[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 56 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E529-E530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           H.R. 2413, THE WEATHER FORECASTING IMPROVEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. SUZANNE BONAMICI

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 1, 2014

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2413, the 
Weather Forecasting Improvement Act. This bill represents a bipartisan 
agreement by members of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. I 
am pleased to join my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the 
bill's sponsor, Mr. Bridenstine, subcommittee Chair Schweikert, the 
former subcommittee Chair Stewart, and Chair Smith, in support of this 
bill. I want to thank them, as well as Ranking Member Johnson, for 
their work on this important bill.
   Members on both sides of the aisle can be assured that this bill 
represents a truly bipartisan effort, and is built on extensive 
discussions with, and advice from, the weather community.
   After the devastating tornados in his district, Mr. Bridenstine 
introduced a well-intended bill that went a long way toward improving 
the tools available to NOAA for evaluating emerging forecast 
technologies. His emphasis on tornado research was appropriate and 
helpful. At the Subcommittee markup, Mr. Grayson added a valuable 
amendment for a focused hurricane research program.
   Mr. Stewart, then the Chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, 
worked with my staff and me on an Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute to add to the tools and programs in the original bill.
   We drew on expert advice from the weather enterprise and from 
extensive reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the 
National Academy of Public Administration. Experts told us that to 
improve weather forecasting, the research at the Office of Oceans and 
Atmospheric Research (OAR) and the forecasting at the National Weather 
Service had to be better coordinated; this legislation contains 
provisions to improve that coordination.
   This bill encourages NOAA to integrate research and operations in a 
way that models the successful innovation structure used by the 
Department of Defense.
   The bill we are considering today also creates numerous 
opportunities for the broader weather community to provide insights to 
NOAA.
   At every opportunity, we charge the agency to consult with the 
American weather industry and researchers as they develop research 
plans and undertake new initiatives. We also press NOAA to get serious 
about exploring private sector solutions to their data needs.
   The bill makes clear that we expect the historical support for 
extramural research to continue. The engine of weather forecasting 
innovation has not always been found within NOAA, but often is found in 
the external research community and labs that work with NOAA. That 
collaboration must and will continue under this legislation.
   In addition, the bill includes an explicit focus on tapping the 
expertise of social scientists in how to best communicate risks and 
warnings to the public. Witnesses who came before the Science Committee 
emphasized the importance of this work.
   The best forecasting skill and technology in the world won't be as 
effective unless the messages to the public result in the right safety-
response.
   The bill before us today is designed to improve public safety, 
enhance the American economy, and transform the innovation culture at 
NOAA. I am confident that its passage will improve weather forecasting 
and tangibly benefit our constituents.
   I can assure all Members that weather research is strengthened in 
this bill, but not at the expense of other important work at NOAA.
   During the committee process we heard from witness after witness who 
stressed that weather forecasting involves many different scientific 
disciplines, and this integrated, multi-disciplinary approach reflects 
an understanding that we cannot choose to strengthen one area of 
research at OAR without endangering the progress in the other areas 
because they are all interconnected. Physical and chemical laws do not 
respect OAR's budgeting boundaries of climate, weather, and oceans and 
this bill does not step beyond addressing organizational issues in 
weather at NOAA.
   I want to be clear about what this bill does and does not do, 
because there seems to be some confusion on the Hill and elsewhere. 
There is no question that the bill as introduced threatened NOAA's 
ability to make expert judgments about how to distribute research 
support among climate, weather, and oceans work. The original language 
of H.R. 2413 would have required that weather-related activities be the 
``top priority'' across all NOAA offices. This clearly would have put 
weather at the front of the line in budget and planning efforts 
compared to oceans or climate.
   That language raised significant concerns for Members on my side of 
the aisle, in part because there was no hearing record to support such 
a reordering of programs. On the contrary, the testimony we received 
reflected consensus that such direction would be counter-productive, 
and would not substantively improve weather forecasting.
   In light of that record, and the real goal of the bill's original 
sponsors to have a bipartisan bill, Chairman Stewart and Mr. 
Bridenstine agreed to accept a change in that language to simply direct 
NOAA to ``prioritize'' weather-related work. Instead of a value 
statement that puts weather in front of all other initiatives, we 
adopted a neutral process statement. This language was discussed with 
NOAA, and my staff and my Democratic colleagues on the committee were 
satisfied with their response. In other words, setting priorities is 
what the agency does in its strategic plans, annual performance plans, 
and budgets.
   The language in the bill before us today instructs NOAA to 
prioritize, a process that is already in place. The legislative record 
is clear on this subject. The Committee abandoned a value direction to 
the agency and instead adopted a simple process direction.
   My willingness to support the Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute and the underlying bill, and to recommend that colleagues on 
my side of the aisle do the same, was based in part on conversations 
with NOAA reflecting their understanding that the shift away from ``Top 
Priority'' represented a significant improvement to the legislation. I 
would not support legislation that sought to make weather forecasting 
superior to other areas of work at OAR, and the weather community would 
not support that either. Witnesses from across that community were very 
articulate on the interconnected nature of work in these three 
budgeting areas at NOAA. Proof that the minority would not support 
language that placed weather research in front of climate or oceans 
research can easily be found in our unanimous opposition to the 
original version of this bill, which moved through the subcommittee on 
a partisan vote. Only after the prioritization issue was addressed were 
minority committee members willing to support the bill.
   Although H.R. 2413 does not reprioritize funding from climate or 
oceans research to weather research, the bill does include some 
reprioritization across weather programs at NOAA. The most significant 
financial move is shifting the technology transfer program and account 
from the National Weather Service to NOAA's Office of Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Research.
   There is reprioritization within OAR, it can all be found in how the 
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research lays out its own weather 
research effort. For example, the bill puts in place a clear process 
that ties the needs of forecasters at the National Weather Service to 
the research initiatives at OAR.
   On the question of funding for weather research, I remind my 
colleagues that the total amount requested for weather and forecasting 
research at NOAA in the FY2015 budget is $207 million. In addition to 
the $84 million requested for OAR weather research, another $123 
million was requested for science and technology at the National 
Weather Service. This exceeds the amount requested for climate research 
by $19 million.
   As I have stated previously, expert witnesses testifying on this 
matter emphasized that improving weather forecasting accuracy requires 
prioritizing into oceans and climate. The physics and chemistry of 
these three areas makes them interconnected in a way that budgeting 
obscures.
   Weather is defined as what happens in the atmosphere in any 14-day 
period. Droughts and tropical storm seasons are driven by longer-term 
processes, well beyond 14 days. The severe weather phenomena that have 
been ravaging our country in recent years are

