is for marine aquaculture. This represents a total reduction
from last year's appropriation of $4 million (from $67.4 million to
$63.4 million). After reviewing the detailed NOAA budget request sent
to the Congress, it is clear that important changes to the Sea Grant
program proposed by the administration are obscured within the bottom
line requested for the program.
The Sea Grant Association is deeply concerned with several of the
proposed changes and believes they are inconsistent with NOAA's own
strategic plan and reduces Sea Grant's effectiveness at delivering
important research, education and extension to its State, local, and
regional partners.
First, within the budget request NOAA is proposing to terminate
funding within Sea Grant for all State Sea Grant Program STEM
activities such as K-12 teacher training, curricula development, and
education; and Sea Grant/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Graduate Fellowships. This proposal is part of the administration's
fiscal year 2015 proposal to reorganize Federal funding for STEM
education, where a total of 31 STEM education programs at nine key R&D
mission agencies (including NOAA, National Science Foundation (NSF),
and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)) will be
terminated. The Sea Grant Association strongly opposes the termination
of the education programs both within Sea Grant and elsewhere in NOAA.
It is important for mission agencies to help support the next
generation of scientific and technical talent--much of which will be
needed by these agencies in future years. Education (particularly STEM
education) within the Sea Grant program is explicitly authorized in the
legislation enacted by Congress to create the Sea Grant Program. The
Sea Grant statute recognizes and reinforces the linkage between
research, education and extension by relying on the land-grant college
and university model of research and education in service to the
public. We urge the subcommittee to reject these particular
consolidation proposals and support the continuation of these programs
within their current agencies.
Second, within the budget request for Sea Grant, the administration
is proposing a $1 million reduction (from last year's level) in
research funding available for competitively awarded projects under two
specific focus areas: Healthy Coastal Ecosystems; and Resilient Coastal
Communities and Economies. This proposed reduction is inconsistent with
NOAA's stated priorities and strategic plan. Because of Sea Grant's
prior accomplishment (detailed elsewhere in this testimony) NOAA should
be strengthening Sea Grant's role in coastal resiliency as a way to
help make the Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes economies more
productive.
Third, within the budget request for Sea Grant, the administration
is proposing to reduce marine aquaculture research by $2.5 million;
down to a total of $2 million. This funding decrease is shortsighted
and will reduce the number of external grants NOAA provides for
decision support tools and technology transfer related to sustainable
domestic marine aquaculture. It will also reduce base-funded
sustainable seafood industry research performed for NMFS.
The SGA's proposal for fiscal year 2015 is $80 million, which
includes a specific enhancement of the Resilient Coastal Communities
and Economies focus area. Funding Sea Grant at $80 million would also
allow for the restoration of funding for STEM education, healthy
coastal ecosystems, and marine aquaculture at levels at least equal to
fiscal year 2014 levels.
the return on investment to the nation through sea grant
The rationale behind the SGA's proposed growth for Sea Grant is
related to the specific metrics developed that can be used to assess
the value of this program. In fiscal year 2013, Sea Grant returned the
following quantifiable benefits to the Nation in return for the Federal
investment:
--$485 million in direct economic benefits to the Nation, which
represents a 7 to 1 return on the Federal investment;
--3,400 new businesses were created or retained, and more than 15,000
jobs were created or retained due to Sea Grant efforts;
--600 communities across the Nation have adopted more sustainable
economic or environmental development practices and policies;
--Sea Grant expanded the Nation's workforce by supporting more than
900 undergraduate and more than 980 graduate students,
resulting in 335 graduate or undergraduate degrees awarded; and
--Nearly $100 million annually in additional public and private
sector investments in Sea Grant supported activities are
leveraged by the subcommittee's annual appropriation for the
Sea Grant program.
Approximately 95 percent of the Federal funding provided to Sea
Grant leaves Washington and goes primarily to State university-led
programs where it is used to conduct research, carry out extension, and
education programs, and deliver valuable services to States that
participate in this program. In addition, Federal funding through the
Sea Grant program has a significant leveraging impact with every
Federal dollar invested attracting more than two additional dollars in
matching funds and other public and private sector resources.
the role of sea grant in supporting
the nation's coastal communities--increasing coastal resiliency
In addition to the annual positive scientific and economic impacts
delivered by the National Sea Grant College Program summarized above,
the relationships formed in coastal communities and with local
stakeholders have proved extremely beneficial and supportive in
disaster response. Beginning with hurricane Katrina and including the
major disasters of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and most recently
hurricane Sandy, the Sea Grant network has provided substantial and
much needed ``boots-on-the-ground'' assistance to affected communities.
Following each of these disasters, it was often Sea Grant extension,
outreach and education programs that brought the first response to
these impacted communities.
Sea Grant works with Federal and State agencies to provide critical
information following natural and man-made disasters. In the wake of
these events, Sea Grant programs assist affected communities and States
by facilitating community planning and capacity building by working
with Department of Commerce Disaster Response Teams, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation assessment teams, State resource
agencies for fishery and aquaculture impacts, local governments,
industry groups, as well as others in addressing coastal impacts.
Immediately following every event, Sea Grant extension
professionals and scientists were there, helping communities assess
impacts to coastal businesses including commercial fishing, tourism,
local marinas, and aquaculture businesses. Sea Grant also helped
determine the extent of changes in coastal geology, barrier islands,
beach erosion, and sand dune migration. Sea Grant capabilities allows
the program to provide expertise and experience in assessing other
environmental impacts such as marine debris and changes to water
quality and communicating the results to affected coastal communities.
Sea Grant adds to its ongoing efforts of providing coastal communities
with technical assistance, helping to prepare community recovery plans,
long-term resilience plans, and explaining the consequences of future
mitigation choices ranging from seawalls to green infrastructure. Sea
Grant has expanded its role to include the development of tools and
programs that address the long-term health impacts of disasters on
coastal residents and help these communities to be better prepared for
these disasters.
concluding thoughts
America must use its coastal resources wisely to increase the
economic development and resilience of our coastal communities and U.S.
working waterfronts while sustaining the health and productivity of the
ecosystems on which they depend.
With the SGA's fiscal year 2015 request of $80 million for Sea
Grant, the National Sea Grant College Program will be uniquely
positioned to continue to make significant contributions to improve the
lives and livelihoods of the Nation's coastal communities and
economies. We hope the subcommittee will be able to support this
request and restore funding for Sea Grant STEM and other NOAA education
activities, the NMFS Fellowship program, research in the key Sea Grant
focus areas, and marine aquaculture.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. The SGA would
be happy to answer questions or provide additional information to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Consortium for Justice Information
and Statistics
introduction
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, for the
opportunity to submit testimony on the Department of Justice (DOJ)
funding to be provided for in the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. In particular,
SEARCH recommends that the National Criminal History Improvement
Program (NCHIP) receive an appropriation of $50 million, and the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Act Record
Improvement Program (NARIP) receive an appropriation of $5 million.
SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics (SEARCH), is a nonprofit membership organization created by
and for the States. SEARCH's Governor-appointed, dues-paying members
from the States and territories have the responsibility, among other
things, to oversee both NCHIP and NARIP within their States.
Over the years, States have made great strides in meeting their
criminal history record improvement goals under both programs. Last
year's increase in funding for these programs as reflected in the
fiscal year 2014 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
appropriations was welcomed by the States who continue to use the
funding to modernize, enhance and more effectively share data for
critical criminal justice and public safety decisions.
With recent NCHIP and NARIP funding, for example, the Kentucky
State Police (KSP) has created a firearms application database which
collects and houses mental health records, judgments and citations used
for supporting documentation when entering denied persons in NICS
Index. Funding also allowed for an interface with the State Department
of Corrections to obtain offender records and update criminal history
dispositions, as well as focus on NICS Index entries. With these
efforts, over 22,500 State criminal histories were reviewed, resulting
in over half being entered into NICS Index, ultimately keeping guns out
of the hands of persons prohibited from receiving or possessing
firearms. Kentucky anticipates applying for future funding to improve
upon their demonstrated success in enhancing records in these
databases.
Maryland has used NCHIP and NARIP funding over the past 2 years to
focus on missing disposition issues, completeing thousands of
incomplete records, and now over 90 percent of arrests in the State
database have a final disposition. This updated information is
available for critical decisions like gun sales, employment for persons
working with vulnerable populations, and overall criminal justice
business on the State and Federal level.
Georgia is actively using NCHIP funding to ensure synchronization
of State and Federal criminal history files and to provide accurate and
complete criminal history record information for both criminal justice
and public safety decisionmaking.
There is still work to be done to realize a truly complete and
accurate national criminal history background check system. That system
not only informs a variety of critical public safety decisions, but
also noncriminal justice decisions, such as those regarding applicants
for employment and licensing, to volunteers who work with children and
other vulnerable populations, to individuals purchasing firearms. In
light of recent, tragic events due to gun violence, and the
simultaneous demand for accurate, complete and timely criminal records
for a range of decisions, a priority placed on NCHIP and NARIP funding
is essential.
The States are eager to leverage fiscal year 2014 and new funds in
fiscal year 2015 funding to engage in broad-scale initiatives and
partnerships with other State agencies to improve and enhance chriminal
history record information collection and sharing.
SEARCH appreciates the subcommittees' recognition that while both
NCHIP and NARIP each focus on improvements to the efficiency,
effectiveness, timeliness and accuracy of criminal history record and
associated data for decisionmaking purposes, each program emphasizes
specific and distinct goals. NARIP funding has been heavily focused on
enhancing decisionmaking for firearms purchases, such as increasing the
number of disqualifying mental health records available to the system.
