U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–050PDF 2011

AN OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET 

PROPOSALS AT THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2011 

Serial No. 112–5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, March 10, 2011 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 44 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration .......................................................................................................... 68 

Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ....................................... 84 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSALS AT THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AND THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph M. Hall 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 

1The NESS line office was formerly known as the National Environmental Satellite, Data, 

and Information Service, NESDIS. 

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012 Research and 

Development Budget Proposals at the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011

10:00–12:00

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

PURPOSE 

On Thursday, March 10, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. the House Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology will hold a hearing to examine the Administration’s Fiscal 

Year 2012 budget requests for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Science 

and Technology (S&T) Programs and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

WITNESSES 

Panel I 

• Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration 

Panel II 

• Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

BACKGROUND 

OVERALL FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST FOR NOAA 

The President’s FY 2012 budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration (NOAA) is $5.49 billion, a 15.8 percent increase above the fiscal year (FY) 2010 levels. 

NOAA’s core mission and activities include weather forecasting, climate prediction, and management of fisheries, coastal and ocean resources, as well as crosscutting research to support and advance these operational areas. NOAA carries out 

this mission through five major line offices: 

• National Ocean Service (NOS), responsible for mapping and charting coastal 

areas and providing other navigation support services. 

• National Weather Service (NWS), responsible for weather forecasts and warnings. 

• National Environmental Satellite Service (NESS 1), responsible for development and operation of satellites that monitor and transmit data for weather 

forecasting, climate prediction, space weather forecasting, and earth and 

ocean science research. 

• Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), responsible for research 

in support of most NOAA missions including atmospheric, coastal, and oceanic sciences, climate and air quality research, ecosystem research, and fisheries and marine mammal research. 

• National Marine Fisheries Service, responsible for stewardship of living marine resources through the conservation, management, and promotion of 

healthy ecosystems. 
4 

As part of the FY 2012 budget request, the Administration is proposing a major 

reorganization of NOAA that would include the establishment of a seventh line office. Assets from the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), the National Weather Service (NWS), and the National Environmental Satellite Service 

(NESS) would be transferred into a new Climate Service (CS) line office. 

Table 1 shows the primary accounts or line offices of the agency’s budget. The FY 

2012 budget request includes increases above the FY 2010 enacted levels for Program Support, the National Environmental Satellite Service (NESS), and the Climate Service (CS). The Administration’s budget proposes to decrease funding for 

National Ocean Service (NOS), the Office of Atmospheric and Oceanic Research 

(OAR), the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). 

Climate Service (CS) 

In February 2010, NOAA announced its intention to create a new Climate Service 

(CS) to provide public and private sector decision-makers with improved and expanded climate-related information. The FY 2012 budget request formalizes this intention, requesting $346.2 million for the CS, which would include assets consolidated from OAR, NWS, and NESS. This proposal represents the largest reorganization of NOAA since its creation in 1970. Specifically, the proposal would move more 

than half of OAR assets into the new CS, including the Climate Program Office, the 

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (climate modeling), and most of the Earth 

Systems Research Laboratory. From the NWS, CS would gain the Climate Prediction Center, the Regional U.S. Historical Climate Network, and the TAO array 

(monitoring). Finally, from NESS, the CS would gain the data and information centers that house the observational data from satellites, land and sea monitors. 

The proposed CS was subject to a National Academy of Public Administration 

(NAPA) review at the behest of the FY 10 Appropriations. The scope of the study 

included an assessment of: 

• how best to provide information at the global, regional, and state levels over 

varying timescales; 

• the interaction among the government and various users, stakeholders, researchers, and information providers of climate information in both the private and public sectors; 

• the development and distribution of products and information that will support decision-making; 

• the coordination and alignment of existing programs and resources internal 

and external to NOAA; and, 

• provide estimates on projected funding levels.Although the NAPA study endorsed the concept of a Climate Service, it was quite clear that it did not 

evaluate the impacts that the creation of a Climate Service would have on 

the rest of the NOAA research enterprise, and on OAR in particular. The 

Committee has not yet had the opportunity to hold hearings on the proposed 

climate service. 
5 

National Weather Service (NWS) 

NWS provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the 

United States, adjacent waters, and ocean areas, and maintains a national infrastructure of observing systems that gather and process data worldwide from the 

land, sea, and air. 

The FY 2012 request for NWS is $988 million, a decrease of $11.8 million, or one 

percent, below FY 2010 levels. The Administration is requesting a $4.7 million increase for the NWS Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) accounts and $16.5 

million decrease for the NWS Procurement, Acquisitions and Construction (PAC) accounts. A substantial amount of the decrease is attributed to the movement of assets to the newly formed CS and the elimination of congressionally directed projects. 

As part of the proposed reorganization, NWS would transfer to CS the following 

assets: the Climate Prediction Center (CPC), the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) 

observation array, and the Historical Climate Network (HCN). The CPC produces 

operational predictions of climate variability from one-week forecasts to seasonal 

forecasts. The TAO array is a series of bouys in the Pacific Ocean that transmit 

oceanographic and meterological data instrumental in NOAA’s prediction of El Nin ̃ o 

events. The HCN is a network of more than 1200 weather stations across the contiguous United States. 

The Administration requested increase in the ORF accounts is within the Local 

Warning and Forecasts Program for: (1) National Data Buoy Center for operations 

and maintenance of damaged buoys, (2) Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) development activities, and (3) supercomputing capabilities for more 

timely and accurate weather forecasts. 

The requested increases in the ORF accounts are partially offset by decreases in 

funding. There are several programs proposed for elimination that are designated 

by Congress for funding and are routinely eliminated by the Administration as 

‘‘Congressional earmarks.’’ This includes the National Mesonet Network, a Congressionally mandated program to explore the use of using integrated commercial and 

government meteorological data to improve forecasting. NOAA maintains that it will 

still be able to use data collected from existing observational systems and obtain additional observational data from networks that provide data free of charge ($19 million). Another program proposed for elimination includes the Weather Radio Improvement Project (WRIP). NOAA has completed the WRIP program, and has finished replacing weather radios ($5.4 million). 

The President’s FY 2012 request proposes to continue support in the following 

areas: complete the acquisition of global positioning system (GPS) radiosondes (i.e. 

weather balloon instruments) for 102 Upper Air observing stations ($9.0 million); 

support the initial operational deployment of a 4-dimensional (4–D) Weather Data 

Cube used for aviation weather ($26.9 million); improve IT security for the national 

critical space weather system ($11.6 million); and operation and maintenance of the 

Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) ($24.4 million), the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) ($11.3 million), and the Next Generation 

Weather Radar (NEXRAD) ($46.7 million). AWIPS is specialized software that assists forecasters in preparation of accurate, timely weather forecasts and warnings. 

ASOS is composed of the sensors needed to measure and record significant weather 

conditions. NEXRAD is the radar system that shows patterns and movement of 

weather conditions. 

National Environmental Satellite Service (NESS) 

The President’s budget request for the National Environmental Satellite Service 

(NESS) is $2.015 billion, a 44 percent increase over FY 2010 levels. Due to the 

movement of assets from NESS into the new CS, the Administration request would 

reduce the NESS Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) account by $81.3 million (41 percent) relative to FY 2010 levels, and increase the NESS Procurement, 

Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account by $699 million (58 percent) over FY 

2010. 

NESS ORF 

The ORF budget for NESS is for Environmental Satellite Observing Systems, and 

contains programmatic funding for management and processing of data received 

from all of NOAA’s ground- and space-based weather monitoring equipment. The requested increases of $5.1 million over the FY 2010 appropriation would support the 

routine replacement and upgrading of ground based equipment and software and to 

increase security protocols on NESS computer systems. 
6 

2 NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of 

Defense (DoD) collaborated to develop NPOESS. This tri-agency effort was abandoned in February 2010. 3 NOAA has been operating the Defense Meteorological Satellites for DoD since May 1998. 

NESS PAC 

The budget for NESS is dominated by acquisitions for NOAA’s two weather satellite systems: the Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites (POES), which orbit the 

earth and provide information for medium to long-range weather forecasts; and the 

geostationary satellites (GOES), which gather data above a fixed position on the 

earth’s surface and provide information for short-range warnings and current 

weather conditions. To maintain the continuity of weather forecasting data as older 

satellites retire, a new series of satellites are under development for both systems. 

Increases and decreases in the PAC account reflect different phases of satellite acquisition. For example, there is a proposed decrease of $50.1 million from the FY 

2010 budget for the current series of GOES satellites, GOES–R, due to a rephrasing 

of program resources and continue instrument, spacecraft and ground system development for GOES R and S. Cost overruns and delays have plagued this program. 

Originally scheduled for launch in 2014, GOES–R has been delayed until 2015, and 

its projected cost has grown by $5 billion from the original estimate of $6.2 billion. 

NOAA consequently restructured the program to achieve cost reductions, and obtained independent cost estimates for the program. The Administration now estimates the cost of the new GOES series at $7.62 billion through 2028. Cost savings 

were achieved by reducing the number of satellites in the series (from four to two) 

as well as removing one of the satellite’s major sensors. The PAC account also reflects the $687.8 million requested increase for the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS). The JPSS total request of $1.07 billion comprises 

most of the nearly 52% increase of the NESS line office over FY 10 levels. This increase is a sizable portion of the agency’s total $750 million proposed growth in FY 

2012. 

JPSS evolved from a tri-agency effort to develop a satellite system known as 

NPOESS 2. NPOESS data and products are considered ‘‘mission-critical’’ for both civilian and military weather forecasting and climatology needs; however, the program had major problems throughout its existence. Since 2002, oversight by Congressional Committees, Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, and independent review teams have documented problems with satellite instrumentation, cooperation among the agencies involved, and the program’s life-cycle cost; GAO’s 

most recent testimony to the S&T Committee indicated that total cost estimates had 

grown to between $15 billion and $16.5 billion and were not yet stabilized. 

Due to these serious management issues, schedule slips, and cost over-runs, the 

Administration’s FY 2012 budget reflects the major restructuring of NPOESS that 

occurred in 2010. The decision dissolved the integrated program into two separate 

programs: a military program managed by the Department of Defense, and a civilian program managed by NOAA/NASA. The NOAA/NASA program known as JPSS 

is responsible for satellites flying in the afternoon orbits while DoD satellites are 

responsible for the morning orbits. The United States will rely on European satellites for operational weather observations for the remaining late-morning orbit. 

Satellite procurement will be separated for each program; however, both programs 

will deliver data to a common ground system, and NOAA will continue to operate 

all satellites while in orbit. 3

Part of this program included a research satellite, the NPOESS Preparatory 

Project (NPP) that was intended to be launched during the last years of the original 

POES satellites in order to compare instrument functionality and usefulness and to 

calibrate data coming from the new instruments against the data from existing instruments. Due to the delays this program has experienced, the initial May 2006 

launch of NPP has slipped to an October 2011 launch date. Instead of acting as a 

research tool, NPP has now been designated an operational satellite in order to ensure continuity of data, given that the first JPSS satellite is not schedule to launch 

until 2016. In addition to procuring these satellite systems, the Administration is 

requesting $30.4 million to restore high priority climate sensors that were de-manifested from the NPOESS program in 2006 as a result of the Nunn-McCurdy mandated restructuring of the program. 

NOAA oversees several satellite systems in addition to GOES and POES. The 

Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), formerly known as Triana, has a request of $47.3 million to initiate refurbishment of the satellite and to develop a Coronal Mass Imager (CME) to maintain continuity of solar wind data used for geomagnetic storm warnings. The total life cycle of DSCOVR is projected to be $85 million. The JASON satellite series is managed in partnership with the European Or-
7 

ganization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT). The 

JASON–3 satellite FY 2011 budget request is a $33 million increase over the FY 

2010 level of $20 million to continue the development of this altimetry satellite that 

will provide data for ocean climatology and hurricane intensity forecasting. 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) 

The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is the primary research 

arm of NOAA, conducting the scientific research, environmental studies, and technology development necessary to improve NOAA operations. OAR activities are carried out at NOAA and via extramural research activities at 30 National Sea Grant 

colleges and universities. The proposed formation of the Climate Service would reduce the size of OAR by more than half, to $212 million for FY 2012. The Administration proposes to reduce funding for OAR by $237.1 million, approximately a 53 

percent decrease below the FY 2010 $549 million level. 

Notable budget changes at the remaining programs at OAR include: 

• An increase of $6 million in the Phased Array Radar and Tornado Severe 

Storm Research. 

• An increase of $2 million in Weather and Air Quality Research for wind 

boundary-layer research to support renewable energy. 

• An increase of $1 million in Sea Grant to conduct risk assessment research 

for coastal communities preparing for and responding to natural hazards and 

extreme events. 

• The Administration requests $11.6 million in funding for the Integrated 

Ocean Acidification Research program. This work is aimed at enhancing current knowledge to improve adaptive strategies and management of living marine resources impacted by ocean acidification. 

• A decrease of $3 million from Unmanned Aircraft Systems. 

• A decrease of $1.3 million from the U.S. Weather Research Program (reflecting the completion of some research projects). 

• A $19.5 million decrease for Congressionally Directed Programs. 

National Ocean Service (NOS) 

The National Ocean Service (NOS) protects the National Marine Sanctuaries and 

advocates coastal and ocean stewardship. The NOS also introduced electronic nautical charts which interface with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to enhance the 

safety and efficiency of navigation of U.S. waterways. The President’s FY 2012 request of $558.6 million would reduce overall funding for NOS programs by $20.5 

million, or 3.5 percent, compared to the FY 2010 level. The NOS ORF account is reduced by $11 million. The Ocean Resources, Conservation and Assessment account has a proposed net reduction as compared to the FY 

2010 enacted budget of $7.4 million. This includes a $8 million reduction in the 

Ocean Assessment Program (OAP), and an increase of $2.9 million for Response and 

Restoration oil spill research. The Ocean Assessment Program includes an increase 

in funding for the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Surface Current 

Mapping of $5 million, an increase of $8.5 million for IOOS Regional Observations 

for marine sensor technology innovations. The FY 2012 budget request includes a 

$1.2 million increase for the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), 

and a decrease of $1.2 million for energy licensing and appeals. The NOS–PAC accounts are also reduced by $9 million. This includes a cut in the Marine Sanctuaries 

Construction ($7.5 million) and a decrease of $2.2 million in the acquisition and construction activities of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. 

Program Support 

The Program Support line office supports corporate services and agency management. This includes the Under Secretary’s office, the office of the Chief Financial 

Officer, the Program, Planning and Integration Office, and the NOAA Education 

Program. Overall, the Administration requests an increase in the Program Support 

account of $6.2 million, for a total of $301.2 million, a two percent increase over the 

FY 10 level. 