[[Page E530]]

climatic events that are the result of processes that can be measured 
in seasons and even years.
   Ocean and climate research undoubtedly support weather forecasting 
improvement. Similarly, understanding short-term phenomena--weather--
has implications for oceans and climate. The bill as amended reflects 
this understanding.
   Thank you, again, to Chair Smith and Ranking Member Johnson for 
giving us the support to work out a compromise. And I want reiterate my 
thanks to Mr. Bridenstine for his willingness to work with us and 
accept changes to the original bill.
   Mr. Speaker, weather is not a partisan issue. The American public 
needs and deserves the best weather forecasting system we can provide.
   This bill has broad support in the weather community among research 
institutions, established businesses, and emerging companies. 
Supporters include: The American Commercial Space Weather Association, 
University Consortium for Atmospheric Research, GeoOptics, Planet IQ, 
and The Weather Coalition.
   I particularly want to thank Mr. Stewart, the former Chair of the 
Environment Subcommittee, whose attitude throughout the process was 
collaborative and constructive, allowing us to arrive at the bipartisan 
bill we have before us today. Chair Schweikert, who took on the 
Chairmanship of the Subcommittee when Mr. Stewart went to the Committee 
on Appropriations, has brought with him that same collaborative spirit. 
And finally, thank you to all of the very hardworking staff on both 
sides of the aisle.
   In summary, this bill does not reallocate money from oceans or 
climate to weather research, I would not support a bill that did that. 
What the bill does do is to launch some new management processes 
designed to give taxpayers a better return on their investment while 
opening the door to exploring commercial opportunities that could 
reduce costs at NOAA. This bill can drive meaningful cultural change at 
NOAA, harvest the benefits of research tied to operational needs, and 
accomplish that without significant spending increases.
   This legislation will make real and measurable improvements in 
weather research and weather forecasting. I urge my colleagues to 
support this effort, and to vote yes on this bill.

                          ____________________