NCHIP is focused on a broader range of criminal history improvements
that individual States have prioritized (improving arrest and
disposition matching, increasing conviction record availability in the
Federal systems, etc.). Perhaps most significantly, by current law,
still less than half of the States qualify for NARIP funding to improve
their contributions to NICS.\1\ Thus, the majority of the States rely
on NCHIP for criminal history record and repository improvements
related to all criminal and non-criminal justice decisionmaking. As
such, SEARCH makes two key recommendations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NARIP has two main requirements: States must (1) establish a
process where those adjudicated as ``mentally defective'' can seek to
reinstate their right to purchase a firearm, and (2) comply with a
process to estimate the number of NICS disqualifying records they
maintain. Only 20 States have met requirement #1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Support NCHIP funding for improvements to State criminal history
record information so that States can effectively exchange
information witho ther States and the FBI.
The NCHIP program has been successful in helping States to improve
the accuracy, reliability and completeness of their automated, criminal
history record systems. It is important to note that information stored
in the State's criminal history record repositories is the same
information that is used for criminal justice decisionmaking (such as
at arrest, filing of charges, sentencing and inmate housing) as well as
for other public safety and civil decisions (such as decisions
regarding firearms transfers, or for individuals applying for
employment or volunteer work with vulnerable populations).
Unlike the NARIP, all States qualify for funding under NCHIP to
improve their criminal history record systems. States who cannot
qualify for NICS funding will be significantly hampered in their
efforts to help improve the Nation's criminal history record system if
they cannot access sufficient resources via NCHIP.
NCHIP's broad objective is to enhance the criminal justice
capabilities of State governments by improving the accuracy,
completeness and timeliness of criminal history records. These State
systems support Federal records systems, including the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) Interstate Identification Index (III).\2\
Indeed, 70 percent of all III records are maintained by the States and
30 percent are maintained by the FBI.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Interstate Identification Index is the national system
designed to provide automated criminal history record information of
Federal offenders and records of offenders submitted by all States and
territories.
\3\ Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems 2010,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs (November 2011) (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/
grants/237253.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed States have used NCHIP funding to solve a variety of
information sharing problems. Virginia used the funding to provide
electronic access to criminal history records on-site at gun shows,
ensuring a rapid check to prevent the transfer of firearms to
prohibited persons.
States have used NCHIP widely to improve the completeness and
accuracy of criminal history record as well as to create links with the
courts to allow automated updates and disposition reporting. In
Florida, such work over the past several years resulted in updates to
over 2.5 million dispositions.
The increase in funding for NCHIP in fiscal year 2014 and,
hopefully, in fiscal year 2015, will reinvigorate a program that had
suffered in years past from considerably reduced funding. Because State
criminal history records are the primary source for the FBI III
database, any constraints on the States weakens the ability of many
State and Federal programs to identify threats and keep our Nation
safe.
2. Continue to invest in background screening for firearms purchases.
One of the key tools in keeping firearms out of the hands of those
who should be prohibited from having them is a robust National Instant
Criminal Background Screening System (NICS). Given the tragedies of
recent years, significant focus has been placed on our Nation's
background screening system for firearms purchases.
Approximately 90 percent of records used to make firearms transfer
determinations are records maintained and made available by the States.
And, therefore, the overwhelming majority of firearms transfer denials
are based on State records. Continued funding to improve the system's
effectiveness for existing requirements related to background screening
for firearms purchases is essential.
For example, in New York, NARIP grant funds have significantly
improved the records that New York State makes available to the NICS
Index. New York built and deployed the NICS Transmission System to
allow New York State to efficiently transmit mental health involuntary
admissions records, civil guardianships and order of protections to
provide better safeguards that prevent firearms from getting into the
wrong hands. The State also completed system changes to collect and
report Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence (MCDV) convictions to
NICS as firearm permit prohibitors so that vulnerable spouses, children
and intimate partners are further protected. The State also completed
analysis and significant system enhancements to improve the accuracy
and completeness of disposition data made available to NICS via New
York's Criminal History Reports.
Today, the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the Nation's
criminal history record system is more important than ever before, for
law enforcement investigations; officer safety; sentencing and other
criminal justice purposes; for expungement and other reentry
strategies; for homeland security and anti-terrorism purposes; for
public non-criminal justice purposes, such as security clearances and
employment suitability; and for research and statistical programs that
provide critical guidance for justice assistance decisions and for
shaping law and policy. Without an adequate level of funding for the
States, the quality of criminal records available nationwide will
continue to be negatively impacted.
As you can see from the examples above, for both of NICS and NCHIP,
SEARCH encourages Congress to allow States to use funding at their
discretion to address the specific challenges each State faces in
making more records available to the national system. Funding should
also encourage adherence to performance metrics and accountability
measures. SEARCH supports that Congress should expect, and States
should define, specific and measurable goals for which they will use
the funding to demonstrate progress and impact. SEARCH also encourages
Congress to fund technical assistance and technology investments for
States to improve automated information sharing systems in support of
NICS.
conclusion
SEARCH thanks the Chairman and members of the subcommittee for
their steadfast support of these programs in the face of daunting
budget challenges. Given the reliance on criminal history record
systems for critical decisions that keep our citizens safe from guns,
predators, terrorists and other criminals, it is a worthwhile and
needed investment.
We urge Congress to continue the investment in the Federal-State
criminal background screening partnership that comprises NICS. NICS is
a critical tool in the fight against gun violence, but funding for its
improvement must envision a national scope that is inclusive of all the
States. As Florida representatives noted, their successes with
information sharing would not have been possible without the support of
NARIP and NCHIP funding.
Meaningful NCHIP funding will more broadly improve this Nation's
criminal justice information sharing backbone. And the Federal
investment can be leveraged many times over by contributing to the
ability of State and local criminal justice agencies to provide timely,
accurate and compatible information to Federal programs such as III. As
Kentucky representatives stated, none of the improvements they had made
would be possible without this funding.
On behalf of SEARCH's governor's appointees, and the thousands of
criminal justice officials who participate in the SEARCH network and
who benefit from SEARCH's efforts, we thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Kyle Shertzer, Morehead City, North Carolina
Dear Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies: I am gravely concerned about the proposal in the 2015
President's budget to close the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Laboratory located in Beaufort, North
Carolina. This lab is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; it is administered by the National Ocean Service (NOS),
but also houses the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). Although I am
writing this letter as a private citizen, and the views expressed are
not intended to represent those of any government agency, I am a
scientist at the NOAA Beaufort Lab and therefore have firsthand
knowledge regarding the value of this laboratory to the Nation, in
terms of its contributions toward marine science, natural resource
management, and public outreach. The proposal to close this laboratory
is a short-sighted reaction to a short-term problem.
Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science, with an outstanding national
and international reputation for advancing science in numerous areas:
population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic menhaden
biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms; hypoxia; sea
grass; pathogens; and snapper and grouper monitoring and ecology. NOAA
and the President have repeatedly recognized individual researchers,
research teams, and the Laboratory as a whole for its outstanding
quality of scientific work. Furthermore, this lab is the originator and
nexus of an internationally esteemed consortium of marine science
institutions, including the marine laboratories of Duke University,
North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina, and
the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Beaufort was chosen
because it is a prime location where northern and southern marine
ecological communities intersect, and as such this lab provides the
only Federal access to the most diverse marine ecosystem in the United
States. There is no other location where these opportunities can be
accessed as easily or as cheaply. It is the only NMFS facility on the
Atlantic coast between Sandy Hook, New Jersey and Miami, Florida, a
stretch of over 1200 miles of coastline.
The request to close the laboratory was based on current funding
allocation to NOS, but inaccurate and outdated information that
overstated the costs of maintaining the facility was used in the
analysis that led to this request. Currently, the lab houses 108
employees from NOS, NMFS, and NERRS. The NOS initiated the proposed
closure, but the request understated the number of NOS employees and
did not account at all for employees from NMFS or NERRS. In effect,
this mistake excluded more than half the staff of the lab. Furthermore,
the request was based on estimated costs for the lab's upkeep and
maintenance that were in error. Since 2006, several activities have
been completed to keep the facility in good working condition,
including replacement of the administration building, replacement of
the maintenance building, replacement of the chemical storage building,
replacement of the bridge to the facility, repair of the seawall, and
other improvements (air conditioning, electrical, storm water runoff),
which totaled approximately $14 million. After such investments,
closing the lab now would represent a conspicuous waste of tax-payers'
money. Finally, contrary to previous claims, an updated engineering
report (2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
Based on mistakes both in the number of staff at the facility and in
the costs associated with its upkeep, the budgetary calculations used
to justify the proposed closure were fundamentally flawed.
I highlight below, by line office, the critical role that the NOAA
Beaufort Laboratory has played in helping NOAA achieve its Strategic
Mission (1) to understand and predict changes in climate, weather,
oceans, and coasts, (2) to share that knowledge and information with
others, and (3) to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems
and resources.
nos
While the National Ocean Service is calling for the closure of the
Beaufort North Carolina laboratory, it is requesting an increase of $4
million to another center to support Ecological Forecasting of Harmful
Algal Blooms (HABs), Hypoxia, pathogens, and Species Distributions.