Overall FY 2012 Budget Request for EPA 

The President’s FY 2012 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is $8.97 billion, a reduction of 12.9 percent below FY 2010 levels. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has jurisdiction over the Science and 

Technology budget listed in Table 2 below. 
8 

FY 2011 Science & Technology Account: Office of Research and Development 

The Administration’s budget request for S&T is $826 million. This includes $584 

million for the Office of Research and Development (ORD), S&T activities conducted 

by other program offices (e.g. Office of Air, Office of Water), as well as $27 million 

requested for S&T activities associated with the Superfund program. In the past, 

the Superfund S&T funds were drawn primarily from the Superfund trust that was 

funded by the dedicated Superfund tax. Since the expiration of the tax, this fund 

no longer exists and all funds must be appropriated from general revenues. 

Approximately 71 percent of S&T funding is for EPA’s ORD, which is the primary 

research arm of the agency. Typically, most of the remaining S&T funds go to the 

Office of Air and Radiation, and a smaller amount to the Office of Water and to the 

other program offices. 

ORD conducts and sponsors both fundamental research in environmental science 

and more targeted research to inform EPA’s regulatory programs. For example, 

ORD provides scientific information to support and implement the Clean Water Act. 

ORD also develops the scientific risk information for the agency’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS), a database of human health effects of certain chemicals. 

This program is used by EPA, individual states, and other government agencies to 

determine hazardous waste site clean-up, drinking water, and other health-based 

standards. ORD develops the scientific underpinning for EPA’s air quality standards 

in areas such as particulate matter and ozone. ORD also investigates the environmental implications of emerging areas such as nanotechnology and endocrine 

disruptors. 

ORD carries out these responsibilities by conducting intramural research at EPA’s 

laboratories, awarding contracts, and supporting fellowships and research at colleges and universities through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant program. The table above provides breakouts of ORD funds among the various research 

programs at ORD. 

Within the context of a decrease in funding for EPA as a whole, the FY 2012 

budget proposes funding for a range of intramural and extramural research and development activities. 

• $86 million for the STAR Program, a $24.7 million increase over FY 2010 enacted levels, to invest in the next generation of environmental scientists and 

to leverage wider scientific community expertise on key issues. 

• $83.1 million for clean air research and $20.8 million for global change research. 

• $5.4 million in for research into electronic waste and green chemistry. 

• $4.4 million to study the impact of hydraulic fracturing technology on ground 

water quality and implications for public health and the environment. 

• An increase of $17.8 million for Chemical Safety and Sustainability Activities. 

A budget request of $16.9 million for endocrine disrupting chemicals research 

and $ 21.2 million for computational toxicology. Both are important for 

human health and ecological risk assessment. 

• $2 million for a long-term lab study 
9 
10 

Chairman HALL. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Good morning to everyone. We welcome 

you. This hearing is entitled ‘‘An Overview of the Fiscal Year 2012 

Research and Development Budget Proposals at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written 

testimony, biography, and truth in testimony disclosure for today’s 

witnesses. Our first panel will feature NOAA Administrator Dr. 

Jane Lubchenco. Our second panel will feature EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development, Dr. Paul 

Anastas. 

I recognize myself for an opening statement. 

I want to welcome everyone here today for the hearing on the 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, that is NOAA, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. 

In the first two months of the year, the President made two important praiseworthy announcements. He called for a review of the 

unnecessary regulations, such as those under which the benefits 

don’t justify the cost, or those not grounded in sound science. Then 

he announced during his State of the Union speech that he would 

be willing to eliminate whatever spending we can honestly afford 

to do without. The President has followed these announcements by 

proposing a budget with over $1 trillion in deficit spending, and 

pushing a bevy of job-killing regulations, without heed to current 

economic conditions. In light of his stated priorities, the President’s 

actions on the budget and regulations are appearing to be empty 

promises. 

The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for NOAA contains few surprises, with several concerns. The administration has 

proposed the largest reorganization in NOAA history in order to 

create a new climate service. As I said at last year’s budget hearing, I am not supportive of this change and am concerned that it 

has not been properly vetted by Congress. I do, however, want to 

acknowledge to the administrator that I appreciate that this proposal was made through the budget process this year. This is a regular order we were requesting a year ago. 

Nevertheless, this Committee has not yet had the opportunity to 

fully examine the implications of transition in the fundamental climate research in the operational office. Until then, unless Congress 

reviews and approves the proposal, I don’t expect NOAA to continue to operate as it did prior to the February 2010 announcement. There should be no changes in the existing management matrix, no changes in decision-making or reporting lines within the 

line offices, and no authorities changed under the guise of transition. 

Another area of the President’s budget that concerns me is the 

proposed increases for the Joint Polar Satellite System. This Committee has been engaged in the oversight of this program since it 

was the dysfunctional tri-agency mess subject to recertification 

under Nunn-McCurdy. 

It has been more than a year since the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy proposed splitting this program into two elements: one controlled by NOAA and NASA, and a separate one con-
11 

trolled by the Department of Defense. In all this time, we still have 

not seen how the division of this program has worked, and whether 

or not it will reduce the risk of a potential gap in weather and climate data. Furthermore, we have still not seen the baseline cost 

estimate of these two separate programs. I look forward to hearing 

from the Administration on this subject. 

Our second panel, we will hear about EPA’s fiscal year 2012 research and development budget request. We are all well aware of 

the great impact that EPA regulatory actions can have. Often overlooked in this debate, however, is agency process and how it affects 

the quality of underlying science that these regulations are based 

on. This is the purview of the Committee and an issue I am committed to pursue in further detail. 

For example, since our last EPA budget hearing, more information has come to light that the science used to justify the finding 

that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health or welfare is not 

as solid as was originally claimed. The numerous admitted mistakes, questionable data sets and lack of transparency in the process has only intensified the questions and doubts that this decision 

was made as a result of politics instead of science. 

Unfortunately, climate is not the only area in which EPA science 

is a concern. I was very disappointed with the release of the draft 

hydraulic fracturing study. The questions EPA posed to answer 

would hardly be helpful to a decision-maker. This study is focused 

on the impact possibilities of hydraulic fracturing on drinking 

water, without even looking at the possibilities of such an impact 

occurring. It seems about as useful as studying the possible impacts of getting hit by a bus without ever even considering the 

probability of such an event occurring even when existing laws and 

simple precautionary steps are taken. Accordingly, I look forward 

to hearing further from EPA on the factors driving its hydraulic 

fracturing study. 

There is a lot of work to be done to put our country back on the 

right track, and the President’s budget request is not the roadmap 

that will get us there. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH M. HALL

I want to welcome everyone here today for this hearing on the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2012 budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

In the first two months of the year, the President made two important praiseworthy announcements. He called for a review of unnecessary regulations, such as 

those under which the benefits don’t justify the costs or those not grounded in sound 

science. 

Then he announced during his State of the Union speech that he would be willing 

to eliminate whatever spending we can honestly afford to do without. 

The President has followed those announcements by proposing a budget with over 

a trillion dollars in deficit spending and pushing a bevy of job-killing regulations 

without heed to current economic conditions. In light of his stated priorities, the 

President’s actions on the budget and regulations are appearing to be empty promises. 

The President’s FY 2012 budget request for NOAA contains few surprises, but 

several concerns. The Administration has proposed the largest reorganization in 

NOAA history in order to create a new Climate Service. As I said at last year’s 

budget hearing, I am not supportive of this change and concerned it has not been 

properly vetted by Congress. I do however want to acknowledge to the Adminis-
12 

trator that I appreciate that this proposal was made through the budget process this 

year. This is the regular order I was requesting a year ago. 

Nevertheless, this Committee has not yet had the opportunity to fully examine 

the implications of transitioning fundamental climate research into an operational 

office. Until and unless Congress reviews and approves this proposal, I expect 

NOAA to continue to operate as it did prior to the February 2010 announcement. 

There should be no changes in the existing management matrix, no changes in decision-making or reporting lines within the line offices, and no authorities changed 

under the guise of transition. 

Another area of the President’s budget that concerns me is the proposed increases 

for the Joint Polar Satellite System. This Committee has been engaged in the oversight of this program since it was a dysfunctional, tri-agency mess subject to recertification under Nunn-McCurdy. 

It has been more than a year since the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

proposed splitting this program into two elements: one controlled by NOAA and 

NASA, and a separate one controlled by the Department of Defense. In all this time, 

we still have not seen how the division of this program has worked to reduce the 

risk of a potential gap in weather and climate data. Furthermore, we have still not 

seen the baseline cost estimates of these two separate programs. I look forward to 

hearing from the Administrator on this subject. 

On our second panel, we will hear about EPA’s FY 2012 research and development budget request. We are all well aware of the great impact that EPA regulatory 

actions can have. Often overlooked in this debate, however, is agency process and 

how it affects the quality of the underlying science that these regulations are based 

on. That is the purview of this Committee and an issue I’m committed to pursuing 

in further detail. 

For example, since our last EPA budget hearing, more information has come to 

light that the science used to justify the finding that carbon dioxide is a danger to 

public health or welfare is not as solid as was originally claimed. The numerous admitted mistakes, questionable data sets and lack of transparency in the process has 

only intensified the questions and doubts that this decision was made as a result 

of politics instead of science. 

Unfortunately, climate is not the only area in which EPA science is a concern. 

I was very disappointed with the release of the draft hydraulic fracturing study. The 

questions EPA posed to answer would hardly be helpful to a decision-maker. The 

study is focused on the impact possibilities of hydraulic fracturing on drinking 

water, without ever looking at the probabilities of such an impact occurring. It 

seems about as useful as studying the possible impacts of getting hit by a bus without ever considering the probability of such an event occurring within existing laws 

and when simple precautionary steps are taken. Accordingly I look forward to hearing further from EPA on the factors driving its hydraulic fracturing study. 

There is a lot of work to be done to put our country back on the right track, and 

the President’s budget request is not the roadmap that will get us there. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Johnson for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Chairman HALL. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. 

Johnson, for five minutes, or whatever time she might require on 

her opening statement. 

I thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall, and let me also 

wish to welcome the witnesses, Dr. Lubchenco and Dr. Anastas, to 

the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. 

While the two sides of the aisle might not always agree on the 

appropriate resources and directions for NOAA and EPA, I think 

that we all agree that good policy begins with good science. 

Testifying today are two of the Nation’s top scientists, running 

two of our premier science agencies. Not only is this hearing a 

venue for Members to ask questions and express concerns, it 

should serve as an opportunity for our witnesses to convey the importance of what these agencies do for the American people. 

From forecasting the weather and assessing the impacts of a 

changing climate on our economy, to protecting public health by ensuring cleaner air and water, and the development of safer chemi-
13 

cals, in these and in a host of other ways, NOAA and EPA conduct 

science to benefit our lives every day, in ways often too easily overlooked in the fog of partisan politics. 

It is important to note that the unique jurisdiction that this 

Committee has in EPA and acknowledge that with the Office of Research and Development and all of the Science and Technology activities, EPA is not just a regulatory agency. We must not lose 

sight of the contribution that science activities at EPA have provided to the public for decades. Our environment does not just get 

better by itself, it requires all of us working together to protect 

every American’s right to clean air and water, and a healthier environment. 

We are here today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 

budget request for NOAA and EPA. However, it is difficult to discuss the outlook for the next fiscal year when we have not yet determined funding levels for this current fiscal year and assess the 

full extent of the damage that the lack of a fiscal federal budget 

is causing. 

In these challenging economic times, we need not sacrifice everything for the sake of making cuts. With vision and perseverance, 

we can be fiscally responsible while still making the necessary investments to keep the American economy competitive and our people and environment healthy. 

The President has already made some tough decisions in the 

2012 budget request for these agencies. However, the much deeper 

cuts included in H.R. 1 that passed the House three weeks ago 

would put these and other agencies at risk of failing to meet their 

missions. 

At the least, we must ask ourselves whether the very negligible 

effect these cuts will have on the national deficit warrants the devastation it would cause to our core scientific programs, their critical 

workforce, infrastructure, their capacity to address natural disasters, and protect public health and the environment. 

If cuts on the order of those in House Bill H.R. 1 were enacted, 

thousands of research scientists, graduate students, technical and 

administrative staff, contractors, and other support staff across the 

country would be laid off or furloughed; and at a time when we are 

trying to protect American jobs. 

Critical research activities to develop new technologies and methods to protect the public from environmental hazards and monitor 

long-term environmental change will be stopped or curtailed. 

Weather forecasting systems may fail, creating gaps in critical 

weather data and eroding weather services that every American relies on. We would no longer see the two or three day advance warnings of extreme events, putting lives, property and critical infrastructure at risk. 

These cuts don’t take us back to 2008; they will turn the clock 

back and take us back to relying on weather forecasts and capabilities, and environmental protection standards from over two decades ago. 

America wants us to be fiscally responsible, but if they can’t 

breathe clean air, and drink clean water, or help communities and 

industries prepare for harsh weather and natural disaster, what 

does that really mean? 
14 

Dr. Lubchenco and Dr. Anastas, as you testify today, perhaps the 

most important assistance you can give to this Committee is a real 

understanding of how the proposed cuts will affect your agency’s 

ability to protect the health and well-being of our citizens and communities, and why you believe the President’s request will move 

our Nation science enterprise in the right direction. 

Chairman Hall and all the Members of this Committee, I look 

forward to working with you in the months ahead, and I look forward to hearing our witnesses. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Chairman Hall. I also wish to welcome the witnesses, Dr. Lubchenco, 

and later, Dr. Anastas, to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. 

While the two sides of the aisle might not always agree on the appropriate resources and directions for KOAA and EPA, I think that we would all agree that 

good policy begins with good science. Testifying today are two of the nation’s top 

scientists running two of our premier science agencies. Not only is this hearing a 

venue for Members to ask questions and express concerns, it should serve as an opportunity for our witnesses to convey the importance of what these agencies do for 

the American people. 

From forecasting the weather and assessing the impacts of a changing climate on 

our economy, to protecting public health by ensuring cleaner and water and the development of safer chemicals—in these and a host of other ways, NOAA and EPA 

conduct science to benefit our lives every day, and in ways often too easily overlooked in the fog of partisan politics. 

It is important to note the unique jurisdiction that this Committee has in EPA 

and acknowledge that, with the Office of Research and Development and all of the 

Science and Technology activities, EPA is not just a regulatory agency. We must not 

lose sight of the contribution that science activities at EPA have provided to the 

public for decades. Our environment does not just get better by itself; it requires 

all of us working together to protect every America’s right to clean air and water 

and a healthier environment. 

