Subcommittee Reviews FY2013 Budget Request for EPA and NOAA
(Washington, DC) – Today the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing to review the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget requests for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Science and Technology activities at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Testifying before the Committee were the Administrator of NOAA, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, and the Acting Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) at EPA, Mr. Lek Kadeli.
As Ranking Member Brad Miller (D-NC) predicted in his opening statement, much of the hearing was spent discussing two subjects: the expansion of oil and gas drilling in the U.S., and the role EPA and NOAA play in understanding and responding to global climate change. At the start of the hearing, he commented, “These are critical research areas that EPA and NOAA are uniquely qualified to undertake. However, a discussion limited to hydraulic fracturing and climate change ignores the broad scope of the scientific activities these agencies pursue, and the critical roles they play in our lives every day. From forecasting the weather to protecting public health by ensuring cleaner air and water, these roles are too easily disregarded, and unfairly demonized, in the fog of partisan politics.”
Dr. Lubchenco said that the President’s request for NOAA reflects numerous tough choices, resulting in program terminations and budget cuts that include cutting the National Weather Service, terminating the National Mesonet, a network of weather stations designed to observe certain meteorological phenomena, and cutting the NOAA Education Program by more than half. Democratic Members expressed concern about several areas of NOAA’s budget, especially cuts to the National Weather Service, despite the increasing occurrence of severe weather seen throughout the country. They also discussed the NOAA’s satellite program and the projected data gap in weather data that will impact the ability of the National Weather Service to provide accurate long-term weather predictions.
Ranking Member Miller said, “I understand the need to set priorities in times of fiscal restraint, and I commend the Administration for doing so. But there are aspects of each budget that concern me. Despite the challenging economic times, it is unwise to sacrifice services that the public relies on, such as weather forecasting and warning capabilities. Nor should we undermine America’s future by failing to invest in the next generation workforce of scientists. We can be fiscally responsible while still making the necessary investments to keep our country and environment healthy and the American economy competitive. It is hard to avoid clichés in politics, but I try. There is a phrase that is widely-used because it is frequently apt: we are eating our seed corn. That is my great concern about our budget for research.”
Though generally supportive of the President’s budget request for NOAA and EPA, Democratic Members discussed a variety of subjects from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) to the scarcity of water resources, to the need for better severe weather forecasting. They also emphasized the value of NOAA’s and EPA’s science activities to the public.
Mr. Miller stressed, “We must not lose sight of the contribution that decades of science and technology research have provided to our economy and public health…. I think that we should all agree that good policy begins with good science, and that good science is not free. We must recognize the value of these programs, and work together to protect every American’s right to cleaner air and water and a healthier environment.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article