These areas of research are the bread and butter of NOS at the Beaufort
Lab. In fact, NOAA would not have the strength it currently has in
forecasting HABs if it were not for the lab's seminal and award-winning
work that has been ongoing from the 1980s to this day. Furthermore, the
Beaufort Lab initiated the first-ever study of the invasive lionfish in
the U.S. South Atlantic, and it has continued to play a pivotal role in
monitoring the distribution and abundance of this invasion throughout
the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean, providing
information that has been critical for mitigation and management
strategies. It is ironic and perplexing that the fiscal year 2015
President's budget requests increased research funding for coastal
ocean issues, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and coastal
ecosystem management while at the same time proposing to close an
existing facility that already has both well-established expertise and
facilities required to address many of those very same issues.
nmfs
The Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science that
allows NOAA to fulfill its obligation toward the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as mandated by Congress. The
stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory focuses on
marine fish populations that are ecologically and economically vital to
the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper and pelagic species
managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Atlantic
menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission. Atlantic menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S.
Atlantic coast, and Gulf menhaden support the largest fishery in the
Gulf of Mexico. To enable robust stock assessments, sampling of the
Atlantic and Gulf menhaden fisheries has been conducted by the Beaufort
Lab for decades, and monitoring of snapper-grouper species has been
accomplished by the lab's Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey.
Removing this sampling and monitoring from the Beaufort Lab would not
only result in a significant disconnect between NOAA and the
communities that it serves, but would also degrade the quality of stock
assessments at a time when Congress is rightly calling for
improvements.
nerrs
NERRS is partnered with the North Carolina Coastal Reserve, with
program headquarters at the NOAA Beaufort Lab. This program supports
long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education, and coastal
stewardship. In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . . $5,000,000
for the Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National Estuarine
Research Reserve.'' With this funding, NOAA invested $1.28 million and
the State of North Carolina invested $42,000 for the construction of a
joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's mission.
The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops and the
teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher workshops, field trips,
and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine Education Program activities.
The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel Carson
component of the Reserve, and this close proximity is essential for
performing Reserve activities efficiently to conduct mission-critical
work, including educational programs, water quality and habitat
monitoring, research programs, and stewardship of the site, which
involves species monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management,
and access point maintenance. In short, NERRS activities in education,
training, and stewardship have been extensive, and they would not be
feasible from any other Federal laboratory.
In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be
devastating scientifically and economically. It would cripple NOAA's
ability to accomplish its own Strategic Mission and to meet its
obligations toward such congressional mandates as the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As I understand it, the only
argument for closing the laboratory was financial, but that argument
was based on flawed estimates of maintenance costs and an outdated
engineering report, which has since been revised with opposite
conclusions regarding the lab's structural integrity. To be blunt:
Relative to NOAA's budget, cost savings associated with closing the
lab, if any, would be trivial; however the loss to the Nation would be
monumental.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics (SIAM)
Summary.--This written testimony is submitted on behalf of the
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) to ask you to
continue your support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in
fiscal year 2015 by providing NSF with $7.5 billion. In particular, we
urge you to provide strong support for key applied mathematics and
computational science programs in the Division of Mathematical Sciences
and the Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure.
Full Statement.--We are submitting this written testimony for the
record to the subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate on
behalf of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM).
SIAM has approximately 14,000 members, including applied and
computational mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts,
engineers, statisticians, and mathematics educators. They work in
industrial and service organizations, universities, colleges, and
government agencies and laboratories all over the world. In addition,
SIAM has almost 500 institutional members, including colleges,
universities, corporations, and research organizations.
First, we would like to emphasize how much SIAM appreciates your
subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
role of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its support for
mathematics, science, and engineering in enabling a strong U.S.
economy, workforce, and society.
Today, we submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
of NSF in fiscal year 2015 and beyond. In particular, we join with the
research and higher education community and request that you provide
NSF with $7.5 billion.
As we are reminded every day, the Nation's economic strength,
national security, and public health and welfare are being challenged
in profound and unprecedented ways. Addressing these challenges
requires that we confront fundamental scientific questions.
Computational and applied mathematical sciences, the scientific
disciplines that occupy SIAM members, are particularly critical to
addressing U.S. competitiveness and security challenges across a broad
array of fields: medicine, engineering, technology, biology, chemistry,
computer science, and others. SIAM recognizes the challenging fiscal
situation; however, we also face an ``innovation deficit,'' the
widening gap between the actual level of Federal Government funding for
research and what the investment needs to be if the U.S. is to remain
the world's innovation leader. Federal investments in mathematics,
science, and engineering remain crucial as they power innovation and
economic growth upon which our economy and fiscal health depend.
national science foundation
NSF provides essential Federal support for applied mathematics and
computational science, including more than 60 percent of all Federal
support for basic academic research in the mathematical sciences. Of
particular importance to SIAM, NSF funding supports the development of
new mathematical models and computational algorithms, which are
critical to making substantial advances in such fields as neuroscience,
energy technologies, genomics, analysis and control of risk, and
nanotechnology. In addition, new techniques developed in mathematics
and computing research often have direct application in industry.
Modern life as we know it--from search engines like Google to the
design of modern aircraft, from financial markets to medical imaging--
would not be possible without the techniques developed by
mathematicians and computational scientists. NSF also supports
mathematics education at all levels, ensuring that the next generation
of the U.S. workforce is appropriately trained to participate in
cutting-edge technological sectors and that students are attracted to
careers in mathematics and computing.
Below are highlights of the main budgetary and programmatic
components at NSF that support applied mathematics and computational
science.
nsf division of mathematical sciences
The NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) in the Directorate
for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) provides the core support
for all mathematical sciences. DMS supports areas such as algebra,
analysis, applied mathematics, combinatorics, computational
mathematics, foundations, geometry, mathematical biology, number
theory, probability, statistics, and topology. In addition, DMS
supports national mathematical science research institutes;
infrastructure, including workshops, conferences, and equipment; and
postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate training opportunities.
The activities supported by DMS and performed by SIAM members, such
as modeling, analysis, algorithms, and simulation, provide new ways of
obtaining insight into the nature of complex phenomena, such as the
power grid, software for military applications, the human body, and
energy efficient building systems. SIAM strongly urges you to provide
DMS with the highest possible funding level to reverse the damaging
cuts of recent years and enable critical mathematical research and
related mathematical education and workforce development programs.
In particular, investment in DMS is critical because of the
foundational and cross-cutting role that mathematics and computational
science play in sustaining the Nation's economic competitiveness and
national security, and in making substantial advances on societal
challenges such as energy, the environment, and public health. NSF,
with its support of a broad range of scientific areas, plays an
important role in bringing U.S. expertise together in interdisciplinary
initiatives that bear on these challenges. DMS has traditionally played
a central role in such cross-NSF efforts, with programs supporting the
interface of mathematics with a variety of other fields. SIAM endorses
DMS participation in NSF-wide initiatives such as Cyber-enabled
Materials and Manufacturing for Smart Systems (CEMMSS), to develop
computational tools for transforming materials discovery, and BioMaPS,
to advance research at the intersection of biology, mathematical and
physical sciences, and engineering.
nsf division of advanced cyberinfrastructure
Work in applied mathematics and computational science is critical
to enabling effective use of the rapid advances in information
technology and cyberinfrastructure. Programs in the NSF Division of
Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (ACI) in the Directorate for Computer and
Information Science and Engineering (CISE) focus on providing research
communities access to advanced computing capabilities to convert data
to knowledge and increase our understanding through computational
simulation and prediction.
SIAM strongly urges you to provide ACI with the highest possible
level of funding to invest in the computational resources and science
needed to solve complex science and engineering problems. In addition,
SIAM strongly endorses ACI's role as steward for computational science
across NSF, strengthening NSF support for relevant activities and
driving universities to improve their research and education programs
in this multidisciplinary area.
SIAM strongly supports ACI data activities, including data
infrastructure, tools, and repositories, as well as the NSF-wide Big
Data initiative. The explosion in data available to scientists from
advances in experimental equipment, simulation techniques, and computer
power is well known, and applied mathematics has an important role to
play in developing the methods and tools to translate this shower of
numbers into new knowledge. The programs in ACI that support work on
software and applications for the next generation of supercomputers and
other cyberinfrastructure systems are also very important to enable
effective use of advances in hardware, to facilitate applications that
tackle key scientific questions, and to better understand increasingly
complex software systems.
SIAM continues to support the agency-wide initiative
Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering
(CIF21). This program works to develop comprehensive, integrated,
sustainable, and secure cyberinfrastructure to accelerate research and
capabilities in computational and data-intensive science and
engineering.
supporting the pipeline of mathematicians and scientists
Investing in the education and development of young scientists and
engineers is a critical role of NSF and a major step the Federal
Government can take to ensure the future prosperity and welfare of the
U.S. SIAM strongly supports significant funding for the Graduate
Research Fellowship (GRF) program and the Faculty Early Career
Development (CAREER) program. Strong investments in these programs will
support thousands of new graduate students, which will help develop the
country's next generation of scientists.
Before reaching the graduate and early career stage, young
mathematicians and scientists gain critical interests and skills as
undergraduates. SIAM supports efforts by NSF to improve undergraduate
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, and
notes the key role that mathematicians play in training for these
fields.
mathematics and international science and engineering
Science knows no borders, and nowhere is this truer than in
mathematics. Mathematical research typically advances through the close
collaboration of small groups of researchers, without the need for
expensive equipment and using universal mathematical notation to
minimize language obstacles. In addition, mathematics, as an enabling
discipline for all of science and technology, and as a foundation for
science education, plays a key role in addressing many of the most
challenging problems that the world faces, such as infectious disease
and sustainable energy generation. International scientific cooperation
is not just good science, however; it can also foster understanding and
goodwill between societies more broadly. Mathematical and scientific
activities can aid in promoting United States international policy
goals by building relationships and trust with other countries,
enhancing the global image of America, and spurring global development.