We are here today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget request for 

KOAA and EPA. However, it is difficult to discuss the outlook for the next fiscal 

year when we have yet to determine funding levels for this current fiscal year and 

assess the full extent of the damage that the lack of a final budget is causing. 

In these challenging economic times we need not sacrifice everything for the sake 

of making cuts. With vision and perseverance, we can be fiscally responsible while 

still making me necessary investments to keep the American economy competitive 

and our people and environment healthy. 

The President has already made some tough decisions in the 2012 budget request 

for these agencies. However, the much deeper cuts included in H.R.l that passed the 

House three weeks ago would put these and other agencies at risk of failing to meet 

their missions. 

At the least we must ask ourselves whether the very negligible effect these cuts 

will have on the national deficit warrants the devastation it will cause to our core 

scientific programs, their critical workforce and infrastructure, and their capacity to 

address natural disasters and protect public health and the environment. 

If cuts on the order of those in the House-passed H.R.1 were enacted: 

• Thousands of research scientists, graduate students, technical and administrative staff, contractors, and other support staff across the country will be 

laid-off or furloughed, and at a time when we are trying to protect American 

jobs. 

• Critical research activities to develop new technologies and methods to protect 

the public from environmental hazards, and monitor long-term environmental 

change will be stopped or curtailed. 

• Weather forecasting systems may fail, creating gaps in critical weather data 

and eroding weather services that every American relies on. We would no 

longer see the 2–3 day advance warnings of extreme events, putting lives, 

property, and critical infrastructure at risk. 
15 

These cuts don’t just take us back to 2008; they will turn back the clock and take 

us back to relying on the weather forecasting capabilities and environmental protection standards from over two decades ago. 

Americans want us to be fiscally responsible. But if they can’t breathe clean air 

and drink clean water, or help communities and industries prepare for harsh weather and natural disasters, what does that mean? 

Dr. Lubchenco and Dr. Anastas, as you testify today, perhaps the most important 

assistance you can give to this Committee is a real understanding of how the proposed cuts will affect your agencies’ ability to protect the health and well-being of 

our citizens and communities, and why you believe the President’s request will move 

our nation’s science enterprise in the right direction. 

Chairman Hall and all of the Members of this Committee, I look forward to working with you in the months ahead. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. If there are Members 

who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point. 

Let me say, we are going to try to stay with the five minute rule. 

It is not fair to those at the end. Mr. Sarbanes, for example, has 

stayed, I think, 2–1/2 hours and didn’t get to ask a question last 

time. I am inclined to give him my time, he is so patient, or give 

him the award for patience here. Nobel Prize for patience. 

I will introduce the first panel witness, and ask the witnesses to 

be as direct as you can. Please do your best to stay with the five 

minutes, but if you can’t, we are honored to have you here and we 

will be lenient with the gavel. 

At this time, I would like to introduce our first panel witness, Dr. 

Jane Lubchenco. I hope I am saying that right. People mispronounce Hall every now and then, put an ‘‘e’’ in it where there 

is an ‘‘a’’, but I don’t like that. 

Prior to her service as Administrator at NOAA, she served as 

President of the American Society for the Advancement of Science, 

a professor at Harvard and Oregon State University, and she was 

also on the Board of Directors for the National Science Foundation. 

She was sworn in on March 20, 2009, and this is the third time 

she has appeared before the Committee. We thank you for being 

here. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes, after which the Members of the Committee will have 

five minutes each to ask questions. Before I recognize Dr. 

Lubchenco, I want to ask you to please do your best to stay within 

that. Thank you. 

We recognize you now, ma’am. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JANE LUBCHENCO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the Committee, Chairman Hall, I greatly appreciate 

your leadership and your support for NOAA. As you know, we are 

one of the Nation’s premier environmental science and stewardship 

agencies. Your continued support for our program is appreciated as 

we work within the Department of Commerce to improve science, 

products, and services that are vital to supporting America’s businesses, communities, and people. At NOAA, our work is everyone’s 

business. 

I am honored to be here today to discuss the President’s fiscal 

year 2012 budget request, which promotes innovation in American 
16 

competitiveness, and lays the foundation for long-term economic 

growth, while making responsible reductions. 

The budget recognizes the central role that science and technology play in creating jobs and improving the health and security 

of Americans. I wish in my oral remarks to highlight five lynchpins 

of our fiscal year 2012 request: key savings, climate services, research and innovation, weather, and satellites. 

Savings highlights. As part of the Administration’s Administrative Efficiency Initiative, NOAA analyzed its administrative costs 

and reduced non-essential spending by $67.7 million. We conducted 

a rigorous review of our programs and activities and identified additional savings. The 2012 request is $5.5 billion dollars, a decrease 

from fiscal year 2011 request, an increase above fiscal year 2010 

enacted, due primarily to our requirements to execute the restructured civil polar satellite program. 

The fiscal year 2012 request includes a proposed budget-neutral 

reorganization that brings together NOAA’s existing but widely dispersed climate capabilities under a single line office management 

structure, called the Climate Service. 

The Climate Service, if approved by Congress, would have a budget of $346 million. A key point to keep in mind is that many 

people think of climate as something that is far down the road, 

something way in the future. However, the word ‘‘climate’’ generally refers to long-term weather, specifically, anything longer 

than two weeks. People are anxious to have information to plan for 

the months and years ahead, and we believe the Climate Service 

can assist in a meaningful fashion. 

The proposed reorganization would also strengthen world class 

fundamental science for which NOAA is justly known. This Committee has repeatedly said that this goal is important to you. It is 

equally important to NOAA and to me. Without continued advances in basic science that supports our mission, the quality of our 

services will degrade. 

The climate services we provide demonstrate the intuity of continually improving our scientific capacity. For example, through 

collaboration with the National Association of Homebuilders and 

HUD, NOAA developed an air freezing index that the homebuilding 

industry estimates saves $300 million annually in construction 

costs, and the equivalent of nine million gallons of gasoline. Advances in science make it possible for us to provide useful information about the months to year timeframe, something that has the 

potential to be of immense utility to businesses, communities, and 

military operations. 

Parallel to creating the Climate Service, NOAA would strengthen 

and realign its core research line office. The Office of Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research will focus its work to be the innovator and 

incubator of new science technologies and application within 

NOAA, and an integrator of science and technology across all of 

NOAA, consistent with the President’s call for science and innovation. 

NOAA’S request includes $212 million to continue strengthening 

core capacities such as our understanding of ocean acidification and 

its impacts, and promoting conservation and use of America’s coastal resources to our renowned Sea Grant Program. 
17 

The National Weather Service provides critical information to 

communities and emergency managers, and it is the Nation’s first 

line of defense against severe weather. The fiscal year 2012 request 

for the Service is $988 million. This includes a $26.9 million increase to modernize our aviation weather forecasts and warnings 

to support NextGen developmental activities. 

NOAA’s satellites provide the data and information for forecasters that are vital to every citizen. They enable smart construction in emergency rescue missions, safe transportation, whether it 

is on land, water, or in the oceans and Great Lakes. The fiscal year 

2012 budget request for the satellite service is $2 billion, which we 

will invest in multiple satellite acquisition programs for the continuity of critical weather, climate, and oceanographic data. This 

includes an increase of $687 million for the Joint Polar Satellite 

System. This program is essential if we are to maintain the quality 

of our severe storm warnings, provide long-term forecasts, and receive emergency distress signals in a timely fashion. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that I am holding 

a nickel in my hand here. I believe that this nickel represents one 

of the best bargains I know of. It costs Americans—each American 

less than 5 cents a day to run NOAA, and for this nickel, you get 

the best weather information in the world. This nickel means that 

our oceans and coasts are healthy and vibrant, and in turn, our 

coastal communities are more prosperous. This nickel gives mariners the confidence that their distress signals will be received. This 

nickel allows us to save lives and property when severe storms 

strike. This nickel helps business owners succeed: from the farmers 

in the Heartland, to fishermen on the coasts, and everyone in between. This nickel helps keep our homeland secure. At NOAA, our 

work is everyone’s business. We take our work seriously because 

we know that citizens and businesses depend upon us each and 

every day. 

I look forward to working with Members of the Committee and 

our constituents to achieve these goals I have laid out through the 

implementation of the 2012 budget, and I am happy to respond to 

any questions that the Committee might have. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY DR. JANE LUBCHENCO, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL

ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC ADMINISTRATION

Chairman Hall and Members of the Committee, before I begin my testimony I 

would like to thank you for your leadership and the support you have shown the 

Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), one of the Nation’s premier environmental science and stewardship agencies. Your continued support for our programs is appreciated as we work to improve 

the products and services that are vital to supporting America’s businesses, communities, and people. I am honored to be here as the Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Oceans and Atmosphere at NOAA to discuss the President’s FY 2012 budget. 

Secretary Locke is singularly focused on how the Department of Commerce can 

help American businesses compete for the jobs of the future. As part of the Commerce Department, NOAA generates value for the Nation by providing the information and services that communities, managers, businesses, and individuals rely on 

every day to make decisions about their lives and businesses. NOAA touches the 

lives of every single American; we work 24/7 to keep families safe, property protected, living marine resources vibrant, communities thriving, and businesses 

strong. NOAA works everywhere, in every state, and from the surface of the sun 
18 

to the depths of the ocean. Our research informs our many services and science 

guides our stewardship of the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. 

The President’s FY 2012 budget request promotes innovation and American competitiveness and lays the foundation for long-term economic growth, while making 

responsible reductions. In particular, the budget recognizes the central role that 

science and technology play in stimulating the economy, creating new jobs, and improving the health and security of Americans. 

FY 2012 BUDGET REQUEST AND FY 2010 HIGHLIGHTS 

Secretary Locke has brought a dedicated focus on efficiency and good management 

to the Department of Commerce. As part of the Administration’s Administrative Efficiency Initiative, an aggressive government-wide effort to curb non-essential administrative spending, NOAA analyzed its administrative costs and reduced non-essential spending by $67.7 million. Beyond administrative savings, NOAA engaged 

in a rigorous review of its programs and activities and identified additional savings 

that were achievable. For example, we were able to reduce the cost of operating our 

current satellite programs, and we restructured our international portfolio of climate research. Further, as a member of the newly established Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Task Force we are working with federal and state agencies to find efficiencies, improve coordination and accountability in restoring Gulf Coast ecosystems. 

In short, the FY 2012 budget for NOAA reflects our efforts to focus on program 

needs, identify efficiencies, and ensure accountability. It sustains core functions and 

services, and proposes increases for only the most critical programs, projects, or activities necessary to address the growing demand for NOAA’s science, services, and 

stewardship. The FY 2012 request is $5.5 billion, which is a decrease from the FY 

2011 request. The FY 2012 request is an increase above FY 2010 enacted due primarily to our requirements to execute the restructured civil polar satellite program. 

As I will discuss later, this new generation of satellites is needed to replace satellites that will go out of service in the years to come. They are essential for both 

routine weather forecasts on which the private weather industry depends, and for 

storm warnings and watches that only the government can issue. The expenditures 

on satellites are mission critical for NOAA. People’s lives and property depend on 

them. This year 21 people have been rescued because of NOAA satellite tracking, 

and 91 have been rescued since last October. Beyond weather forecasts, fishermen 

and recreational boaters count on NOAA satellites to keep them safe in the event 

of an emergency at sea. 

The FY 2012 NOAA budget recognizes that environmental and economic sustainability go hand in hand. We learned through the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and 

other events that we cannot have healthy economies without healthy communities 

and healthy ecosystems and that good science and stewardship is good business. 

NOAA’s 2012 budget makes the investments needed to save lives and livelihoods, 

to understand these critical connections, and to ensure sustainable communities, 

economies, and ecosystems. 

Now I will turn to the details of the FY 2012 budget request and outline areas 

of significant investment. 

Climate Service 

The FY 2012 budget request includes a proposed budget-neutral reorganization 

that brings together NOAA’s existing widely dispersed climate capabilities under a 

single line office management structure called the Climate Service. The proposed organization mirrors the structure recommended by the National Academy of Public 

Administration expert panel that, at Congress’ request, completed a study on options for a climate service in NOAA. The principal goal of this budget-neutral reorganization is to better align NOAA’s existing assets under a unified leadership to 

more efficiently and effectively respond to the rapidly increasing public demand for 

climate services. The Climate Service would provide reliable and authoritative climate data, information, and decision-support services, and to more effectively coordinate with other agencies, partners, and the private sector. And—important to 

this Committee and to me—the proposed structure would strengthen the world-class 

science for which NOAA is justly known. Without continued advances in the science 

that supports our mission, the utility of services will degrade with time. Hence, the 

success of this organization requires attention to strengthening our core science capacity, strengthening the service-provision capacity and strengthening the connections between the two. 

NOAA is continually improving our scientific and technological capacity to develop 

and deliver a range of science and services. For example, NOAA’s improved max-
19 

imum precipitation predictions have been used to develop new standards for dam 

design that are being implemented around the Nation to improve dam safety and 

reliability. Similarly, through collaboration with the National Association of Home 

Builders and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, NOAA developed 

an Air Freezing Index that the home building industry estimates saves $300 million 

annually in construction costs and the equivalent of 9 million gallons of gasoline. 

The budget-neutral realignment of resources within the current NOAA budget 

would not change staffing levels, would not require employee relocations, physical 

relocation of programs or labs, any new facilities, and would not increase the size 

of NOAA’s overhead. The Climate Service headquarters would be located in Silver 

Spring, Maryland. 

The NOAA Climate Service, if approved by Congress, would have a budget of $346.2 million. Of this amount, NOAA proposes $3.0 million to support the Regional 

Climate Centers (RCC) in FY 2012. This funding will maintain support for RCCs 

as critical NOAA partners in the development and delivery of regional climate services. The RCCs will be aligned with the six NOAA Climate Service Regions and fully 

integrated as core components of NOAA’s regional climate services partnership. 

Each center will function as a source of expertise in the region, working to identify 

stakeholder needs and matching these needs with the emerging science and decision 

support services flowing from the Climate Service’s core capabilities. For example, 

this work could improve products for farmers, who already rely on NOAA climate 

data, particularly in El Nin ̃ o/Southern Oscillation years, to make smart decisions 

about what variety of seed to plant and the amount of fertilizer to use. These types 

of forecasts can potentially provide a $500–$960 million per year benefit to the U.S. 

agriculture industry. 

National Weather Service (NWS) 

NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) is the Nation’s first line of defense 

against severe weather. NOAA provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts 

and warnings for the United States, its territories, and adjacent waters for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. More sectors of the U.S. economy are recognizing the impacts of weather, water, and climate 

on their operations and are becoming more sophisticated at using weather-related 

information to make better decisions. The NWS provides critical information to communities and emergency managers. In 2010, the United States experienced a number of extreme weather events including the historic winter blizzards in the Northeast early in the year, historic flooding in the Midwest and Tennessee, and the third 

most active Atlantic hurricane season on record. 

