[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1940-E1941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      A CRITICAL FLAW IN H.R. 2405

                                 ______


                        HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 12, 1995

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker I rise today in opposition 
to what I believe is a critical flaw in HR 2405, the Omnibus Civilian 
Science Research Authorization Bill.
  Title IV of HR 2405 relates to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. In my view this entire section is abusive to our 
Nation's need for a comprehensive understanding of our oceans, air, and 
coastal environments. Title IV does not take into account the economic 
as well as environmental implications of such massive cuts. In many 
cases fall well below the funding levels that have already been 
appropriated for NOAA in 1996. During debate on this section I will be 
supporting several amendments that seek to restore the integrity of 
NOAA and many of the programs for which it is responsible. 
Specifically, I would like to address two issues that have, in my view, 
fallen prey to the worst of intentions: the Global and Climate Change 
and Sea Grant Programs.
  This bill recommends that the NOAA Climate and Global Change Program 
be reduced to $53 million which represents an $18 million or 27% 
reduction in spending from the FY 1995 budget.
  This cut-back is short sighted. It ignores the potential savings we 
could realize from being prepared for severe weather. Rarely do we find 
a clearer illustration of the old saying ``an ounce of prevention is 
worth a pound of cure.''
  Weather prediction is by no means an exact science. NOAA, however, is 
working to remove much of the guess work by developing the ability to 
anticipate short term climate variations. Improving our climate 
prediction capabilities would enable communities to prepare changing 
weather conditions. This bill will cripple our ability to see the 
clouds on the horizon and prepare for the oncoming storm.
  The NOAA Climate and Global Change Program is equally important for 
our long term economic well-being. NOAA has designed a research program 
to better understand long term changes in weather patterns that will 
have profound effects on our economy in the 21st century.
  NOAA is studying the roles of atmospheric gases in global warming. In 
this area ignorance will be costly and dangerous. The value of reducing 
climate-related uncertainty in the implementation of policies 
stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions is estimated to be $100 billion 
for the U.S. between now and 2020.
  NOAA is also seeking to understand longer-term climate variations, 
like those that give rise to persistent drought or recurring flooding 
over several years. Improving these climate predictions for the long 
term will enable resource managers in climate sensitive areas such as 
agriculture, water management, and energy supply to alter strategies 
and reduce economic vulnerability. Preliminary economic studies 
estimate potential savings in the U.S. of as mush as $2.7 billion 
annually in the agriculture sector alone.
  In my state of Rhode Island, improved understanding of climate and 
global change is critical to of our economy. Right now 10% of Rhode 
Island's Gross Domestic Product is marine related. Much of this 
business, like commercial fishing, marina and boating activities, 
oceanographic research, and tourism, is directly effected by 
atmospheric and oceanographic conditions.
  Clearly, as we look to reduce unnecessary federal spending, we should 
not deny ourselves the opportunity to reduce costs in the long run by 
taking preventative measures. A perfect example of this in New England 
was the winter of 1992-93. During that year many municipalities were 
caught unprepared for an unusually harsh winter and had inadequate 
supplies of salt or sand for roads, and insufficient fuel and 
provisions for acquiring additional electricity. The total cost of just 
one storm in March of that year was over $1.6 billion for New England 
because we were unprepared.

[[Page E 1941]]

  The following year many counties prepared for a similar winter and 
stocked up on the provisions that were in demand the previous year. As 
we all remember, last winter was unusually mild and these resources 
went to waste. This kind of waste must end.
  We need to end our nation's reactionary policy toward global climate 
change. Rather than passively suffer the effects of changing weather 
patterns, we should prepare for them through advanced scientific 
research. Just think about the funds and resources we will save if we 
know 6 months ahead of time that a winter in the North East will be 
mild, if the Gulf States will encounter an El Nino, or if we can expect 
flooding in the Midwest.
  The second major flaw in this bill occurred with the Sea Grant 
College Program. HR 2405 essentially destroys the concept of Sea Grant 
as the bridge between universities and users in coastal communities, 
industry, government, and non profit organizations.
  The Sea Grant Program is a network of over 300 universities and 
affiliated institutions in 30 states which conduct research, education 
and advisory services for our coastal communities. Modeled after the 
Land Grant concept, Sea Grant uses high quality, competitive, merit 
reviewed science to address critical marine resource issues. Sea Grant 
is highly successful as almost half of the total program cost is 
derived from nonfederal sources.
  Unfortunately, while both the Resources and Science Committees have 
reported out HR 1175, a Sea Grant reauthorization bill, which I 
cosponsor and enjoys broad bi-partisan support, the Science Committee 
has chosen to disregard this mandate and abandon the work that has 
already been accomplished.
  Make no mistake, the Science Committee's original version of HR 2405 
nullifies the Sea Grant Program. Provisions in the bill remove the 
education and outreach components which is what makes Sea Grant so 
successful in the first place.
  Sea Grant, which was founded by my colleague Senator Pell from Rhode 
Island, was designed to create new economic opportunities for the 
private sector by helping our Nation to utilize more fully its vast 
publicly-owned marine and coastal resources, which are vital to the 
lives of America's rapidly growing coastal population. In fact, with 
over 50% of our nation's population living in coastal environments, 
these important functions are more critical than ever.
  We simply cannot abandon this important mission. I want to commend 
the actions of several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
their dedicated work on this issue and their efforts to raise the 
authorization levels for Sea Grant. Moreover, I am encouraged by the 
agreement reached in the Committee of the Whole to bring HR 1175 to the 
floor under its own authorization. Only then will the true mission of 
Sea Grant be realized.
  In closing, I ask my colleagues to oppose Title IV of HR 2045. 
Despite the changes to Sea Grant, I cannot support this Title or this 
bill as it undermines the effectiveness of NOAA and many important 
programs like Climate and Global Change.

                          ____________________