SIAM believes strongly in the Federal Government's support of
international science and technology initiatives that help advance U.S.
foreign policy and security, including cooperative research programs
that further scientific knowledge applicable to major societal
challenges, promote development of research and education capabilities
abroad, and introduce U.S. students to global issues and collaborative
relationships.
conclusion
We would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing
support of NSF that enables the research and education communities it
supports, including thousands of SIAM members, to undertake activities
that contribute to the health, security, and economic strength of the
United States. NSF needs sustained annual funding to maintain our
competitive edge in science and technology, and therefore we
respectfully ask that you continue robust support of these critical
programs in fiscal year 2015.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
subcommittee on behalf of SIAM. SIAM looks forward to providing any
additional information or assistance you may ask of us during the
fiscal year 2015 appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Neuroscience
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Carol Ann
Mason, Ph.D. I am a professor of pathology and cell biology,
neuroscience, and ophthalmic science at Columbia University. I study
the development of visual pathways in mammalian brains, with a focus on
how neurons in the eye are encoded to project to the correct side of
the brain, setting up the circuit for binocular vision. This statement
is in support of increased funding for the National Science Foundation
(NSF) for fiscal year 2015. I am pleased to submit this testimony in my
capacity as president of the Society for Neuroscience (SfN). On behalf
of the nearly 40,000 members of SfN, thank you for your past support of
neuroscience research at NSF.
The Society stands with others in the research community in
requesting at least the President's budget request of $7.3 billion for
NSF for fiscal year 2015. Sequestration has taken an enormous toll on
the research enterprise, coming on top of recent years when funding has
failed to keep pace with the cost of research--let alone the scientific
opportunities that are available. SfN urges Congress to reverse the
current course and find ways to invest more in scientific discovery.
Let's work to put research on a trajectory of sustained growth that
recognizes its promise and opportunity as a tool for economic growth
and, ultimately to advancing the health and well-being of Americans.
neuroscience: an investment in our future
Even in the face of the difficult funding situation, the last
several years have been a tremendously exciting and productive time for
neuroscience discoveries. Major research advances on brain development,
imaging, genomics, circuits, computational neuroscience, neural
engineering, and many other disciplines are leading to new tools, new
knowledge, and greater understanding that were unimaginable even a few
years ago.
All told, there are more than 1,000 debilitating neurological and
psychiatric diseases that strike over 100 million Americans each year,
costing an estimated $760 billion a year. Advances made possible by
publicly-funded research will help us maintain and restore healthy
brain function. Now more than ever, it is time to fan the flames of
research in order to ensure life-changing breakthroughs continue.
Resources provided to NSF will support the Nation's best and
brightest researchers at the forefront of promising discoveries,
graduate students at the start of their careers, and the development of
advanced scientific tools and infrastructure that will be broadly
available to the research community. These researchers are the ones who
will be answering some of the vexing questions facing the field of
neuroscience: how do the genetic, molecular, and cellular elements of
the brain interact to allow for brain function and behavior? How will
new tools such as brain-machine interfaces, computational models, and
advanced imaging techniques deepen scientific capacity for inquiry, and
contribute to better health and quality of life in the years ahead? NSF
is uniquely positioned to address questions of this kind because of its
emphasis on integrative and interdisciplinary research and its long
history of funding research that leads to the development of life-
changing neurotechnologies.
NSF funding is an investment in America. Funding for research
supports quality jobs and increases economic activity. In fiscal year
2012 alone, NSF supported 39,862 senior personnel, 4,596 postdoctoral
fellows, and 25,550 graduate students through 11,524 awards. Ninety
percent of the NSF budget goes right back to fund extramural research
in every State. Many of my colleagues can point to their first NSF
grant as the launching pad for a career in science.
Finally, without robust, sustained investment, America's status as
the preeminent leader in biomedical research is at risk. Other
countries are investing heavily in biomedical research to take
advantage of new possibilities. Even with the growing philanthropic
support, private sector cannot be expected to close the gap. The lag
time between discovery and profitability means that the pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and medical device industries need federally-funded
basic (also known as fundamental) research to develop products and
treatments. The foundation that basic research provides is at risk if
federally-funded research declines.
the brain initiative
The Brain Research through Application of Innovative
Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative--announced by the President last
April--will enable NSF and other Federal agencies to develop tools and
plans that will help accelerate fundamental discoveries in
neuroscience. The scientific community is providing direction through
diverse workshops being held throughout the country.
The overarching goal of the BRAIN Initiative is to integrate across
scales (genes to behavior) and disciplines (engineering and life
sciences) to establish predictive theories of brain structure and
function, and the use of these theories to maintain and restore the
healthy brain. The Initiative has a strong focus on technology and
cyber tool development and the training of new generations of
scientists to use the resources that emerge from the BRAIN Initiative,
both of which have the potential to benefit all of neuroscience and
even non-neuroscience research.
BRAIN--as with all the neuroscience research that takes place with
Federal support--can only be successful if it is part of a broad effort
by Congress and the administration to prioritize biomedical research so
that it can reach its full potential. Such an investment will also help
ensure the U.S. remains a global leader, even as other nations ramp up
their investments in neuroscience research.
cross-disciplinary neuroscience
NSF-funded basic research continues to be essential for discoveries
that will inspire scientific and medical progress for generations. The
work supported by NSF has led to the development of new technologies
that have revolutionized neuroscience research. The following examples
are just a few of the many basic research success stories in the
science of the brain emerging now thanks to interdisciplinary research
funded by a strong historic investment in NSF and other research
agencies.
green florescent proteins
Basic research funded by NSF creates revolutionary advances in
science, such as green florescent protein (GFP)--a transformative tool
in cellular biology which allows scientists to look at the brain in
unprecedented detail. The works that lead to its discovery and
development for use in research received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
in 2008.
The discovery of GFP revolutionized scientists' view of the nervous
system allowing them to add an incredible range and depth to images of
the brain. With this protein and others like it, researchers are
applying colors to brain cells to look at under the microscope. This
enables them to map intricate details of brain cells, in particular,
how brain cells connect to each other. Understanding these connections
and their susceptibility to change help researchers better understand
the healthy brain and how they might be damaged in a variety of
disorders.
More than 100 years ago, scientists got their first glimpse at
brain cells under a microscope after successfully staining cells with
dark pigment. This and similar techniques are limited because they
can't be used in living cells and they can only stain in a single
color. GFP is a molecule that glows green under blue or ultraviolet
light. Since its discovery, scientists have developed similar molecules
that glow many different colors. Moreover, GFP can be used to visualize
activity of a living cell. These light-emitting proteins have been used
to illuminate the inner workings of brain cells by letting scientists
track the movement of molecules inside the cells or watch how neurons
react to environmental stimulation in living brains. Scientists have
also used GFP to help answer questions about brain structure by using
it to identify specific cells in specific areas and trace connections
between two brain areas.
Recently, GFP has been adapted to help trace many brain regions at
a time. In 2007, researchers found a way to make brain cells emit one
of nearly 100 colors. They genetically engineered mice to carry
multiple copies of a chain of three or four genes for different colored
fluorescent proteins. In each cell, the combination of the colors
emitted from each chain led to unique color blends. Just as a
television produces a wide spectrum of colors by mixing red, green, and
blue pixels, this so-called ``brainbow'' technique cast neighboring
cells in colors from aquamarine to magenta. This technique allows
scientists to map many pathways in the brain to a much larger extent
than before and has allowed for a deeper understanding of brain
circuits. GFP is now widely used to track everything from how nerve
cells develop to how cancer spreads through the body to how HIV travels
from infected to non-infected cells. In the field of neuroscience
specifically, this technology will continue to evolve and will be
instrumental in our efforts to understand brain structure and function.
brain-machine interface
The brain is in constant communication with the body in order to
perform every minute motion from scratching an itch to walking.
Paralysis occurs when the link between the brain and a part of the body
is severed, and eliminates the control of movement and the perception
of feeling in that area. Almost 2 percent of the U.S. population is
affected by some sort of paralysis resulting from stroke, spinal cord,
or brain injury, or other cause. Basic research funded by the NSF has
provided fundamental understanding of how the brain controls movement,
which in turn has led to advances in next-generation prosthetics.
In the 1990s, scientists developed an array of electrodes that
allowed them to study an unprecedented number of nerve cells at once--
almost 50 at a time. This research demonstrated that brain cells
communicate in clusters, not in isolation. In other words, cells work
together to direct complex behaviors. Since then, scientists have found
ways to translate messages from clusters of neurons into a language
that an artificial device can understand and convert into movement.
Fundamental research in humans and animals led to the discovery that
thinking of a motion activates neurons in the same way that actually
making the movement would--opening the possibility for thought to
operate robotic devices.
Thanks to successes in animal research, brain-controlled
prosthetics are now being piloted in humans. Paralyzed humans implanted
with electrodes can learn to guide a machine to perform various motor
tasks such as picking up a glass of water. These advances, while small,
enable substantial improvements in the quality of life for people
suffering from paralysis. As deeper understanding of the language of
the brain occurs in concert with advances in biomaterials,
neurotechnologies, and computational power, scientists hope to
eventually broaden the abilities of such devices to include thought-
controlled speech and more.
understanding the development of vision
My own area of research is the development of the circuits
underlying vision. For binocular vision to function, the brain must
receive information from both eyes. Nerve fibers from each retina grow
to the `optic chiasm,' at the midline of the bottom of the brain. Here,
nerve fibers from each eye cross to the other side of the brain. Other
axons, however, are repelled at the midline and project to the same
side of the brain. These connections underlie binocular vision which
enables animals, including humans, to calculate how far objects lie in
the distance.