The FY 2012 request for NWS is $988 million. The request envisions using costcutting and cutting-edge technologies to better support the programs necessary to 

achieve NOAA’s vision of delivering more reliable forecasts, reducing weather-related fatalities, and improving the economic value of weather, water, and climate 

information. 

Weather-related air traffic delays cost the U.S. economy over $41 billion in 2007, 

according to the Congressional Joint Economic Committee. Two thirds of these 

delays could be avoided with more accurate and better-integrated weather information for decision-making. To meet the rising demands of the air transportation industry, NOAA is involved in a collaborative partnership with the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) and other Federal agencies to create the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen). NOAA requests a $26.9 million increase to modernize our aviation weather forecasts and warnings. This funding supports NextGen 

development activities, allowing for better integration of weather information into 

decision-making solutions for the FAA—potentially reducing the number of air 

delays. 

Wind shear is hazardous to aviation and critical to hurricane formation and intensity. The Nation’s upper air (UA) network enables unmatched ability to detect this 

wind shear and enables much improved ability to define the jet stream core by providing approximately 78,000 atmospheric profiles (wind, humidity, temperature, 

pressure and altitude) per year from ground level to up to 60,000 feet. To improve 

the UA network, NOAA requests a $5 million increase for new GPS radiosondes to 

provide a 50 percent improvement in wind measurement accuracy and a 6-fold improvement in vertical resolution. With this investment, NOAA will fully fund the 

purchase of GPS radiosondes for all 102 UA observing stations, ensuring improvements to weather models. 

Large maritime data voids exist where no meteorological or oceanographic data 

are routinely sampled due to poorly maintained buoys. This lack of data makes it 

difficult for forecasters to make accurate and timely marine warnings and forecasts 

and to measure the accuracy of their forecasts. NOAA currently operates 101 
20 

moored weather observation buoys and 49 coastal marine automated network stations. However, over the last eight years, system performance has trended downward to the current low of 67 percent data availability as of February 2011. This 

trend will continue downward to 65 percent data availability by 2011 without increased support. NOAA requests a $4 million increase to provide operations and 

maintenance funding for damaged and destroyed buoys and to comply with new 

international regulations. Funds will also be used to begin reducing the backlog of 

deferred maintenance by employing charter vessels to supplement the diminishing 

availability of U.S. Coast Guard ship time for servicing the weather buoy network. 

Finally, the underpinning of NOAA’s products and services mentioned previously 

is the model-based guidance of NOAA’s operational high performance computing 

(HPC). HPC provides models and model-based estimates of both current and future 

states of the Earth’s environment, which are a key component of modern weather 

forecasts. NOAA requests an $11 million increase towards transitioning NOAA’s 

HPC to a new contract, as well as continuing regular improvements to our numerical weather prediction modeling. 

National Environmental Satellite Service (NESS) 

NOAA’s satellites provide the data and information for forecasts that are vital to 

every citizen in our Nation. From safe air, land, and marine transportation to construction and emergency rescue missions, we all use satellite products in our everyday lives. In FY 2010, our satellite program saw a major milestone accomplished 

with the launch of Geostationary Orbiting Environmental Satellite (GOES)–15, the 

final spacecraft in the latest series. GOES–15 joined three other GOES spacecraft 

in assisting the Agency’s forecasters to more accurately track life-threatening 

weather from tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes to solar activity that can impact satellite-based electronics, communications, and power industries. In FY 2010, NOAA 

satellites also provided key support in the rescue of 281 people throughout and near 

the United States by providing their location to emergency responders. 

The proposed reorganization would also affect some programs within the National 

Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), which would be 

renamed the National Environmental Satellite Service (NESS), as all three of its 

Data Centers would be transferred to the Climate Service. The FY 2012 budget request for NESS is $2 billion, which we will invest in multiple satellite acquisition 

programs for the continuity of critical weather, climate, and oceanographic data. 

NOAA requests an increase of $687.8M for the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), 

which is NOAA’s responsibility under the former National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program. Polar satellites provide 

critical weather forecasting for the $700 billion maritime commerce sector and provide a value of hundreds of millions of dollars to the fishing industry. The satellites 

save approximately $200 million each year for the aviation industry in ash forecasting alone and provide drought forecasts worth $6–8 billion to farming, transportation, tourism and energy sectors. Both civilian and military users will use JPSS 

data and products, which will continue to fulfill NOAA’s requirements to provide 

global environmental data used in numerical weather prediction models for forecasts. On behalf of NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) will serve as the lead acquisition agent for JPSS, which supports the afternoon mission requirements. The Department of Defense will continue the acquisition of early morning orbit assets. NOAA is committed to working with our partners 

to complete the transition from the NPOESS program and to assure the continuity 

of Earth observations from space. 

The GOES–R series satellites will provide critical weather observations for severe 

weather events, such as hurricanes, and also provide key enhancements in observational capabilities for climate, oceans and coasts, and the space environment. This 

program is the next-generation of geostationary satellites and provides mission continuity through 2036. NOAA continues to support the GOES–R program with a rephasing, taking us from a two-satellite program to a four-satellite program with the 

addition of two optional satellites (GOES–T&U), while still providing continued satellite engineering development and production activities for GOES–R and GOES–S. 

An uninterrupted climate record is critical to understanding global sea level rise, 

which directly threatens coastal communities and ecosystems through increased exposure and erosion, more intense storm-surge and tidal flooding, and loss of natural 

habitat due to drowned wetlands. Therefore, NOAA is requesting an additional 

$33.0 million to continue development of the Jason-3 satellite, which will provide 

continuity of sea surface height measurements, ensuring an uninterrupted climate 

record of over 20 years. The Jason-3 mission is a joint U.S.–European funded partnership. NOAA requests an $11.3 million increase to partner with the Taiwan National Space Organization for the launch of 12 satellites to replenish and upgrade 
21 

1Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2008: http: //www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/fisheries¥economics¥2008.html 

the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) satellite constellation. This program is a cost effective means of obtaining information about temperature and moisture in the atmosphere around the globe, 

which will improve forecasting accuracy. In addition, a requested increase of $47.3 million will support, in cooperation with 

NASA, refurbishing the existing NASA Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) 

satellite and its solar wind sensors and developing a Coronal Mass Ejection Imager. 

The data and information provided by DSCOVR will support the operations of the 

Space Weather Prediction Center, which generates accurate and timely 1 to 4 day 

space weather forecasts and warnings. Space observations of geomagnetic storms 

are vital to reduce negative effects to power grids, GPS, telecommunications, the 

health and safety of astronauts, and the viability of satellite systems. 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) 

The major change as a result of the proposed reorganization to create a Climate 

Service (described above) is that NOAA would also strategically realign its existing 

core research line office, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), to 

strengthen the agency’s overall science enterprise and advance the atmospheric and 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research and applied science goals expressed in the 

America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. OAR will refocus its work to 

serve as an innovator and incubator of new science, technologies, and applications, 

and an integrator of science and technology across all of NOAA. 

NOAA is committed to strengthening and integrating NOAA’s science enterprise 

consistent with the President’s call for science and innovation. NOAA’s request includes $212 million for OAR to continue strengthening core capabilities, such as improving our understanding of ocean acidification and its impacts, and promoting 

conservation and use of America’s coastal resources through our renowned Sea 

Grant Program, one of our many direct links to universities, citizens, and communities around the Nation. NOAA will also invest in the future by supporting innovation in weather forecasting science that can inform clean, renewable energy generation, which is related to an MOU with the Department of Energy. In FY 2012, 

NOAA requests $2 million to support research in targeted wind resource regions 

across the Nation. Funding will advance weather forecast accuracy and quality to 

allow for more efficient implementation of wind power usage in the United States. 

Another core capability at NOAA is exploration. The NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer is among the most technologically advanced research vessels and platforms 

for ocean exploration in the United States. In FY 2012, NOAA is requesting an additional $1.5 million to advance the operations of the Okeanos Explorer with the operation of telepresence technology, which enables scientists, educators, and others to 

participate and lead ocean exploration missions from remote shore-based Exploration Command Centers; to operate and upgrade the ship’s autonomous and remotely-operated vehicles; provide additional scientific days at sea; and reduce our 

huge knowledge gap of what lies in the deep ocean. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

NMFS conserves, protects, and manages living marine resources to sustain marine ecosystems, affords economic opportunities, and enhances the public’s quality 

of life. Rebuilding our Nation’s fisheries is essential to preserving the livelihoods of 

fishermen and related industries. In 2008, U.S. commercial and saltwater recreational fisheries supported 1.9 million full- and part-time jobs and generated $163 

billion in sales impacts.1 In FY 2012, NOAA requests $1.001 billion to support fisheries and protected resource management to ensure an optimal balance between 

conservation objectives and economic opportunities. 

NOAA is making important strides to end overfishing, improve fishery management, and put fisheries on a path to sustainability. Working with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, in FY 2010, four fisheries stocks were rebuilt. Based on 

estimates, rebuilding U.S. fisheries would increase the current dockside value by an 

estimated $2.2 billion (54 percent) annually from $4.1 billion to $6.3 billion annually. In FY 2012, NOAA will continue to maximize the potential of the Nation’s most 

economically important fish stocks through sound science and management. NOAA 

will invest $67 million to expand annual stock assessments to continue to ensure 

Annual Catch Limits (ACL) are based on the best available science. ACLs and accountability measures (AM) are required under the 2007 reauthorization of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for all non-exempt 
22 

fish stocks, including overfished stocks, by the end of 2011 to end overfishing. This 

investment will help verify that NOAA successfully ended overfishing ensuring 

ACLs are set at the most optimal level possible so that the return for fishermen 

is maximized while maintaining the health of the resource. 

NOAA will invest $3 million to improve the timeliness and quality of catch monitoring in recreational fisheries to ensure recreational fisheries are not unnecessarily 

restricted due to a lack of data. This is part of a broader effort to work more closely 

with the recreational fishing community. 

In addition to sound science, robust management strategies are vital to sustainable fisheries. In 2010, NOAA released the National Catch Share Policy, and we will 

continue to support consideration of catch share management by the Councils. Catch 

share programs, which include limited access privilege programs and individual 

fishing quotas, dedicate a secure share of fish to individual fishermen, cooperatives, 

or fishing communities. In the United States, catch shares are currently successfully 

implemented in 15 fisheries from Alaska to Florida, and local Fisheries Management Councils are in the process of developing them in several additional fisheries. 

Catch share programs are difficult and sometimes controversial to implement, and 

we recognize that some in Congress are concerned about them. But they have yielded significant financial and ecological benefits to the fisheries that utilize this system. Both here and in other countries, catch shares help to eliminate overfishing 

and achieve annual catch limits, improve fishermen’s safety and profits, and reduce 

the negative biological and economic effects of the traditional ‘‘race for fish.’’ This 

budget includes $54 million to support the voluntary establishment of catch share 

programs by those Councils that want to utilize this tool to achieve the Magnuson– 

Stevens Act requirements. We want to support those Councils that believe that catch 

shares are the way to better manage their fisheries but need assistance in designing 

and implementing them. 

In addition to fisheries, NOAA manages protected resources, such as marine 

mammals and turtles. This requires balancing conservation objectives and economic 

opportunities, including commercial fishing activities and energy development. Investments in priority research in recovery actions are required to mitigate harm and 

maximize economic potential. In FY 2012, NOAA will invest an additional $2.5 million dollars to increase NOAA’s capacity for protected species stock assessments that 

provide the foundation of information for decision makers. We will continue supporting the Species Recovery Grants Program with a requested $8.0 million increase 

to provide grants to states and tribes to conduct priority recovery actions for threatened and endangered species, including restoring habitat, monitoring population 

trends, developing conservation plans, and educating the public. 

Managing fisheries and protected species to their full biological and economic potential requires additional efforts focused on maintaining habitat and ecosystem 

functioning. NOAA requests $24 million for the Community Based Restoration Program, including a new $5 million effort to address larger restoration projects. NOAA 

plans to increase fish passage, spawning, and rearing habitat by implementing 

large-scale ecological restoration in targeted areas such as wetlands. To support the 

restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay, we request a $5 million increase 

for regional studies in the Bay. NOAA supports the President’s Executive Order to 

restore the Chesapeake Bay by providing enhanced understanding of the relationships between the Bay’s living resources and habitat, coordinating protection and 

restoration of key species and habitats across jurisdictional lines, and supporting a 

coordinated system of monitoring platforms distributed across the Bay. 

National Ocean Service (NOS) 

In July 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order Number 13547 that adopted the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and established the National Policy for the Stewardship of the Oceans, Coasts, and the 

Great Lakes—reinforcing the notion that ‘‘healthy oceans matter.’’ NOS supports 

this policy by translating science, tools, and services into action to address coastal 

threats such as climate change, population growth, port congestion, and contaminants in the environment. A pivotal event in 2010 was the explosion of the BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil rig on April 20. Within hours, NOAA responded, providing 

targeted weather forecasts and oil spill trajectory maps and mobilizing personnel 

and assets to respond to what evolved into the largest oil spill in U.S. history. The 

Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) played a critical role in our response 

and is leading our efforts to assess damage caused by the event. Over half of the 
23 

2Kildow, J. T., C. S. Colgan, and J. Scorse. 2009. State of the U.S. Ocean and Coastal Economies 2009. National Ocean Economic Program. 3Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008, NOAA 2004 

U.S. Gross Domestic Product is generated in coastal counties,2 and it is expected 

that the Nation’s coastal population will grow to more than 11 million by 2015 so 

NOS’ services will become more vital to the coastal environment and economy.3 Increasing population density, growing economies, and increased vulnerability to damages from hazards such as sea level rise or storms, habitat loss, and other threats 

makes the task of managing coastal resources more difficult. The President’s FY 

2012 Budget includes $559.6 million to enable NOAA to continue delivering a dynamic range of nationwide coastal and Great Lakes scientific, technical, and resource management services to meet the vision of being a Nation with safe, healthy, 

resilient, and productive oceans and coasts. 

Human uses of ocean resources (e.g., ocean-based energy, marine aquaculture, 

commercial and recreational fishery products, shipping and navigation services, and 

other activities) need to be managed holistically. In FY 2012, NOAA requests $6.8 

million to develop an agency-wide capability to conduct and support Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) in U.S. waters. CMSP will help us manage ocean 

resources in a systematic way by evaluating competing ocean uses, assessing opportunities and potential cumulative impacts, and working with industry, state and 

local decision makers and other stakeholders, to explicitly make trade-off decisions. 

