[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 160 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10143-H10144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEBATE OMITTED FROM THE RECORD OF THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1995, ON THE 
           OMNIBUS CIVILIAN SCIENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly point out that, as the 
gentleman and I both know, our areas have been designated by the 
National Research Council as likely among the most vulnerable gap areas 
in the country with the modernization plan and the recommended 
placement of NEXRADS. The gentleman and I have been so budget-conscious 
that we have talked about sharing a NEXRAD, if in fact we get that 
opportunity, as we hope we will, placing it somewhere between our 
respective districts, so we can in fact protect our citizens, but at 
the same time save as much money as possible. I wanted the Members to 
know that is how well we worked together.
  Mr. WAMP. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it can be in the State of 
Alabama, as long as it covers Chattanooga and southeast Tennessee 
adequately. I appreciate that, and commend the gentleman.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Alabama. I am a cosponsor 
of his amendment, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee for 
his willingness to hold hearings. We appreciate his willingness to work 
through problems in northeast Indiana, as well as northwest Ohio, and 
the tristate region I represent. I also understand we are moving to new 
radar systems, and I think those changes in science are very important, 
and will provide more protection.
  However, we have gaps in that system. While we are going through 
those gaps, if we close our local weather service, we are unprotected 
over the next few years. If we do not have a whole country covered in 
the radar systems, it becomes more problematic about the weather 
stations. Our constituents rely greatly on the National Weather Service 
to provide advanced warnings of tornadoes and other severe storms. 
Current law prohibits the National Weather Service from closing weather 
stations unless it can certify that the closing will cause no 
degradation in the warning service the stations provide to local 
residents. Without this amendment, that protection would be struck. A 
few years ago, the city of Kendalville in my district was hit without 
warning by a tornado that injured 28 people, destroyed 29 buildings, 
and damaged over 150 businesses and residences. I happen to be very 
familiar with that, because I was just south of where the tornado was 
going, heard the warning on the radio, and turned south so I did not 
get caught in the path.
  All of northeast Indiana, as well as at least 30 other areas of this 
country, now face the prospect of losing their weather service 
warnings, even though independent experts at the National Research 
Council recently acknowledged that they face a potential for a degraded 
service. We in our area, in the current proposals for the new radar 
system, are covered by four different systems, and it leaves us very 
vulnerable in the middle of that.
  I was also at a fair last summer where a tornado went from western 
Ohio and came back west, rather than going west to east, and had there 
not been a weather service in Fort Wayne, they would have had to relay 
that to Cincinnati, back to Indianapolis, back to Fort Wayne, and this 
way in minutes they were able to get us to a shelter.
  I know in a very personal way 125,000 people in my districts have 
sent postcards to NOAA with concerns for this. It is very important. 
There are a couple of concerns. This bill saves $15 million, this 
amendment, but $35 million additional, I understand, could be saved. I 
have been working to cut the budget on appropriations bills and will 
continue to do that, but we also in this bill, I have supported the 
space program, I supported the space station, I think the chairman of 
this committee and the subcommittees have done well in battling for 
science, but if we can have $100 million for space and Russia, we can 
afford to protect our own citizens in this country.
  It is not just a matter of children's lives being lost and the homes 
being lost and lives; in my case, it is my wife, my children, myself, 
people who I grew up with and who are friends, and this is far too 
important to lose in a transition where, overall, the program is very 
effective, but some lives could be lost by this degradation of service.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cramer amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, the modernization of the National Weather Service's purpose 
is to consolidate weather service offices nationwide without 
jeopardizing the quality of weather service to any region. While I 
strongly support this goal, weather service users, the public, and 
elected officials have repeatedly expressed deep concern that the 
modernization plan might actually degrade services in some regions of 
the country.
  In response to these concerns, Congress enacted Public Law 102-567, 
which stipulates that the weather service will not close any of its 
stations without first certifying that doing so will not degrade 
weather service to the affected region. Mr. Chairman, I have grave 
concerns about the provisions of this bill that repeal this mandate. No 
one in this Chamber is more committed to streamlining Government than I 
am. However, we should not do so at the expense of the safety of the 
people in northern California and elsewhere in the country. Yet, that 
is precisely what will happen if we do not adopt the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. Chairman, let me illustrate by describing several situations in 
my own district of northern California. 

[[Page H 10144]]
Presently, the National Weather Service plans to close its office in 
the city of Redding, the largest population center in California north 
of Sacramento. This decision has been made despite mountains of 
credible scientific evidence, including findings by the weather service 
meteorologists in California, that doing so could have a potentially 
devastating impact on Redding and the communities further north. The 
mountains to the north of Redding, including the Interstate 5 corridor, 
which provides the primary transportation route between Oregon and 
California, are subject to severe storms that have been the source of 
some of the worst flooding in California history. Last spring, for 
example, floods ravaged the 10 counties in my district, leaving each a 
Federal disaster area. During this tragedy, the weather service in 
Redding provided critical, up-to-the-minute information to local 
officials, enabling them to react almost instantaneously to individual 
emergencies.

                          ____________________