One area of my research focuses on this question and the molecular
mechanisms that prompt some growing nerve fibers to ``stop in their
tracks'' and reroute to the same side. These two groups of cells in the
eye, each taking different routes, are endowed with distinct genes that
direct their time of birth and their growth to the regions where they
make their synaptic connections. Understanding their genetic
``signatures'' and growth helps us to learn how to encourage stem cells
to be integrated into the diseased eye and injured nerve fibers to
regrow in the correct circuits. We also investigate how the retinal
pigment epithelium (RPE) surrounding the eye, directs retinal
development. Perturbations in the RPE occur in albinism and in juvenile
forms of macular degeneration, the latter leading to blindness, and our
gene identification efforts are important for gene therapy at early
stages of the disease. Moreover, understanding how tracts are laid down
is essential for unraveling the basis of defects in fiber pathways and
synapse formation in neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. This
research is made possible with support primarily from NIH, especially
the National Eye Institute and with a team of innovative and
collaborative scientists and trainees in my lab and in our community,
and provides a foundation for future discovery and new understanding
about diseases of the eye and other neurodevelopmental conditions.
the future of american science
As the subcommittee considers this year's funding levels, please
consider that significant advancements in the biomedical sciences often
come from young investigators. The current funding environment is
taking a toll on the energy and resilience of these young people.
America's scientific enterprise--and its global leadership--has been
built over generations. NSF alone has awarded over 46,500 Graduate
Research Fellowships since 1952. Many young scientists receive their
first grants from NSF on their way to having careers as independently-
funded investigators. Without sustained investment, we will quickly
lose that leadership. The culture of entrepreneurship and curiosity-
driven research could be hindered for decades.
We live at a time of extraordinary opportunity in neuroscience. A
myriad of questions once impossible to consider are now within reach
because of new technologies, an ever-expanding knowledge base, and a
willingness to embrace many disciplines. To take advantage of the
opportunities in neuroscience we need an NSF appropriation that allows
for sustained, reliable growth. That, in turn, will lead to improved
health for the American public and will help maintain American
leadership in science worldwide. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR), I am pleased to submit this testimony to the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
Agencies. UCAR is a consortium of over 100 research institutions,
including 77 doctoral degree granting universities, which manages and
operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on behalf
of the National Science Foundation (NSF).
I urge the subcommittee to provide the maximum amount of support
possible for the vital research and education programs administered by
the NSF, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in fiscal
year 2015.
On February 6, the National Science Board (NSB) released its latest
report entitled ``Science and Engineering Indicators 2014''. The
biennial report makes it increasingly clear that the United States'
predominance in science and technology (S&T) eroded further during the
last decade, as several Asian nations--particularly China and South
Korea--rapidly increased their innovation capacities. According to the
NSB report, the major Asian economies taken together now perform a
larger share of global research and development (R&D) than the U.S.,
and China performs nearly as much of the world's high-tech
manufacturing as the U.S.
The NSB report makes it increasingly clear that the U.S., Japan,
and Europe no longer monopolize the global R&D arena. Since 2001, the
share of the world's R&D performed in the U.S. and Europe has
decreased, respectively, from 37 percent to 30 percent and from 26
percent to 22 percent. In this same time period, the share of worldwide
R&D performed by Asian countries grew from 25 percent to 34 percent.
China led the Asian expansion, with its global share growing from just
4 percent to 15 percent during this period. Recognition on the part of
national leaders that S&T innovation contributes to national
competitiveness, improves living standards, and furthers social welfare
has driven the rapid growth in R&D in many countries.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
China and South Korea have catalyzed their domestic R&D by making
significant investments in the S&T research enterprise and enhancing
S&T training at universities. China tripled its number of researchers
between 1995 and 2008, whereas South Korea doubled its number between
1995 and 2006. And there are indications that students from these
nations may be finding more opportunities for advanced education in
science and employment in their home countries.
In addition to investing in their research and teaching
enterprises, these countries have focused their attention on crucial
sectors of the global economy, including high-tech manufacturing and
clean energy. The size of China's high-tech manufacturing industry
increased nearly six-fold between 2003 and 2012, raising China's global
share of high-tech manufacturing from 8 percent to 24 percent during
that decade, closing in on the U.S. share of 27 percent. In addition,
emerging economies now invest more in clean energy--a critical 21st
century industry--than advanced economies do. In 2012, emerging
economies invested nearly $100 billion in clean energy, primarily wind
and solar, with China serving as the ``primary driver of investment''
with $61 billion. China's investment is more than double the $29
billion spent in the U.S.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
One of the most notable S&T trends of the last decade has been the
increased innovation capacity of emerging economies as they narrowed
many gaps with the West. However, the U.S. S&T enterprise remains the
global leader. For example, the U.S. invests twice as much as any other
single nation in R&D, despite slipping to tenth in world ranking of the
percentage of its GDP it devotes to R&D. In 2011, the U.S. spent $429
billion on R&D, compared to China's $208 billion and Japan's $146
billion. Among other S&T metrics, the U.S. leads in high quality
research publications, patents, and income from intellectual property
exports.
While the U.S. remains the world's leader in science and
technology, there are numerous indicators showing how rapidly the world
is changing and how other nations are challenging our predominance. As
other countries focus on increasing their innovation capacities, we can
ill afford to stand still. We now face a competitive environment
undreamt of just a generation ago as indicated in the chart entitled
R&D Expenditures as a Share of Economic Output for Selected Countries/
Economies: 1996-2011.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Federal Government has a critical role in funding R&D. To a
large extent, the Federal Government devotes resources to R&D to fund
projects that, despite their potential for improving economic growth
and people's well-being, would be unattractive for businesses to
pursue. Businesses tend to underinvest in R&D because the returns from
their investment are often smaller than the returns to the economy as a
whole.
The knowledge generated from a basic research project can often be
used--without compensation--by other firms within and outside their
industry. To make up for this underinvestment, the Federal Government
has played a major role in funding R&D. Federal support for basic
research is particularly crucial because the lack of direct commercial
applications from basic research projects--as well as the uncertainty
of project success--can deter businesses from performing basic research
even though some studies have shown that it is this form of R&D that
generates the greatest economy-wide returns.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Economists studying the link between science funding and economic
growth have found that innovation through R&D is the primary driver of
growth over the long run. Nobel prize winning MIT economist Robert
Solow famously found that over half of increases in economic
productivity can be attributed to new innovations and technologies.
Another similar study that attempted to quantify the impact of R&D on
economic growth found that increases in the level of research intensity
in the U.S. and four other developed countries may have accounted for
close to 50 percent of U.S. economic growth between 1950 and 1993.
The return on investments in the atmospheric sciences exemplifies
how Federal R&D drives economic growth. The commercial weather industry
leverages U.S. investments in weather observation, atmospheric
research, and computer modeling to produce tailored products for a wide
variety of clients, including the general public. There are now more
than 350 U.S. commercial weather companies, and they are estimated to
generate nearly $3 billion in annual revenues. The growth rate of this
industry is estimated to be about 10 percent per year.
This entire weather industry is directly dependent on the Federal
scientific infrastructure, and most of its tools and technologies were
developed in universities and laboratories with Federal R&D dollars. In
fact, a nationwide survey indicates that the U.S. public obtains
several hundred billion forecasts each year, generating $31.5 billion
in benefits compared to costs of $5.1 billion, a 6 to 1 direct return
on investment.
Even though Federal support for research--particularly basic
research--is inextricably linked with long term economic growth,
Federal funding for basic research has dropped since 2004. In real
dollars, the Federal Government spends less on non-defense R&D than it
did 10 years ago, even as Asian R&D investments have ballooned. R&D is
no longer prioritized in the Federal budget as it once was. As a
percent of GDP, U.S. Federal R&D has been cut by over one third from
1.3 percent to 0.8 percent since 1976. Many of these cuts have fallen
on the atmospheric and geospace sciences, and universities and
laboratories including NCAR have been forced in recent years into
difficult layoffs of researchers and other staff. This comes at a steep
cost to our future.
This subcommittee--with its oversight for the NSF, NOAA, and NASA--
is singularly responsible for determining over 50 percent of the annual
Federal investment in non-biomedical non-defense research--the very
research portfolio so critical to long term economic growth and
international competitiveness. For all of these reasons--though
confronted by extreme constraints in overall spending--it is vitally
important for the future health and well-being of our citizens that the
Congress do all it can to support this subcommittee's ability to fully
fund its R&D portfolio as exemplified in the funding decisions you will
be making regarding NSF, NOAA, and NASA. The University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research and its more than 100 member institutions
respectfully urge the subcommittee to maintain its strong priority
commitment for research and education as it moves to develop its fiscal
year 2015 appropriations recommendations.
We appreciate very much the opportunity to provide these views and
stand ready to provide whatever assistance we can to the subcommittee
and its members.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Brian Vandersea, Vice President, Oral &
Maxillofacial Surgery Associates
Dear members of the subcommittee,
I want to express my strong opposition to President Obama's 2015
budget proposal to close the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS)/National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) lab in Beaufort, North Carolina, and urge the
subcommittee to help reinstate funding for this essential resource.
This laboratory is a vital part of the local, national, and
international marine science community. It has partnerships with
academic institutions such as North Carolina State University,
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Duke University, East
Carolina University and University of North Carolina-Wilmington.