CMSP is designed to focus on up front planning. There are no regulations involved. 

It does not add another layer of government but is designed to be more efficient, 

effective, and reduce redundancies in decision making. With the new Ocean Policy 

we are already witnessing efficiencies in our mapping and data collection across the 

Federal government, with data and information from the Departments of Defense 

and the Interior, and from Coast Guard, being integrated into a common database, 

which will be available to the public in the future. 

The Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force include 

a framework for implementing CMSP across the United States in a manner that respects regional variation of issues and priorities. This initiative will significantly advance the Nation’s capability to effectively and transparently match competing 

human uses to appropriate ocean areas. To further support CMSP and regional 

ocean governance, NOAA requests $20 million to establish a competitive grants program that will support regional ocean partnerships, such as the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, South Atlantic Governor’s Alliance, and the West Coast Governor’s Agreement 

on Ocean Health that are vital for advancing effective ocean management. In addition, a proposed increase of $1 million in our mapping program will significantly improve the accessibility of integrated ocean and coastal mapping data. 

The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill is a stark reminder that spills of national significance can occur despite the many safeguards and improvements that have been 

put into place since the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was enacted. The risk of oil spills 

remains a concern given increases in marine transportation, pressures to develop 

domestic areas for drilling offshore, aging infrastructure susceptible to sea level rise 

and violent storms in U.S. coastal areas, and opening the Arctic to both shipping 

and oil development. NOAA’s OR&R is the lead trustee for the public’s coastal natural resources and an international scientific leader for oil spill response, assessment, and restoration. NOAA requests $2.9 million to develop an oil spill research 

and development program within OR&R to advance response technologies and capabilities, especially in deep water and Arctic environments. With this funding, NOAA 

will support external grants for essential research to provide useful information, 

methods, and tools for planners, oil spill responders, and assessment practitioners. 

Also in support of oil spill response, NOAA requests a $5.0 million increase to implement the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Surface Current Mapping Plan using high frequency (HF) radar surface current measurements. HF radar 

provides information vital to oil spill response, national defense, homeland security, 

search and rescue operations, safe marine transportation, water quality and pollutant tracking, and harmful algal bloom forecasting. 

The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill made it apparent that the economic and social 

well being of our coastal communities depends on the environmental suitability of 

our coastal resources. Numerous coastal communities, not only in the Gulf but all 

along our coasts, are being impacted by the loss of fishing opportunities. In FY 2012, 

NOAA requests $8 million to create a National Working Waterfronts grant program 

to assist fishing-dependent coastal communities. These grants will assist distressed 

or at-risk fishing communities by providing resources for planning, capacity building, and other activities to support economic diversity, resource conservation, and 

economic capital growth. 
24 

Program Support 

To deliver sound science and services, NOAA must continue to invest in its information technology (IT) infrastructure, the maintenance and construction of NOAA 

facilities, and the specialized aircraft and ships that complete NOAA’s environmental and scientific missions. A requested $9.1 million increase will reduce the 

risk of cyber attacks by enhancing security monitoring and response capabilities and 

consolidate our IT infrastructure into a single enterprise network. This budget includes an additional $10 million to support major restoration and modernization 

projects to address critical facility condition deficiencies and to improve safety and 

operating conditions in support of NOAA’s mission. The FY 2012 request ensures 

that NOAA’s fleet of vessels is able to provide reliable, compliant, and high-quality 

ship support to NOAA programs through several increases. For example, $3.4 million is requested to support environmental compliance costs, including ensuring that 

NOAA ships are not contributing to water quality degradation. Efforts to extend and 

maintain the life of the NOAA ships will be supported through an $11.6 million increase for repair periods. 

Also critical to the execution of NOAA’s mission is our investment in the future. 

Students in K–12 we support today become our workforce of the future; undergraduate and graduate fellowship recipients provide immediate dividends; and each 

and every citizen touched by our literacy and outreach efforts become stewards of 

our natural resources. These down payments help to fulfill the President’s commitment to education. The FY 2012 budget includes $20.8 million for NOAA’s Office 

of Education to implement and manage scholarship programs aimed at fostering 

competitiveness in science, technology, engineering and math by providing quality 

educational opportunities. 

Conclusion 

Overall, NOAA’s FY 2012 budget request reflects the commitment that Secretary 

of Commerce Gary Locke and I have made to the President to out-educate, outbuild, and out-innovate our competitors in support of robust economic job growth. 

We have made tough choices to cut lower priorities and identify cost-savings measures. The resources that are requested in this budget are critical to the future success of meeting our needs in climate, fisheries, coasts, and oceans. I look forward 

to working with you, the Members of this Committee, and our constituents to 

achieve the goals I have laid out here through the implementation of the FY 2012 

budget. Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAA’s FY 2012 budget request. 

I am happy to respond to any questions the Committee might have. 

Chairman HALL. Alright, thank you very much for your testimony. Again reminding committee rules that we stay within the 

five minutes. 

Chair recognizes himself for five minutes for questions. 

First, I would like to ask you, NOAA is requesting, I think, more than $2 billion for the National Environmental Satellite Service, 

but it is not all just for Joint Polar Satellite System or Geostationary Operation and Environmental Satellite, or better known 

as JPSS or GOES, arguably, NOAA’s two highest priority systems. 

If you are prioritizing missions in this very difficult economy, why 

aren’t you spending resources on JASON III, which is the satellite 

that measures sea level rise, climate change observation, while at 

the same time, warning Congress if we do not spend money on 

weather satellites there will be a data gap? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, we believe that all of the satellite requests in this fiscal year 2012 budget request are highly 

important and very useful to the American public. JASON III is a 

satellite program that is joint with the Europeans, and therefore, 

saves the United States a considerable amount of money because 

we pool our resources. Giving communities along coastal regions information about sea level rise is vitally important to their planning 

for the future. This particular satellite system is essential in providing that high resolution information that enables communities 

to plan in a way that is smart planning. 
25 

Chairman HALL. I thank you for that answer, but you know that 

you can’t have both. I know you need to prioritize within this economy, and we know we can’t afford everything, so can’t you 

prioritize it—and I ask you that question with your knowing how 

I feel about it. I think weather is by any reasonable person more 

important than sea level change. We can’t have everything we 

want, and I know you want the best for the country, but can’t you 

prioritize a little? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, we have prioritized the items 

that are in the budget. There were a number of other very important satellite programs that were not included in this request, and 

so what we have reflected here is, in fact, a prioritization. 

The Joint Polar Satellite System to which you refer is, without 

doubt, one of the most important satellite programs that we have. 

It is essential for us to be able to have the information it provides 

to do long-term forecasts, to predict severe storms such as hurricanes, to provide the search and rescue information that—to receive the beacons that search and rescue operations entail, and to 

provide weather information in general for Alaska. So it is an absolutely critical system. That doesn’t mean that Jason is unimportant; it is important for a different reason. 

Chairman HALL. I don’t agree with your answer, but I respect 

you for not taking my full five minutes. I don’t want you to filibuster me now. 

I have another question I hope I can get in five minutes. As you 

may be aware, my amendment to the Continuing Resolution would 

prohibit NOAA from using funds to ‘‘implement a NOAA Climate 

Service’’. It passed 233 to 187 by the Congress formerly established 

in the House of Representatives, opposite position against a NOAA 

climate service in fiscal year 2011. You are aware of that, yes or 

no? 

Dr.. LUBCHENCO. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HALL. And in my statement on the House Floor, I argued that I was concerned that implementation of the climate service was already underway in the form of significant planning, transition and reorganization. 

Can you give me a yes or no answer to that? Is that true? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, before this administration 

began——— 

Chairman HALL. Can you give a yes or no to that? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Planning began the last administration for a climate service, and planning continues, but we have not implemented a climate service because Congress has not approved. 

Chairman HALL. Just to reiterate the assurances you wrote to 

me in a letter this January, ‘‘NOAA is not yet implementing the 

climate service.’’ Is this correct? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That is correct. 

Chairman HALL. And the lines of reporting for daily operations 

of NOAA have not changed from the structure that was in place 

January 2010, is this correct? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes, sir. 

Chairman HALL. Last question. NOAA will wait for congressional 

approval before implementing any such climate service. Is this a 

yes? 
26 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes, sir, it is. Absolutely. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you. I have eight seconds left. That is 

just enough time for me to recognize Mrs. Johnson. I thank you for 

your answers. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Satellite coverage is essential for us to monitor 

Earth, forecast weather, and protect lives and property. You know, 

I fly back and forth home just about every weekend, as many other 

Members here do, and very often, we depend on the forecast to determine whether we can—have to change our plans or go later or 

land somewhere that is not home. I am wondering—I was told by 

Mr. Bolden that these satellites were getting rather old, and that 

while we can’t predict the life of them, they are far beyond what 

had been predicted. And so I am wondering now about the development of the next generation of this polar-orbiting weather satellite. 

GAO has indicated that JPSS has an inadequate funding plan, 

and I am concerned that both the Continuing Resolution made over 

the fiscal year 2011 budget, and the House passed H.R. 1 will lead 

to new costs growth and schedule delays that will set the program 

back even further. 

What impact is the 2011 Continuing Resolution budget having on 

your ability to making progress to keep us safe? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congresswoman, thank you so much for asking 

about the Joint Polar Satellite System. It is a vitally important tool 

that we have that provides essential information to do a number 

of things. This program is vital to the American public in many different ways. It is essential—these polar orbiting satellites are essential for our ability to predict severe storms. If we want to be— 

our ability today to provide a hurricane forecast that are as accurate as they are today with two to three day advance warning are 

a direct result of the information that we get from the polar orbiting satellites. So too is the information from those satellites to provide long-term weather forecasts. The short-term weather information that we have comes from different satellites, the ones we call 

geostationary. But the polar orbiting satellite of which we’re speaking now is essential for the long-term forecasts, and that is very, 

very important for the military in making decisions about troop deployments or refueling planes in air. It is also essential for farmers 

deciding what crops to plant, or when. 

So both severe storm warnings and the long-term forecasts depend on these polar orbiting satellites. 

Also very important to many individuals, especially mariners, is 

the ability of these satellites to receive signals from emergency distress beacons. Without this satellite system, we would probably at 

least double the response time for search and rescue missions, and 

obviously in an emergency, a matter of minutes is often critically 

important, and so doubling your response time is certainly problematic. 

So for all of those reasons, the polar orbiting satellite system is 

critically important. We currently need, in this fiscal year, in fiscal 

year 2011, $910 million to keep this program underway. That is 

not an insignificant amount. I fully appreciate what a large number that is, but the consequences of not having it are very severe. 

For every dollar that we do not spend this year on this program, 
27 

it will cost us $3 to $5 in the future to build this program back up. 

If we don’t have those resources this year, we terminate contracts, 

we lose people that have the expertise, and the consequences of 

that will not be pretty. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. My time is about expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you very much. Recognize the gentleman, long time Member of this Committee, very valuable member, Mr. Rohrabacher from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me note that my very first job when I was a go-for in the news 

business was to read the following into a machine when I arrived 

in the morning, five o’clock the morning at the news bureau. ‘‘Good 

morning. This is the National Weather Service forecast for Los Angeles and vicinity. Today, the high will be at Civic Center 75 degrees. Low expected tonight at 62. Coastal Orange County, high as 

well will be 72 degrees, a low of 65—’’ et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

I appreciated that job, and——— 

Chairman HALL. Do we have a new reading—another reading of 

that? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I thought—I was very proud to give the 

National Weather Service forecast, and that was very important 

news, actually. We got all kinds of hits on that—it was a telephone 

service—and thousands and thousands of people called in every 

day from Los Angeles to get their weather. I would hope that what 

you are doing now in your restructuring of NOAA, so that you now 

have a climate service, that that does not distract from the important work that your organization has been doing in terms of weather. 

So I guess maybe what I should ask is will this change of name 

and structure into the Climate Service—will it in any way distract 

from the resources? Will you then be transferring resources from 

weather to spending those resources on things like a human adaptation for the change in climate that may take centuries in order 

to see that change? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman Rohrabacher, thank you for highlighting how important the National Weather Service is. It is vitally important to save lives and property, and it is widely recognized as being so. The 122 weather forecast offices we have around 

the Nation will be delighted to— have heard— your rendition and 

to recognize their importance. The budget request for the National 

Weather Service for this year increases the number of very important areas that are essential for the investments in fundamental 

science that enable us to continue to get better and better at our 

forecasts. In fact, we have seen significant improvements in our 

forecasts, but there is ample room for more, and this budget requests a number of items to advance that agenda. 

Aviation weather, which is vitally important, is—we have an increase targeted for that for operation and maintenance of our 

weather buoys that give us vital information about what is happening over the ocean. For weather and climate, super computers. 

I would highlight those three areas where there are——— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much money would you expect—all 

these things I support. That is great. We all do. They are very sig-
28 

nificant to the jobs and well-being of Americans. But when you get 

to the idea of predicting the climate so that you will have adaptation—and of course, my reading of that is that we are talking about 

ocean rise, which may take a century or 2 centuries for us to see 

it. Where is the money coming—how much is being spent on adaptation versus weather, and where is the money coming from if it 

is not coming from what you were doing in weather? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, the creation of the climate service—the proposed creation of the climate service entails an internal 

reorganization that does not change the basic functions of the different offices that they are currently executing. It puts those offices 

together in a way that they can be more effective in delivering the 

kind of—not just short-term, 10-day weather, but longer term 

weather information that is properly called climate, but that is actually months to years out. 

For example, you know that this is a La Nina year, and therefore, we can analyze past La Nina years and——— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —predict that under these circumstances, we 

know that this will be—you know, we can tell you something about 

precipitation for southern California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And that is very important to a lot of people, 

especially in California. Let us hope that with that type of service 

that you provide so well now, isn’t undercut by some of the more 

trendy frou-frou things like we have seen—I won’t go into detail, 

but we have seen that here. So thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. Gentleman’s time is expired. Now 

I recognize Mr. Miller, the gentleman from North Carolina, the 

ranking member on Energy and Environment, for five minutes. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Lubchenco, one of the certainly difficult tasks that the Administration faced is dealing with an oil spill that wasn’t supposed 

to happen, and in some ways the administration equated itself 

well, and in others, less well. But could you please explain how you 

are going to work with other agencies to monitor and understand 

what the effect of the oil has been in the long term? We have heard 

a lot about how well it is being dispersed, how it is being absorbed, 

degrading, whatever. What is the plan going forward? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, part of NOAA’s responsibilities 

with respect to not only Deepwater Horizon spill, but other oil 

spills, is to participate actively in the process that is known as the 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment Process, or NRDA. This is 

a legal, scientific, and economic process that is done in conjunction 

with the federal trustees of which NOAA and the Department of 

Commerce, the Department of Interior, Department of Defense, are 

the three federal trustees, and there are five state trustees. Those 

trustees work collectively together to evaluate the impact that the 

spill had on natural resources in the Gulf, and the public’s loss to 

those natural resources, and build a court case to take, if necessary, to court in order to get the resources to do restoration. 

NOAA is providing much of the scientific underpinnings for that 

evaluation of the damage that was done because of the spill to 

these natural resources and the public’s loss to them. That is a 

process that is well under way. Some damages are very easy to see, 
29 

oiled birds, oiled turtles or dolphins. Others are much more difficult to measure directly, impacts of small droplets of oil on fish 

eggs or fish larvae, for example, or crabs or shrimp. 

And so this is a process that necessarily needs to take the appropriate amount of time. We are conducting multiple research expeditions on ship as well as very considerable activities on the shore, 

and have been pretty much since the beginning of the spill, in 

order to evaluate the damage that was done. 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Lubchenco, unlike Mr. Rohrabacher, I have 

never depended for my livelihood on your weather products, but I 

recognize their importance. Could you tell us how what you do in 

weather forecasting or weather generally is going to be affected by 

the proposed cuts that were included by H.R. 1, the continuing resolution that the House passed a few weeks ago? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman Miller, I don’t—the cuts—it is difficult to say the exact consequences of H.R. 1 on specific programs, 

because we don’t have that fine-tuned information. What I can tell 

you is that it is likely to be very devastating to our ability to continue to provide the kind of weather information that Americans 

depend upon to save lives, to save property. 

The cuts are of a nature that there would be significant hits 

throughout NOAA’s programs, and we have very grave concerns 

about exactly what those would look like. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. You distinguished in your testimony between 

climate and weather. Can you tell us how weather forecasting really fits in with climate forecasting, and is it important that we have 

climate predictions and why? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, there really is a continuum between weather and climate. I think Mark Twain famously said that 

climate is what you expect and weather is what you get. And in 

fact, it really is a continuum. The ways that scientists go about 

making predictions and forecasts about either weather or climate 

entail different types of models. Weather forecasting models are 

fundamentally different from climate forecasting models. The 

weather models are very short-term. They are initialized with current immediate conditions. They take into account changes in the 

atmosphere, they are happening now, and look out a number of 

days to a week or so. So we have 7- to 10-day forecasts. Those are 

different types of models from climate models, which are farther 

out, so 15 days and farther out are a different type of model, which 

is why we say, you know, distinguish between climate and weather. 

Both are vitally important and one of the major research challenges now is to bring those models together so that we have better 

resolution of what is happening in the near—not just the shortterm, but the medium scale that has been very, very difficult because of the need to merge those models. Both are very, very important. 

We are getting absolutely inundated with requests for information that is months to years to decades out, not centuries, but people want to plan and know what—water managers, for example, or 

city planners or farmers are trying to evaluate what should they 

plan for for next year or for the next year, and it is that type of 

information where we see a huge opportunity to provide what we 

call climate services that will help in that type of planning. 
30 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. At this time, recognize Congressman Bartlett, 

the gentleman from Maryland. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. As you know, there is an 

indisputable fact that atmospheric CO2 is rising. Nobody disagrees 

on that. The facts are in considerable dispute. The number of people that believe that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas that it will 

warm the Earth, absent other causes, this will cause short-term climate changes and acidification of the ocean. Climate changes could 

be disruptive. The acidification of the ocean could be catastrophic 

in the long run. Ultimately, if we really do get warmer, the sea levels will rise. 

There are a number of people who think this is all a bunch of 

hooey, and they keep criticizing us, but I want to point out that 

there are two other constituencies that have common cause in 

wanting exactly the same solution that the folks who are concerned 

about CO2 footprint want, and that is to move away from fossil 

fuels to renewables, because it reduces CO2 released into the atmosphere. One of those other groups are those who are concerned 

about national security. We have only two percent of the world’s 

oil. We use 25 percent of the world’s oil. We import two-thirds of 

what we use. The obvious solution to that is exactly the same solution that those people have who are concerned about CO2 increase 

and climate change and so forth. It is to move away from fossil 

fuels to renewables. 

The third group that has common cause with this are those who 

understand, as Hymen Rickover did more than 50 years ago that 

oil is finite. It will run out. The world almost certainly has now 

reached what we call peak oil, that is, its maximum ability to 

produce oil. It is about 84, 85 million barrels a day. We are stuck 

there which is why our economy is in trouble. It is not going to 

rise. The solution to that problem obviously is to move away from 

fossil fuels to renewables so that the fossil fuels will last us longer 

and we will have an energy for our activities now. 

I hope that these three groups will stop sniping at each other’s 

premise and lock arms and march forward, because although they 

have three very different agendas, they have exactly the same solution to these very different problems. 

Now for a question. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and 

obviously we have an enormous interest in climate and weather as 

we plan. What are you doing to make sure that your efforts are collaborative and you don’t have duplicative efforts with the Department of Defense for weather? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, we work very closely with the Department of Defense, and in particular, with the Navy on a number 

of—in a number of different ways. Those include both oceanographic information, weather information, and climate information 

on all of those fronts. We have active exchanges of information and 

we—as far as I know, there is no duplication of information. It is 

nicely complimentary. We keep them informed of what we are 

doing, they keep us informed, at least to some extent, to what they 

are doing, and there are a number of venues in which—that exist 

to keep that flow of information going. 
31 

We know from what the Navy in particular, but DoD more generally, have told us is that what we provide to them is essential 

for their planning purposes, both short-term as well as long-term. 

I had the pleasure of visiting the aircraft carrier, the Harry S. 

Truman, about a year and a half ago now, and was amazed when 

I walked around inside, the room that had all of the equipment to 

give them state-of-the-art information about what the conditions 

were when they were running war game exercises, and a vast number of the computers in the room were showing NOAA information, 

whether it was oceanographic models that they were running or 

weather information or whatever, nautical charts. And so we clearly have, even at the scale of a ship, a very tight collaboration and 

interaction. I think it is a very productive exchange. They are very 

concerned about this Joint Polar Satellite System and the potential 

loss of that system to our ability to provide the long-term weather 

forecast for them that are very important in making decisions 

about troop deployments, for example. 

So although I am sure there is always room for improvement in 

terms of interactions, I think we have a very productive interaction 

and exchange with the Department of Defense, but I would highlight the Navy in particular. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. 

Lubchenco, for coming here this morning. 

One of the things that I am concerned about is the reliability— 

the long-term reliability and the short-term reliability of the existing satellites, and how important this program is to making sure 

that we have reliable information. 

I hope I am not beating a dead horse, but could you comment on 

that? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, are you referring specifically to 

the Joint Polar Satellite System, or satellites in general? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No, the Joint Polar Satellite System. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. There currently are polar satellites that are in 

space now that provide—there is one satellite that provides us with 

much of the information I described earlier that is absolutely essential for severe weather forecasts, for long-term weather forecasts, for search and rescue, and for weather in Alaska. These satellites orbit the poles and give us a very different type of information from a different type of satellite system, which are geostationary satellites. 

Those geostationary satellites, there is one that sits pretty much 

over the East Coast and sees the eastern half of the country, there 

is one that sits over the West Coast, and they stay in place and 

constantly see the same place. They are very high up. The polar 

orbiting satellites orbit at a much lower orbit, and are essential to 

tracking what is coming across the Pacific, for example, or following storms as they are developing. POES,the current satellite 

that is up there will not—it has a finite life span, and this Joint 

Polar Satellite System is to build the satellite and the instruments 

to replace that satellite when it is no longer functional. 
32 

The current C.R. has already resulted in a delay in that program 

of around 12 months. Additional delays because of lack of resources 

will delay that program even further. What that means is that 

down the road, we will inevitably have a gap where we will not 

have the ability to do severe storm warnings as we do today. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you are saying that this is inevitable at this 

point, that we will absolutely have a gap because of the longevity 

of the current polar satellites? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It is highly likely we will have a gap, and the 

longer we wait, the longer that gap gets. If you consider that for 

each dollar that we don’t spend this year on this program, it will 

cost $3 to $5 to bring that program up. Even those additional resources will not close that gap, so there is great urgency in addressing this problem. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Another thing I would like to ask is 

about the need for a federal clearinghouse for climate data. What 

I would like to see is a lack of overlap or lack of duplication in that 

regard. Do you see NOAA becoming a key player or a key—a central player in terms of providing data to federal agencies and other 

agencies that are interested in climate data? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, we currently serve that function. 

We house much of the climate data and make it all publicly available. We routinely do peer reviews and quality checks to ensure 

that it is of the highest quality. We share that information very 

broadly. 

Last year, we reorganized the information that is available 

through our website to create a more user-friendly way to access 

all the data and information that we have that concerns climate. 

There is ample opportunity to improve in that regard, and we will 

continue to do that, and the requests in the current budget are in 

part designed to help move that ahead. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Has there been any criticism of the objectivity 

of that data or the accuracy of that data? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Every investigation of those programs has concluded that it is very well run, that the data are trustworthy. They 

are, in fact, widely considered to be the gold standard. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, my time is up. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. Chair recognizes gentleman from Maryland, Dr. 

Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco, 

for coming before the Committee. 

I have four questions I am going to ask. 

First is when I look at the chart of the request, the fiscal year 

2012 request is about 35 percent more than the fiscal year 2008 request, is that right? Fiscal year 2008 is $4.07 billion, fiscal year 

2012 is $5.49 billion. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That is correct. 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay. So it is—so what you are asking for is the 

American people, at a time when everybody is tightening their belt, 

we are tightening everybody’s belt, you want 35 percent more, 

okay? And I will go through the justifications in your testimony. 

Let me talk a little bit about some of that spending, because one 

of it goes to a satellite called Discover, which in my understanding 

is going to spend tens of millions of dollars to put an 11-year-old 
33 

satellite bus. You know, you got to put new sensors on it, but you 

know, technology—why would we choose that path, spending tens 

of millions of dollars to refurbish an 11-year-old satellite bus instead of doing what I understand is available, which is letting a 

private company launch the same sensors and just buy the information? I mean, why are we doing something that a private company can do? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, the Discover satellite has been 

essentially kept in good shape, and the analyses that we did suggest this is the most cost-effective way to get critically important 

information, by refurbishing it and then flying it. 

Mr. HARRIS. Can you provide me a copy of that analysis? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HARRIS. Specifically versus going to a private——— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay, thank you very much. 

Let me go on to one other issue—two other issues that regard the 

fisheries. One is this idea of catch shares, because I think there is, 

again, tens of millions of dollars going into establishing catch 

shares. My understanding in talking with fishermen in Maryland, 

we have fishermen both in the bay and in the ocean, that one of 

the results has been to force smaller fishermen basically out of 

business. They just put them out of business. They can’t afford to 

buy the catch shares to make a living that they would have to otherwise, so they end up selling them to larger corporations, literally 

corporations who then go and just hire fishermen to catch. So we 

are kind of putting the—I hate to say mom and pop fishermen, but 

mom and pop fishermen kind of out of business as small business 

owners. Is that, in fact, what does occur? I don’t say all the time, 

but is that occurring? Is that what we have been observing to occur 

where we have established catch shares? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, thanks for raising that issue because I think it is a common misconception about catch shares. Any 

particular catch share program depends on the way it is designed, 

and much of our focus now is helping to ensure that they are designed in a way that reflects the wishes of the fishermen in the 

area, and I think there is broad recognition that preventing consolidation is highly desirable. We are very strong champions of and believe that we need a diverse fleet, and that the small boat fishermen are a vital component of that. 

Mr. HARRIS. But my question is, is that—has that been observed, 

the fact that the smaller boat fishermen, in fact, are driven out of 

the business as primary owners? I mean, they may end up working 

for one of these corporations that hold the catch share licenses, but 

is that—you know, I met with a group who were put out of business in the scallops fishery off the Maryland coast. You know, I sat 

across the table from him so I know it exists. I mean, what is the 

experience nationally, though? Does that occur? Is that one of the 

things that has occurred? I know you are concerned in minimizing 

it, but is that——— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. In some catch share programs that were not 

well-designed there have been individuals who have not been allocated a share. I think it is important to realize that fishermen don’t 

have to buy a share. They are given a share that is based on their 
34 

past fishing history. But the rules of design for a catch-chare problem are determined by the fishery management councils on which 

fishermen sit, and so they have the opportunity——— 

Mr. HARRIS. I understand some fishermen sit on it. I understand 

that, and again, it just kind of politicizes what is going on in the 

private sector. 

Finally, there is a request for a $5 million increase for regional 

studies in the Chesapeake Bay. Are these grants? Who are going 

to get these? And second one is, you know, it says we are going to 

understand the relationship between some of the things that have 

to do with cleaning up the bay and the next panel will have someone—I am going to ask specifically about TMDL’s, but don’t you do 

the research before you establish the policies? I mean, what are we 

studying here with this $5 million and who is that money going to? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I frankly don’t recall that specific 

program and I would be happy to get that information to you. I 

know that we collaborate closely with other agencies as part of a 

larger focus on the Chesapeake, but I will get you information on 

exactly what our request is. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. In light of the GAO study that reports 

on multiple duplications, I would love to see that, and I thank you, 

Mr. Chair. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would also like to 

thank the gentlelady from Maryland for her courtesy in permitting 

me to ask a couple of questions, and also then fit in a few constituent meetings. 

Dr. Lubchenco, thank you for your service to our Nation. We in 

the Pacific Northwest are very proud of your service. We followed 

your career earlier at Oregon State. It is a fine academic background, and we are very proud of your national service now. 

In particular, I would like to comment that in my studies of the 

catch share program, my fishermen are generally in favor of implementing a catch share program and I would like to thank you, and 

I would like to thank Secretary Locke for making some adjustments so that our catch share program in the Pacific Northwest 

can be implemented sooner, which is what my fishermen would 

prefer to have happen. 

Secondly, with respect to this satellite program that has been the 

subject of some discussion, I would just like to insert in the record 

that as the former chair of the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over 

that satellite program, I have developed more knowledge of that 

satellite program than I had ever hoped—even as someone who is 

very interested in satellites, that most importantly, this is a program that has had a track record in three administrations. Not 

one, not two, but three administrations, a good half of the Clinton 

administration, all of the Bush administration for eight years, and 

now a little bit of run time in the Obama administration. While I 

have not agreed with all of the judgments made by each of the 

three administrations, I believe that the data from that satellite is 

necessary to establish some data independence from nations which 

may or may not always share data with us, but we hope that it is 
35 

a sharing program and that data would permit us to participate in 

that sharing. 