Without collaboration with the NOAA NOS/NMFS Beaufort Lab, each of the
marine science programs at these institutions will suffer.
Additionally, the laboratory's partnerships with economic development
activities such as the North Carolina Marine Science and Education
Partnership, North Carolina Biotechnology Center, and Marine
Biotechnology Center of Innovation are important to the Morehead City/
Beaufort/eastern North Carolina economies. This laboratory has served
North Carolina and the Nation for 115 years by executing top-notch,
award winning, marine science.
The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory is situated in a prime location,
between tropical and temperate waters, and provides the only Federal
access to one of the most diverse marine ecosystems in the United
States. It is unthinkable that the U.S. Government would give up on a
facility that is located in such a strategic position on our national
coastline.
A prime example of research ongoing at the NOAA Beaufort Lab that
is important to me is their ongoing work on harmful algal blooms.
Having grown up in New Bern, North Carolina, the Neuse River, which is
literally in my parents' back yard, experiences periodic algal blooms
and fish kills. After a fish kill, the NOAA Beaufort Lab tests water
samples and dead fish to determine the cause(s) for these kills. This
gives local residents ease of mind regarding the health of our river
ecosystems and the seafood that we purchase from local commercial
fishermen. In the early 1990's there was an extensive fish kill that
was supposedly caused by the algae ``Pfiesteria''. This caused a lot of
people to stay off of and away from the local rivers and made them
anxious about buying local seafood. Needless to say, this resulted in
major economic damage to eastern North Carolina. The Beaufort Lab's
tireless efforts led to a better understanding of the Pfeisteria
lifecycle and helped ease the fears of the local communities affected
by these types of fish kills. The Beaufort Lab is able to investigate
problems of this nature world-wide. This gives me a sense of security
in the seafood that I purchase and confidence in the water quality
where my seafood originates.
In conclusion, the NOAA NOS/NMFS Laboratory in Beaufort, North
Carolina is home to critical research that can only be conducted at
this unique location, and my family members and I are direct
benefactors of all of their hard work. The science that is conducted at
the Beaufort is of the highest quality and has won national and
international recognition all being done on a limited budget for quite
some time.
Why would the Government want to close down a facility that
produces high quality products at a minimal cost to the United States
public? I urge you to please restore full funding for this important
Federal laboratory.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Harold Vandersea, New Bern, North Carolina
Dear Committee members,
Acting as a private citizen on my own time, I would like to submit
testimony for the record.
I have recently been informed that the Presidents fiscal year 2015
budget proposal includes plans to close down the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Laboratory in Beaufort,
North Carolina. This is a misguided decision. To learn why, I would
like the Senate Subcommittee of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies to consider the following testimony.
Issue presented in budget.--Long term cost of maintaining the NOAA
Beaufort Laboratory (NOAA, National Ocean Service, National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
Research)
``To strengthen NOAA's coastal science in the long run, NOAA
proposes to reduce its physical footprint and fixed costs by closing
the Beaufort, North Carolina laboratory . . .''
On this budget item, a NOAA spokesperson in Silver Spring was
quoted saying: ``this aging facility requires infrastructure repairs
and improvements exceeding agency budget resources. . . .''
Response.--Urge proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
removed from the NOS budget.
Inaccurate, outdated information that overstated the costs of
maintaining the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory was used in the analysis that
led to the request to close this facility. An updated engineering
report (2014) documents the condition of the facility is not
structurally unsound. Additionally, there have been substantial
improvements to the facility:
Facilities Upgrades:
2006-- Administration Building replaced (with North Carolina
National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRs))
2007--Bridge replaced--cost shared with Duke University
2008--Maintenance Building replaced
2009-- Air conditioning/Air handler replacement and mold abatement
2009-- Sample Storage/Chemical Storage/Haz-Mat buildings
consolidated and replaced
2014-- Seawall repair, electrical upgrade and State of North
Carolina funded storm water control
Additionally, the National Ocean Service (NOS) initiating the
closure request understated the NOS staff and did not account for the
more than 40 National Marine Fisheries Service staff or the 6 staff
members of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
(Rachel Carson) co-located at the facility. In total 108 staff and
contractors will be directly affected by this closure.
Issue.--While the National Ocean Service, NOAA is calling for the
closure of the Beaufort North Carolina laboratory, it is requesting an
increase of $4 million to another center to support Ecological
Forecasting of Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB), hypoxia, pathogens and
Species Distributions.
Response.--NOAA should not close the facility that has a proven
track record with successful and effective research conducted on
harmful algal blooms (HAB) and species distributions.
NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
University partners to educate the public about the real facts
concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood.Beaufort staff
have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
anxiety regarding seafood safety.
In regards to species distribution research, Beaufort Laboratory
staff initiated the study of the invasive lionfish in the U.S. South
Atlantic Bight, providing timely information on distribution, abundance
and ecology to inform mitigation and management strategies throughout
the southeast U.S., Florida Keys, Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.
Additional Impacts of the Beaufort Lab Closure:
--North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
Reserve staff are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort Lab
which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
--The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
Education Program activities.
--The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
conduct mission-critical programming including educational
programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
programs, and stewardship of the site including species
monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
access point maintenance.
The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from which to manage
the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close proximity to the Reserve
site, location on calm inland waters, and boat launching facilities.
Additionally, many NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the
Rachel Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional perspectives
that are valuable to Reserve research and management.
Request.--The Senate Subcommittee of Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies decline to endorse the recommendation to close the
Beaufort Laboratory and request current and accurate information from
the Beaufort Laboratory leadership on costs for maintaining the
Laboratory.
Desired Outcomes:
--NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory closure proposed in the 2015 President's
Budget Request should not be included in the NOS budget.
--Congress should inform NOAA that requests for closure of NOS
laboratories will not be entertained in the future.
--Congress should direct NOAA to restore staffing, operational
support and funding for science to full operational levels to
utilize the capacity of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory.
--NOAA should provide a report and a timeline to Congress with a
strategy to address these concerns.
in summary
Inaccurate, outdated information that overstated the costs of
maintaining the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory was used in the analysis that
led to the request to close this facility. The request understated the
number of staff housed at this facility, and did not include NMFS or
North Carolina NERRs employees. For 115 years, the NOAA Beaufort lab
has had a rich history of involvement in local, national, and
international marine science issues. The laboratory has produced award
winning science in Fisheries and Harmful Algal Bloom research and is
respected for the expertise and knowledge of the staff working there.
The programs that NERRs conducts at the facility are clear evidence of
the Beaufort lab's commitment to education and outreach--closing the
facility would disrupt and greatly increase the hardships of running a
successful marine science educational program. The lab originatedin
Beaufort, North Carolina because of its unique position, being at the
edge of two biogeographic regions (i.e., Cape Hatteras), and at the
cusp of expanding tropical regions. It is critical that a NOAA lab of
this strength continues in this location given the imperative to
understanding fisheries management, coastal ecosystem management,
climate impacts, coastal pollution, and harmful algal bloom issues in
the mid and south Atlantic regions. Closing the Beaufort lab would
leave a NMFS ``facilities-based-gap'' from Sandy Hook, New Jersey to
Miami, Florida. This fact alonereveals the shortsightedness of the
President's proposal. I hope the committee carefully considers this
testimony and the testimonies of others that voice similar opinions
against the President's proposal to close the Beaufort NOAA Laboratory.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. The closing of
this facility will impact greatly the entire eastern coast of the
United States as well as all the other areas that this lab collaborates
with to assist with fishery issues.
______
Prepared Statement of VOR
Protecting the Interests of Residents of Medicaid-Licensed Facility
Homes for Persons With Intellectual Disabilities in Actions Conducted
by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division That Affect Their
Choice of Residency
i. introduction
VOR, a national advocacy organization for people with intellectual
and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and their families, express
gratitude to Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski and members of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies for
this opportunity to submit testimony for the record in consideration of
fiscal year 2015 appropriations for the Department of Justice.
VOR's members look forward to working with Senators and their staff
to ensure the civil rights of our most fragile citizens with I/DD.
ii. summary: legislative choice language proposal
As explained in detail below, VOR asserts that legal proceedings
and related actions, such as investigations, brought against States by
the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) have caused significant financial and
emotional hardships, and sometimes harm, to individuals with
developmental and intellectual disabilities and their families. The
concern is widespread: the Department of Justice has filed more than 40
actions in more than 25 States. VOR views these ``Olmstead
enforcement'' actions to violate the spirit and even, at times, the
letter of the Olmstead decision, especially with regard to the
requirement of individual choice [Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527
U.S. 581 (1999)]. To correct for this injustice, VOR urges the Senate
to adopt the following choice language relating to Department of
Justice appropriations:
``No funds appropriated for any Department of Justice program
shall be expended to promote any law or policy that limits the
choices of individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (or, if an individual has a legal representative,
the legal representative), seeking living arrangements they
believe are most suitable to their needs and wishes.''
iii. rationale
A. Background on Forced Deinstitutionalization
There is a national trend towards deinstitutionalization, whereby
individuals are encouraged and sometimes forced to move out of
Medicaid-licensed care facilities (including Intermediate Care
Facilities for Persons with Intellectual and Development Disabilities,
``ICFs/IID'') and into residential settings.