I would like to ask you, Dr. Lubchenco, about a specific budget 

item in the NOAA budget, and that is that the NOAA budget has 

a specific proposal to create a structure for the NOAA Climate 

Service, and that this structure involves creating a new line office 

by performing a programmatic reorganization of existing resources. 

One of the primary line offices that is proposed to transfer over 

there is the Research and Program Resources from the Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Research Office, or OAR, and OAR is the research enterprise of NOAA’s basic and innovative research. This is very, very 

important. 

Dr. Lubchenco, how do you plan to balance the need to provide 

climate services based on good climate research, balancing that 

with the need to ensure OAR does not lose its current basic and 

innovative science-driven research? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman Wu, it is nice to see you. Thank 

you very much for your nice comments. The Catch Share Program 

in the West Coast was seven years in the making and has really 

benefited from considerable input by fishermen up and down the 

West Coast for this—the ground fish ITQ, and I am very pleased 

that it has the support that it has, and that the fishermen are telling you that they are pleased with it. I too have met with them 

a lot, and they are saying we can finally see the light at the end 

of the tunnel, and we are anxious to get underway with this program. 

You mentioned the Joint Polar Satellite System, which obviously 

is very, very high priority for us. We—Secretary Locke and I heard 

you and other Members of Congress loudly and clearly when we 

first came in, and you said this is a flawed program, fix it. And I 

am very proud of actions that we have taken with the White House 

to put this program on a path to success. What is critical now is 

that we have the funding to be able to deliver on this new path, 

and I appreciate your attention to it, because you recognize how 

vital it is. 

On your question with respect to the climate service, this is indeed an internal reorganization that is proposed. It would not 

change the research that anyone at NOAA is doing. It simply 

makes the research and services pieces be more tightly connected, 

so that they can be more effective in providing climate information, 

by way of services and data, to the American public. It does not undermine research at NOAA. That is a high priority of mine, to 

strengthen scientific research, and I pledge to do everything I can 

to continue to have research be very strong in every line office. But 

we are looking to the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 

to be the leader in innovation and integration of research. Thank 

you. 

Chairman HALL. Gentleman’s time has expired. At this time recognize Mrs. Adams, gentlelady from Florida. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Dr. 

Lubchenco. 

Before I get started, I want to also reiterate what my colleague 

said about Catch Share. My fishermen too are concerned about 

that, and they have brought it to my attention, and I have met 
36 

with several of them. They are worried about being put out of business by larger groups, and along that line, I would like to talk to 

you for a moment about an issue which is an incredibly urgent 

matter, and it is something that I find very troubling. You are 

probably aware of—in July of ’08 your agency issued a letter to the 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council that the South Atlantic red snapper stock is overfished and undergoing overfishing. This 

is a massive problem for the State of Florida. The decision is costing thousands of jobs in Florida, and again, it is about jobs in the 

economy, and throughout the country, and will potentially decimate 

a $13 billion industry. I have heard from fishermen in my district, 

and across the state, that NOAA’s efforts to manage the fish populations are hurting fishermen in the name of incorrect and insufficient science—scientific data. 

Now, I was there at one of the meetings, and heard one of your 

people, one of your representatives, say that it was flawed. As recently as February 17, Roy Crabtree, the Southeast Regional Administrator for NOAA’s Fishery Service said, ‘‘The latest science 

suggests that the planned area closure is not necessary for the red 

snapper population to continue to improve.’’ NOAA website says, 

‘‘NOAA is an agency that enriches life through science.’’ Could you 

explain what science you are using to enrich the lives of fishermen 

in Florida with these rules to help—halt fishing red snapper, and 

beyond that, how are you even able to pay for this science when 

in your own budget request you are decreasing the amount of 

money being spent on the research? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congresswoman, the fisheries, especially for the 

red snapper to which you refer, are vitally important ones. I fully 

appreciate how important they are to the economy, not only of Florida, but to the region generally. We are required by the Magnus 

and Stevens Reauthorization Act to use the best available information to make our determinations about the status of different 

stocks, and to set catch limits accordingly. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Can you please be very succinct? Because I have 

more questions, and I do want some answers. But your own people 

are saying your data is flawed. So if your data is flawed, and they 

recognize it, why are you implementing it without further research? Just quickly, shortly. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congresswoman, the initial determination was 

based on information that was available. New information became 

available that is more current, and said that the closure is no 

longer needed. And so we are doing exactly what we have been told 

by Congress to do, which is to update decisions based on new information when it becomes available, and that is exactly what we 

have done. 

Mrs. ADAMS. So are you going to halt the closures? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes. It is no longer needed because we have new 

information, and we have announced that. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Okay. I had another question. I am trying to get 

back to it. There is just so much to ask in so little time. There was 

something in your testimony a few—I think it was last year’s testimony, I am trying to get to it, about the acidification of the ocean, 

and I can’t find it now, so I guess I will wait, and I will come back 

around when we have more questions. 
37 

Chairman HALL. Are you finished? Okay. Thank you. Chair recognizes the gentle lady from Maryland, Mrs. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 

Lubcheco. It is good to see you again, and I just want to let you 

know how much we really do appreciate all of the work of the fine 

Federal workers——— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. —at NOAA, and the work that they do for us. I 

want to ask you for a minute, again, about the impact of some of 

the—both—some of the budget considerations that are floating all 

around Capitol Hill, and particularly the continuing resolution that 

passed out of the House. And I know we are—continue to work on 

that, but I wonder if you could share with us what it would mean 

in real terms, in terms of staffing, for NOAA, some of the budget 

cuts that are projected for the agency. And can you confirm that 

you would have to absorb the severe cuts that are planned in the 

budget with personnel actions like furloughs? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congresswoman, thank you for recognizing our 

Federal workers. We greatly value our folks at NOAA and know 

what a spectacular job they do day in and day out. Because we are 

about halfway through this fiscal year, the longer we go without 

having clarity about what our budget is, the more challenging it is 

to make adjustments for the remaining part of the year. 

It is premature to say exactly what those consequences to Federal workers will be. Obviously there are—lots of speculation, and 

even that speculation is very challenging to workers who have 

great uncertainty about what is down the road for them. So the uncertainty itself is problematic. But because—we are in the process 

of doing various scenarios, various planning, as are all agencies, 

but it is hard to be specific until we know exactly what the bottom 

line is and, you know, what the specific constraints are. I can tell 

you that it is looking like it would be very, very significant, very 

serious. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I mean, the reality is it wouldn’t be—I mean, you 

can’t very well cut programs. I mean, obviously we need to continue 

things like the weather service and other services, and so that only 

leaves people. But that is just my conclusion. I want to ask you, 

you know, about the end of this fiscal year, as we are entering hurricane season, even today, in this region we are, you know, I pulled 

up my notice from the weather service that tells us that I had better be on the lookout for floods in my neighborhood, and in neighborhoods all throughout this region. Those are things that we 

couldn’t know if we didn’t have the weather service, if we didn’t 

have NOAA. It is certainly—those are certainly things that we 

couldn’t know if we didn’t have satellite coverage. 

And so can you describe for us what some of these—the longer 

term implications are of these budget considerations when it comes 

to leaving a gap? I mean, my understanding is that, with the cuts 

that are being proposed, there is potential for a 100 percent gap 

in satellite coverage over the long term. And what that means to 

agriculture, to commerce, to moving goods all around the—this 

country is pretty—energy, pretty significant. And so I wonder if 

you could describe from your testimony, when we vote to cut fund-
38 

ing for NOAA, we are essentially voting to expose people to risk. 

Their lives, their businesses, their property and all the rest. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congresswoman, the bread and butter services 

that we provide to Americans each and every day depend on those 

satellite systems. They depend on the Federal workers. They depend on the other observing systems, whether they be buoys or 

anything else, and those are very much at risk with some of the 

budget cuts that are being discussed. The kinds, the quality of 

weather forecasts that people take for granted today, we would not 

have that should there—should we not have funding for this Joint 

Polar Satellite System. There would inevitably be a gap. You cannot close that gap with more money, and we would not have severe 

storm warnings. We would not have maritime forecasts for shipping. We would not have long term weather forecasts. Search and 

rescue times would be increased very significantly. Each and every 

one of those is a problem. All of them together would be very, very 

significant impact. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. And I will just close, and 

I—again, I want to really say thank you very much for the work 

that NOAA does. It is incredibly important to our lives, to our economy, to all of our communities. And I hope that, in Congress, we 

actually recognize the danger and the jeopardy that we put in peoples’ lives and their businesses and their communities when we 

willy-nilly cut the important science investigation, research, personnel and programs of the—of NOAA. So thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Chair recognizes the vice-chair of this Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. 

Lubchenco, at a December 2, 2009 hearing on ‘‘The Administration’s view on the state of climate science’’ before the former House 

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, 

Representative Inslee asked you if there was anything about the 

CRU e-mails that affect ocean acidification at all. You replied, 

‘‘Congressman, I haven’t read all of the e-mails, but I have seen 

nothing in them in those that I have read about ocean acidification. 

It is really not an area that is something that that particular research group was focused on.’’ 

Your response to Mr. Inslee indicated that you had read at least 

some of the e-mails, yet on page nine of the enclosure to the DOE 

Inspector General response, it is stated, ‘‘Dr. Lubchenco told us she 

could not be sure whether she had seen any of the CRU e-mails 

or received a briefing from her staff on the results of NOAA’s CRU 

e-mail review prior to testifying before the House Select Committee.’’ Now, can you please explain this apparent discrepancy? 

Had you or had you not read any of the CRU e-mails prior to December 2, 2009 hearing? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, to the best of my knowledge, I 

had read some of them, but certainly not all of them. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Then why did you tell Mr. Inslee one thing 

and the Inspector General another? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. When I was responding to the Inspector General’s staff, I said I could not recall if I had read them or not. 
39 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, the thing says ‘‘Dr. Lubchenco told us 

she could not be sure whether she had seen any of the CRU e-mails 

or received a briefing’’. Now, I think you—what you have said is 

consistent, but the fact that there was doubt about this issue, 

doesn’t that indicate that you really weren’t concerned about the 

Climategate scandal that the e-mails exposed? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I was concerned about the Climategate e-mails, 

but they—there were a large, large number of e-mails involved, 

and I simply did not have time, or think it appropriate for me to 

take time, to sit down and read through each and every one. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, why not? Because if the e-mails were 

correct, it indicated that the fix was on to come up with a certain 

conclusion on what the science of global warming was, to the exclusion of scientists that had contrary views. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, as I think you are aware, every 

single investigation has indicated that there was no manipulation 

of the climate information or the climate——— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well——— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —data. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. —that depends upon how the investigations were put together. You know, certainly the e-mails indicated 

that, when there was a suggestion that people be fired in scientific 

journal—from scientific journal editorial boards, that whenever 

there was a contrary viewpoint, the people on the other side, you 

know, basically denigrated the scientific credentials of those who 

came up with that. And none of those internal investigations actually did the type of peer review that is needed for those of us who 

are not scientists to be able to reach a conclusion. 

Now, you know, it seems to me that what you have just testified 

to indicates a very callous lack of concern over the consequences of 

what the e-mails said, because apparently folks, and I am not sure 

whether you were one of them or not, had already decided the fact 

that the e-mails were to be, you know, completely denigrated and 

not even look for an investigation. Now, you know, maybe all this 

came out of a White House science advisor’s office, because when 

he was at MIT his name was on those e-mails. I don’t think you 

have really blown away the cloud of doubt on it, and I thank you 

for your answer, and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HALL. Thank the gentleman. Recognize Mrs. Fudge, 

gentlelady from Ohio, five minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman HALL. Chair recognizes Mr. Smith, the Chairman of 

Judiciary, for five minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Lubchenco, I would 

like to address my first question to you, and it is related to the BP 

Deepwater Horizon oil budget report of last year. You are on 

record, and individuals in your office are on record, as not wanting 

to distinguish between oil that was dispersed chemically and oil 

that was dispersed naturally. And I have to say to you that a lot 

of people feel that that was an intentional effort to give the Administration more credit than maybe they deserve by blurring the lines 

between those two different kinds of dispersals. Can you—you are 

welcome to respond to that, but I think any reasonable person 

would say that if you are trying to blur the distinctions between 
40 

the two, that is going to give the Administration more credit, rather than being scientifically accurate. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I completely agree with you that 

it is important to distinguish between oil that was chemically or 

naturally dispersed, and, in fact, NOAA is on record for continuing 

to want to do that, and the oil budget report that was released, in 

fact, did make a distinction between those two types of——— 

Mr. SMITH. Right, but aren’t you on record in e-mails with your 

Deputy Administrator as opposing distinguishing the two, or you 

are not? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. No, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The two processes by which that happen are 

very different——— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —and it is important—oil that was shooting out 

of the Macondo well——— is naturally dispersed because of the 

physical turbulence that is right where it is coming out. And use 

of chemical dispersants——— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —also broke up oil into small microscopic droplets——— 

Mr. SMITH. Um-hum. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —and we believed it was very important to distinguish what oil—what fraction of oil came from naturally versus 

chemically dispersed, and, in fact, that is what was in the report, 

both the initial report that was released on August 4, as well 

as——— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —the much more lengthy technical documents 

that provided all the background information. That went into even 

greater detail when it was released in November. 

Mr. SMITH. What percentage was chemically dispersed and what 

percentage was naturally dispersed? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The final report indicated—our initial estimates 

were that eight percent was chemically dispersed. That was later 

revised upward, with more information, to 16 percent of the total 

amount of oil that was spilled. The 4.9 billion—million barrels, plus 

or minus ten percent, 16 percent of that was chemically dispersed. 

Mr. SMITH. All the government efforts were responsible for 16 

percent of the dispersal, and the rest was natural? 84 percent natural? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I am sorry, around one-quarter of the—all of the 

oil that was spilled was dispersed. Of that——— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. So 16 percent of 100 percent was chemically dispersed. So of—this—I am sorry, this is confusing. 