However, there are significant concerns among the family members
and legal guardians of individuals residing in State-run and private
ICFs/IID regarding the adequacy of opportunities for residents to make
their views and preferences known throughout the process. They are also
concerned about whether State-run and private facilities are being
closed before adequate community placements are available; whether
Medicaid reimbursements rates are adequate to facilitate the services
necessary in such community placements for residents to lead safe and
fulfilling lives; whether, due to a lack of adequate local community
placements, some residents are being placed in community facilities too
far from family members sometimes to meet the goals of integration into
the community; the pace of transfers; and the pressure being put on
legal representatives to move residents from their ICF/IID homes and
other specialized facilities.
B. The U.S. Department of Justice's Olmstead Enforcement
As stated above, legal proceedings and related actions, such as
investigations, brought against States by the Justice Department's
Civil Rights Division under the ADA have caused significant financial
and emotional hardships, and sometimes harm, to individuals with I/DD
and their families. VOR views these ``Olmstead enforcement'' actions to
violate the spirit and even, at times, the letter of the Olmstead
decision [Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999)].
In particular, the Supreme Court in its Olmstead decision
establishes the right to community-based housing and care only when the
``State's treatment professionals have determined that community
placement is appropriate'', ``transfer is not opposed by the affected
individual'' and ``the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking
into account the resources available to the State and the needs of
others with mental disabilities'' [Olmstead at 587].
The Court clarified its holding as follows:
``We emphasize that nothing in the ADA [Americans with
Disabilities Act] or its implementing regulations condones
termination of institutional settings for persons unable to
handle or benefit from community settings . . . Nor is there
any Federal requirement that community-based treatment be
imposed on patients who do not desire it.''527 U.S. 581, 601-02
(1999) (see also, Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion, ``It
would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic event, then, were
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to be
interpreted so that States had some incentive, for fear of
litigation to drive those in need of medical care and treatment
out of appropriate care and into settings with no assistance
and supervision'').
It is not the Justice Department's place to substitute its
ideological view that all residents of ICFs/IID and similar facilities
are better served in community placements for the Supreme Court's
specific tests for community placement, which includes the judgments of
the legal representatives of behalf of incapacitated residents.
Yet, Olmstead investigations and actions by the Justice Department
against States have been pursued with the express intent of ``Community
Integration for Everyone'' [DOJ Olmstead Enforcement website, 2014],
have rarely included consultation with families and legal guardians,
and have led to settlements requiring deinstitutionalization without
regard to assessments of individual needs and choices. As recognized by
U.S. District Judge J. Leon Holmes in his order dismissing the Justice
Department's case against the State of Arkansas:
``Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights
have been violated. Not this one. The Civil Rights Division of
the Department of Justice brings this action on behalf of the
United States of America against the State of Arkansas and four
State officials in their official capacities alleging that
practices at Conway Human Development Center [a Medicaid-
licensed ICF/IID] violate the rights of its residents
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. All or nearly all of those residents have
parents or guardians who have the power to assert the legal
rights of their children or wards. Those parents and guardians,
so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the United
States. Thus, the United States is in the odd position of
asserting that certain persons' rights have been and are being
violated while those persons--through their parents and
guardians--disagree.'' [U.S. v. Arkansas (June 8, 2011,
dismissal order) (emphasis added); see also, Olmstead:
Community Integration for Everyone--Olmstead Enforcement, U.S.
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (website) (emphasis
added): detailing the Division's Olmstead enforcement efforts
in more than 40 matters in more than 25 States in the past 5
years].
In United States v. Virginia (2012), families and legal guardians
were conspicuously absent from the long list of stakeholders
interviewed by the Justice Department prior to settlement and families
spent $125,000 to overcome Justice Department and Commonwealth
opposition to secure intervention of right [see, United States v.
Virginia, Memorandum Order Approving Motion to Intervene (May 9, 2012):
``[T]he Petitioners have a significant, protectable interest in
receiving the appropriate care of their choice and protecting their
rights under the ADA. See Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S.
581, 602 (1999) (`Nor is there any Federal requirement that community-
based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it.'') . . .
The Petitioners are all [ICF/IID] Training Center residents who wish to
continue receiving institutional care in their current settings. As
such, their interests are certainly affected by a lawsuit alleging
deficiencies in their care and a consent decree whose stated purpose is
to prohibit the unnecessary institutionalization of Virginians with ID/
DD . . . The parties' [Justice Department and Commonwealth] desire to
phase out the residential Training Centers and transition all
Virginians with ID/DD to community-based care is readily apparent.''].
In United States v. Georgia (2010), the Department did not consult
with families and legal guardians before entering a settlement that
requires that the closure of Georgia's ICFs/IID and forces all
residents from these homes. The Settlement does not provide families
and legal guardians any decisionmaking authority except in the context
of community transition. As discussed next, significant harm to
affected individuals has followed transitions in Georgia and other
States.
C. The Human Consequences
VOR is also deeply concerned by the many reported outcomes of
abuse, neglect and death of individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities in community settings [see e.g, Letter from
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy to Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (March 4, 2013): ``I write
to you today to request that you undertake an immediate investigation
into the alarming number of deaths and cases of abuse of
developmentally disabled individuals in group homes. In particular, I
would like you to focus on the prevalence of preventable deaths at
privately run group homes across this Nation and the widespread
privatization of our delivery system.''; ``In State Care, 1,200 Deaths
and Few Answers,'' New York Times (November 5, 2011): investigation
finding that more than 1,200 deaths in State-run group homes in the
past decade have been attributed to either ``unnatural or unknown
causes''; and Bagenstos, Samuel R., The Past and Future of
Deinstitutionalization Litigation, 34 Cardoza L. Rev. 1, 15, 21 (2012),
which raises serious questions about the adequacy of community-based
placements; notably, Mr. Bagenstos is a former Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General in the Obama Justice Department's Civil
Rights Division and was a key litigator in deinstitutionalization
cases.]
In Georgia, where a Justice Department Settlement Agreement with
the State in U.S. v. Georgia calls for the transition of nearly 1,000
individuals with I/DD and the closure of all State-operated ICFs/IID
and the transition of 9,000 individuals with mental illness from
facility-based care, the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health &
Developmental Disabilities' Office of Quality Management released its
Annual Quality Management Report (February 2014) finding that in 2013
there were 82 unexpected deaths, 1,200 hospitalizations, 318 incidents
requiring law enforcement services, 305 individuals who were
expectantly absent from a community residential or day program, and 210
alleged instances physical abuse of mentally ill and developmentally
disabled individuals. Similar concerns, including some mortalities,
were confirmed in a March 23, 2014 report from Elizabeth Jones, the
Independent Reviewer in U.S. v. Georgia. In report, Jones cites an
``urgent need to ensure competent and sufficient health practitioner
oversight of individuals who are medically fragile and require
assistance with most aspects of their daily lives.'' [see, ``Report:
Developmentally Disabled Need Better Care,'' Georgia Health News (April
10, 2014); see also, ``Widespread Abuse, Neglect and Death in Small
Settings Serving People with Intellectual Disabilities,'' VOR (rev.
February 2014)].
iv. conclusion
Given these concerns, VOR respectfully request that language be
added to appropriations legislation to require individual choice,
nothing more or less, as follows:
``No funds appropriated for any Department of Justice program
shall be expended to promote any law or policy that limits the
choices of individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (or, if an individual has a legal representative,
the legal representative), seeking living arrangements they
believe are most suitable to their needs and wishes.''
Thank you for your consideration. For more information please
contact Tamie Hopp, VOR Director of Government Relations & Advocacy at
thopp@vor.net.
______
Prepared Statement of James R. Waters, Morehead City, North Carolina
The Honorable Barbara Mikulski, Chair, and other members of the
subcommittee, I am a retired Federal employee. I spent most of my
professional career at the Beaufort Laboratory as an employee of
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA's) National
Marine Fisheries Service, and was disappointed and saddened to learn of
the recent proposal to close the lab.
The Beaufort Laboratory, located in Beaufort, North Carolina, has a
history of more than 100 years of research about fisheries and the
marine environment. The history of publications in professional
journals attests to this research. Within the past 35 years or so, the
focus of research has evolved to reflect the requirements and mandates
of major Federal legislation, including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Act, and the
Endangered Species Act. In particular, fishery scientists at the
Beaufort Lab collect data, perform biological analyses and develop
models with which to evaluate the status of important recreational and
commercial species, especially for reef fishes that often are slow-
growing, long-lived and vulnerable to overfishing and depletion, and
for menhaden, which supports a major industrial fishery that produces
fishmeal and oil. The Beaufort Laboratory works with stakeholders and
fishery managers at the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council, NOAA's Southeast Regional Office,
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission, and various State fisheries agencies to evaluate
the effects of existing and proposed methods of achieving sustainable
fisheries for these species.
I urge the Senate subcommittee to question whether a closure of the
Beaufort Laboratory is in the best interests of the American taxpayer.
If the Beaufort Lab were closed, taxpayers would incur major expenses
to relocate personnel to other Federal facilities. These facilities
probably are inadequately sized to accommodate the influx of
transferred employees, and as a result taxpayers would incur additional
major expenses to either lease office/laboratory space or expand
existing facilities. These costs could be minimized if Federal
employment was terminated for some or all staff at the Beaufort Lab,
but then taxpayers would lose the benefits of the data and analyses
that would no longer be forthcoming with which to meet the mandates of
major Federal legislation. In my opinion, taxpayers would suffer a net
loss if the Beaufort Lab were closed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. I
hope that NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory will continue to be the source of
productive research about fisheries and the marine environment for many
years to come.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael P. Weinstein, Senior Scientist,
Center for Natural Resources Development and Protection, New Jersey
Institute of Technology
The National Marine Fisheries Laboratory at Beaufort, North
Carolina has played a critical role in developing science to inform
policy for more than a century. It is the only Federal facility between
Miami and New Jersey Atlantic that is heavily invested in applied
science to comply with the ``bottom up'' provisions of the Magnuson
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Its scientists were
among the first to recognize the linkage between coastal wetlands and
seagrass meadows as primary nurseries for the early life stages of
finfish and shellfish including seatrout, menhaden and many other
species that contribute to the U.S.-wide $50 billion commercial and
recreational fishery. The facilities location on Pivers Island,
adjacent to the Duke Marine Laboratory and near the University of North
Carolina and North Carolina State University marine science
laboratories is ideal for catalyzing Federal-university partnerships in
cooperative marine research.
I wholeheartedly concur with North Carolina's congressional effort
to keep the lab open, and similarly agree that ``the NOAA Beaufort
Laboratory is a prime location and provides the only Federal access to
the most diverse marine ecosystem in the United States,'' as noted by
Dr. David B. Eggleston, a professor at North Carolina State University.
The Federal-university complex employs 500 staff, and hosts more than
160,000 square feet of research buildings and 40 laboratories. These
facilities supports a $58 million economy, according to the county's
economic development council.
If this facility is closed, a gaping hole would be left in the
continuity of Federal research along the Atlantic Coast; one that
serves as the direct liaison between university basic research and its
application through practical ``use inspired'' research of the sort
that is conducted at NMFS Beaufort. The lab should remain open.
______
Prepared Statement of Douglas A. Wolfe, Ph.D. NOAA (Retired), Beaufort,
North Carolina
My statement is in direct opposition to the closure of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) marine science laboratory
located in Beaufort, North Carolina, as presently proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget for the National Ocean Service
(NOS), Coastal Science, Assessment, Response and Restoration: National
Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) (NOAA Blue Book, page 8).
This facility, identified in the budget request as the Beaufort,
North Carolina laboratory, has a long tradition of: (1) excellence in
marine science and research, (2) fisheries management, (3) marine
environmental restoration, and (4) collaboration with regional
university programs in marine science research and education.
Originally founded in 1899 by the U.S. Fisheries Commission, the
Beaufort Laboratory is the second-oldest (after Woods Hole) Federal
marine science facility in the United States. Its closure is is not at
all justified in the budget documents cited above and I respectfully
request this subcommittee to:
1. direct NOAA's National Ocean Service not to close the
Laboratory, and
2. recommend full funding for staffing and operations at the
Beaufort Laboratory in fiscal year 2015 and subsequent years.
The balance of my statement will provide greater detail and
justification for this position.
In the NOAA Bluebook: fiscal year 2015 Budget Summary, the National
Ocean Service proposes (on page 8) ``to reduce its physical footprint
and fixed costs by closing the Beaufort North Carolina laboratory . .
.'' A NOAA spokeswoman in Silver Spring, Ciaran Clayton (Director of
Communications and External Affairs), was further quoted in our local
newspaper: ``this aging facility requires infrastructure repairs and
improvements exceeding agency budget resources..'' This appears to form
the entire basis for the NOAA/NOS/NCCOS request for lab closure. But in
fact, NOAA has routinely been maintaining and improving this facility.
The two-story laboratory, originally constructed in 1963, was renovated
in 1994 to remove the outdated seawater systems from the building and
to correct the structural damage caused by that flaw in the original
design. A new (2014) engineering report found no residual structural
problems in this building. More recently, a new administration building
was constructed in 2007 at a cost of $7 million to house administrative
and support staff offices, new library and conference room facilities,
and the Offices of the North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserves
(NERRS). In 2008 the maintenance building was replaced at a cost of
$960,000. In 2009 a chemical storage and hazmat building was
constructed at a cost of $1 million. Bridge renovation/replacement
(2007) and seawall repairs (2014) were performed at a cost of $3.5
million. Several smaller aging structures were demolished and removed
from the premises. The total cost of facility upgrades within the past
7 years exceeds $14 million, including a $1 Million cost-sharing
contribution from NERRS, $500,000 of North Carolina State funds for
stormwater runoff management, and a shared cost with Duke University
for the bridge work. The present facility is modern in appearance and
houses state-of-the art scientific instrumentation and equipment in
support of the research programs conducted by the staff.
While the request for closure of the Beaufort Laboratory is
presented in the NOAA/NOS/NCCOS budget statement, the Beaufort
Laboratory in fact is occupied by programs and staff of three different
NOAA components: NCCOS employs a permanent staff of 31; the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has a permanent staff of 40 at the
facility, and NERRS--a program funded cooperatively by NOAA and the
State of North Carolina--supports a permanent staff of 8 (all State
employees of North Carolina). The Center employs 33 additional
personnel--most of them science-related--on a temporary or contract
basis. The ramifications of laboratory closure are not reflected in the
budgets shown for either NMFS or NERRS. Nor have the impacts to the
employees and their families and to the local community been carefully
evaluated.
The Beaufort Laboratory has established an extraordinary record for
scientific excellence in its research. NOAA and the Department of
Commerce have repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research
teams, and the Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of the
work performed there (with Commerce Gold Medals, Career Achievement
Awards, Technology Transfer Award, etc.). Staff members at the
Laboratory have also received major recognition and awards from
professional scientific societies, including the Phycological Society
of America and the Geochemical Society.
The laboratory's excellent research capabilities and reputation
also attract support--both from other branches of NOAA and from other
outside agencies which have recognized potential benefits of the
Laboratory's studies, and have augmented the base-level program support
provided by NOAA. For example, the Office of Aquaculture provided
nearly $1 million in fiscal year 2014 to conduct a feasibility study
for sustainable aquaculture on the U.S. Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico,
Caribbean (U.S. possessions), the Pacific west coast, and the Hawaiian
archipelago. Other recent research initiatives of the NCCOS staff at
the Beaufort Laboratory include (a) ecology of and responses to harmful
algal blooms; (b) restoration of injured habitats including seagrass,
saltmarsh, and reef systems; (c) ecosystem responses to climate change;
and (d) population dynamics and spread of invasive species, such as
lionfish. The current focus of the NMFS staff at the Beaufort
Laboratory is on: (a) studies of population dynamics and stock
assessments in support of fisheries management, especially of Atlantic
menhaden and the offshore snapper/grouper and other reef fisheries; (b)
population dynamics and health of protected and endangered species,
including sea turtles and marine mammals; (c) densities of coral and
the reproduction and life histories of reef fish; and (d) ecological
studies on the ecosystem structure and function of the southeastern
U.S. continental shelf system that supports these fisheries and
protected species. The reponsibility of NERRS staff at the Beaufort
Laboratory is direction and management of the four major Estuarine
Research Reserves in North Carolina, one of which--the Rachel Carson
Reserve--is located directly across the navigation channel from the
Beaufort Laboratory, which provides a most convenient and economical
logistics base for field research, training and educational programs at
their reserve.
It is ironic (to the point of giving an impression of fiscal
irresponsibility) that the NOS/NCCOS budget initiative for fiscal year
2015 requests increased research funding for coastal ocean issues ,
including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and coastal ecosystem
management at the same time it is proposing to close the Beaufort
Laboratory, which has well-established expertise and the facilities
required to address many of those very same issues.
The Beaufort Laboratory is strategically located for temperate and
subtropical marine and estuarine habitat studies on the east coast of
North America. It was no accident that Beaufort, North Carolina was
selected by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries as the location for this
laboratory, and not surprising that several Universities and State
agencies have also located marine research facilities in the same area.
North Carolina has one of the longest coastlines and greatest estuarine
areas of any State on the east coast; and the Gulf Stream approaches
the coast more closely at Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout than at any
other point north of Cape Kennedy, Florida-- accounting for the
occurrence of tropical corals and reef habitats just at and beyond the
edge of the broad continental shelf. Laboratory scientists at the
Beaufort Laboratory have developed academic affiliations with several
nearby universities, especially with North Carolina State University,
University of North Carolina-Wilmington, and East Carolina University,
and have helped to sponsor graduate student research on many topics
related to NOAA's initiatives. Close ties and research collaboration
also exist between laboratory scientists and the faculty at the
adjacent Duke University Marine Laboratory, and the University of North
Carolina Institute of Marine Sciences in nearby Morehead City. The
Beaufort Laboratory is an excellent living example of a truly effective
Federal-Academic Partnership. The NERRS facility at the Beaufort
Laboratory also provides educational experience and opportunities to
thousands of elementary and secondary school students every year.
The Beaufort Laboratory also provides administrative support and
scientific direction for a field laboratory at Kasitsna Bay, Alaska,
where researchers are quantifying ecosystem change and studying
variability in ocean acidification in nearshore subarctic Alaskan
habitats. In partnership with the University of Alaska, Native
corporations and marine conservation groups, the Kasitsna Bay facility
provides training in diving for scientific objectives, marine ecology
and oceanography; conducts field science camps for high school
students; and offers field housing for visiting researchers and
students including NOAA undergraduate and graduate student interns. The
implications of Beaufort Lab closure on the operation of the Kasitsna
facility appear not to have been considered.
In conclusion I will repeat my earlier recommendation and request
the Honorable Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to formulate
appropriate strategies to:
1. direct NOAA/NOS not to close the Beaufort Laboratory as
currently proposed, and remove all references to such closure in the
final appropriation; and
2. direct NOAA to restore full funding for operations, staffing
and research at the Beaufort Laboratory in fiscal year 2015 and
subsequent years.
Thank you for your consideration.