Mr. SMITH. No, no, I——— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Of the quarter—of the total that was dispersed——— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —more was dispersed chemically than naturally. And I can give you the precise numbers, if that would be useful to you. 
41 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you——— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. —Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Mr. Sarbanes, my gosh, I am glad to 

see you. Recognize you for 12 or 15 minutes, whatever you need. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to wait 

until the next panel, but I do understand from my staff that you 

were thinking of having me nominated for the Nobel Prize for patience, which my children, particularly my two teenage sons, would 

have great amusement at hearing. So—but I will not be——— 

Chairman HALL. It would be a lot better than a bunch of them 

that have been recognized. So I thank you, Dr. Lubchenco, for your 

testimony, and I thank the Members for their questions. I thank 

you for hanging so close to the five minute deal. Members of the 

Committee may have additional questions, Dr. Lubchenco, and we 

will ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will remain 

open for two weeks for additional comments from Members. And 

you are excused, and we will move to our next panel, and we thank 

you for your very valuable time. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you, Chairman Hall, and Members of the 

Committee. I greatly appreciate your attention to our budget. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. We will move now to our second panelist, 

Dr. Anastas from EPA, and I welcome you, Dr. Anastas. Prior to 

his services as Assistant Administrator, Dr. Anastas was the Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering at 

Yale University. He was Chief of the Industrial Chemistry Branch 

and EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

This is also the third time you have appeared before the Committee, and I am pleased that you could be here, and I thank you 

for being here. As our witness should know, spoken testimony is 

limited to five minutes, after which the Members of the Committee 

will have five minutes each to ask questions. And we ask you to 

do your best, but your importance tells us that we will have some 

leeway there if you want to finish answering a question. But try 

and stay as close to five minutes as you can. I think if I were you, 

I would want to answer them and then wind it all up. How about— 

who is next here? Dr. Anastas, we recognize you now for your first 

five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL ANASTAS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD), 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you very much, and good morning, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and the Members of the 

Committee. My name is Paul Anastas. I am the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the science advisor for the agency. I am a trained synthetic organic chemist from Brandeis University, and prior to my current position, I was on the faculty at Yale 

University and the Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and 

Green Engineering at Yale. It is a pleasure to be with you here this 

morning to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget for the 

Office of Research and Development at the EPA. As the Members 

of this Committee know, the EPA is not only a regulatory agency, 
42 

EPA is a science agency. I am happy to discuss the excellent 

science that is taking place at the EPA. 

As millions of Americans are cutting back and spending less, 

they expect the same good fiscal sense out of their government. The 

EPA research and development budget reflects this responsibility 

and the hard choices needed to support both the fiscal health of our 

nation and the research needed to protect the health of the American people and the environment. EPA research is unique. In the 

environmental science community we conduct both intramural and 

extramural research that spans across the entire spectrum of scientific disciplines in support of EPA’s mission. And while there are 

other agencies that focus on environmental issues and other agencies that focus on public health, the EPA is the agency, and the 

Federal government deals with both human and environmental 

health, and the intersection of these two areas. 

The President’s 2012 budget includes $584 million for the Office of Research and Development, a decrease of $12.6 million. While 

this decreased budget reflects the tough choices that are needed in 

today’s fiscal climate, it allows the EPA to continue conducting the 

research and development necessary to protect all Americans. We 

will continue to address complex environmental challenges of the 

21st century by pursuing the latest science with the most cutting 

edge research tools available. We will focus on efforts to understand the environmental threats we face and on the innovative approaches that promote synergy between human health and environmental protection that catalyze economic growth. 

With the 2012 budget, ORD will do more with less. We will work 

to strengthen the planning and delivery of our science by realigning our research programs so that they are integrated and 

transdisciplinary. This strategic internal realignment will help us 

conduct the best possible science to address today’s 

transdisciplinary environmental challenges. EPA will also enhance 

its outreach to the research community through its Science and 

Technology to Achieve Results Program, the STAR Program. This 

investment compliments our internal EPA expertise by tapping 

into the expertise of academia and engaging the broader scientific 

community. Excellent research that, I may add, is taking place in 

most of the districts of the Members of this Committee. 

The 2012 budget request also supports high priority research 

areas that are of national importance. For example, the budget 

supports work on computational toxicology, an area that is revolutionizing the way that we assess chemicals and their potential toxicity to humans and the environment. Computational toxicological 

tools can help us get critical information more efficiently and at a 

lower cost. The budget also supports research in the field of green 

chemistry, an area focused on the design of chemicals that are environmentally benign and less hazardous to people. Green chemistry practices have demonstrated co-benefits in both environmental protection and economic growth. 

The 2012 budget includes a focus on innovative aging water technologies to address the nation’s drinking water infrastructure. 

Through collaborations with strategic partners, both large and 

small business, universities and local governments, we will work to 

develop new cost-effective drinking water strategies. 
43 

STEM fellowships in science, technology, engineering and math 

are also the focus of the 2012 budget. We recognize the importance 

of teaching, mentoring, and encouraging the next generation of scientists and engineers who will protect our environment into the future. Our STAR Fellowships Program will help ensure maximum 

intellectual capability and creativity are applied to today’s environmental challenges. And finally, the 2012 budget supports air monitoring research, which is critical to the development of 21st century 

technologies that can improve measurement data and address 

emerging air quality questions. 

To conclude, I believe EPA has a strong tradition of excellence 

in science. Today our expertise and capabilities leave us well positioned to take environmental protection to an even greater level of 

effectiveness, even during this time of tough fiscal choices. For decades we have worked to protect human health and the environment 

by reducing air pollution, reducing water contaminants, and by 

cleaning up hazardous waste sites. In 2012 and beyond we have 

the opportunity to align our research in ways that can strengthen 

this legacy. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today, Chairman Hall. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anastas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY DR. PAUL ANASTAS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD), U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good morning Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, and other Members of 

the Committee. My name is Paul Anastas. I am the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It 

is a pleasure to be here with you this morning to discuss EPA’s FY 2012 President’s 

Budget for the Office of Research and Development (ORD). 

As millions of families are cutting back and spending less, they expect the same 

good fiscal sense out of their government. The EPA research and development budget reflects the hard choices needed for our nation’s short- and long-term fiscal 

health, while at the same time allowing us to maintain critical research needed to 

protect public health and the environment. 

ORD is unique in the environmental science community because we conduct intramural and extramural research across the entire spectrum of disciplines necessary 

to support the mission of EPA. In addition to the cutting edge science that we have 

traditionally pursued, we will invest in research on innovative technologies and promote synergies between environmental protection, public health protection and the 

pursuits of economic growth and job production. As science advances, EPA is working to address the increasing complexity of the 21st century. 

The President’s 2012 Budget includes $584 million for EPA’s Office of Research 

and Development, a decrease of $12.6 million from the FY 2010 enacted budget, to 

support research and innovation into new and emerging environmental science. 

With this investment, we will focus on enhancing and strengthening the planning 

and delivery of science by restructuring our research and development programs to 

be more integrated and cross-disciplinary. By strategic internal redirections, EPA 

will enhance its outreach to the broader scientific community through its Science 

to Achieve Results (STAR) program, which funds competitive research grants across 

a broad range of environmental science and engineering disciplines. This investment 

will bring innovative and sustainable solutions to environmental science challenges 

by engaging the academic research community. This request also supports high-priority research of national importance in such areas as: 

• Computational Toxicology, which is revolutionizing how chemicals are assessed for potential toxicity to humans and the environment by conducting innovative research that integrates advances in molecular biology, chemistry 

and innovative computer science to more effectively and efficiently prioritize 

chemicals, including potential endocrine disruptors, based on risks. 

• Green chemistry to develop innovative approaches and tools that inform the 

design of chemicals throughout their life cycle. 
44 

• Innovative drinking water technology to address the Nation’s aging water infrastructure by advancing new technologies and working with strategic partners to help bring new cost-effective technologies to the market. 

• Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fellowships to 

focus the best scientific minds in the environmental field to focus on our hardest problems and develop the next generation of scientists and engineers that 

will provide the solutions to our Nation’s environmental challenges 

• Air monitoring research to provide 21st century technologies to improve 

measurement data to address emerging air quality questions. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we have a strong tradition of excellence in science at EPA-one that 

we are well positioned to build upon to take environmental protection to the next 

level. For decades, we have protected human health and the environment by reducing air pollutants and water contaminants, cleaning up hazardous waste sites, and 

many other significant actions. In 2012 and beyond, we have the opportunity to 

strengthen this legacy. 

I look forward to working with the Committee to address current and emerging 

environmental problems that will help our Agency protect the environment and 

human health. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you for your testimony. Reminding Members that committee rules limit questioning to five minutes, the 

Chairman at this point will open the round of questions, and I recognize myself for five minutes. 

Doctor, your office has released a draft study plan to investigate 

the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, 

right? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Correct. 

Chairman HALL. I am concerned about the scope, design, and objectivity of this study. I understand that the EPA Science Advisory 

Board is hearing from stakeholders this week regarding similar 

concerns. 

Dr. ANASTAS. True? The Science Advisory Board is reviewing the 

study plan this week. 

Chairman HALL. Can you commit to me that you will give strong 

and thorough consideration to all stakeholder comments filed on 

this study, and that you will proceed with it in an objective and 

transparent manner? 

Dr. ANASTAS. We always will take——— 

Chairman HALL. This is not what you always do. Will you tell 

me you are going to do that this time? 

Dr. ANASTAS. As always, we will——— 

Chairman HALL. Yes. Do you know how to say yes——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. I do. 

Chairman HALL. —to me? 

Dr. ANASTAS. As a matter of fact——— 

Chairman HALL. You never have. 

Dr. ANASTAS. —end of my sentence. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. All right. I understand that this study is 

expected to take a couple of years. Will you also commit to providing opportunities for public and stakeholder input, including 

from State regulators, industry and academic community on study 

activities after it has been initiated? Yes or no? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Yes, we—yes. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. All right. I will get to the next question. 

It will be much easier, probably, than that one. How will the proposed study take into account whether current State and Federal 
45 

regulations are capable of effectively managing and addressing 

drinking water issues related to the hydraulic fracturing? Right 

now it seems to me that you are ignoring State regulations. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Chairman Hall, this is such an important topic. Let 

me just say one important thing about it. We do not presuppose the 

results of a study before it is completed. This is a study to understand what the potential impacts are, and it would be inappropriate and unscientific in order to presuppose what the results of 

that study is going to be. This is to determine whether or not there 

are impacts from this important area. 

Chairman HALL. Well, if potential concerns are not examined in 

the context of current rules and practices, how is the study going 

to have any value in terms of informing key decision makers, like 

the States? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Key decision makers are going to be involved, engaged, in this—have been engaged and will continue to be engaged 

in the formation of the study design, and as we go forward with 

it. But this is a research study that we are not presupposing the 

outcomes of the potential impacts, if any, on this important area. 

Chairman HALL. A lot of your planned study focuses on the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. Correct. 

Chairman HALL. —with very little focus on the probability of 

those impacts occurring if current State level regulations are followed. With a million wells hydraulically fractured, and over half 

a century of history, how do you justify not incorporating well established risk assessment and characterization methodologies into 

this study in order for decision makers to quantify and better respond to any risks that are identified? 

Dr. ANASTAS. It would be impossible to calculate the probability 

of an event happening if we don’t first determine whether or not 

a risk—whether or not an event, an impact, actually can happen. 

So while I understand the nature of your question, it is a follow 

up consideration after we determine if there are potential impacts. 

Chairman HALL. I recognize Mrs. Johnson for her five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Dr. Anastas, I am a native 

Texan. We are a stubborn group, and we don’t care too much about 

what people think, but I want to applaud your office for looking out 

for our future. The Office of Research and Development budget request highlights the Administration’s goal to strengthen the future 

scientific work force by increasing funding for fellowships to students through Science and Technology to Achieve Results. That is 

the STAR grant, and the fellowship program. How is the Office of 

Research and Development leveraging the work of STAR grantees 

to make progress on the agency’s research priorities, and what impact would the House passed 2011 funding bill have on your research programs, and which programs would be terminated or severely crippled? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Well, thank you very much for recognizing the important role that our STAR fellowship program and our STAR 

grants program plays. It is critical to complement the excellence 

and the expertise in the Office of Research and Development by 

tapping into the expertise in the broader scientific community. And 

that is research, as I mentioned in my opening statement, taking 
46 

place in the universities and research institutes in the districts of 

many of all of you. 

In addition, the STAR fellows are our investment in the next 

generation of scientists. These fellows, which go through a very 

competitive process in order to get these fellowships, often become 

environmental professionals at universities, at the State level, and 

yes, even at the EPA, and so it is an extremely important role that 

they play. I would just say that, while we recognize that the proposed budget cuts are broad and severe, it is difficult, with the 

level of detail currently, to know exactly which programs would be 

curtailed or need to be eliminated. But it—it is important that, 

when we look at the foundation, the scientific foundation of how we 

protect our air, water, and land, that the proposed budget allows 

us to continue that important research, and some of the cuts being 

proposed would be—would severely impact that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Now comes the question that reflects on where I 

am from. The Administration’s budget request highlights the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program, which develops innovative approaches to help communities increase their 

environmental sustainability and resilience more efficiently and effectively. How will EPA ensure that lower income communities are 

able to participate in this program? 

Dr. ANASTAS. One of the things that has been seen over the past 

years is that the impacts on low income communities are disproportionate to the population in general. There is study after study that 

shows that this is an important consideration. And what we need 

is the scientific basis for understanding, not just assessing the risk 

chemical by chemical, but the cumulative impacts on these disproportionately impacted communities from a variety of chemicals, 

a variety of different substances. 

And so one of the things that this budget includes, and one of 

the priorities of this Administrator, is focusing on environmental 

justice in disproportionally impacted communities. So what that 

looks at is the new scientific tools. As a matter of fact, this past 

year we held a groundbreaking symposium on the basic research, 

the basic scientific tools, around environmental justice, and are in 

the process of developing those types of technical guidance documents for the models, the tools, the scientific tools that are necessary for these types of analyses. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. My time is about over. 

Chairman HALL. The gentlelady yields back and I recognize the 

gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

sorry, I have had to run back and forth today between two very significant hearings, and so I will hope that the questions I have in 

mind are not repetitive of some of the points you may have made 

in your opening statement, but I will be reading your opening 

statement in its total this afternoon. 

I would like to ask about the EPA’s finding of CO2 essay, a pollutant, and thus a danger to human health. This is something that 

many of us are deeply concerned about, because we find that to be, 

at least after looking at the justification of that, to be a stretching 

of the definition of human health to the point that it opens up 

broad new areas of controls over peoples’ lives than what people 
47 

really believe does—what human health was all about, and—originally. 

That report—the technical support document in backing up that 

report relied heavily on the intergovernmental panel on climate 

change. In fact, 50 percent of the sources on this support document 

either were directly from the IPCC or relied on the IPCC. Do you 

think that you can rely that much on people—scientists that are 

not necessarily familiar to you personally to do something as dramatic as claiming the powers that then flow from this decision? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The technical support document that you refer to 

does rely on a number of sources. Certainly relies on the reports 

out of the National Academies and the National Resource Council 

of this——— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. 

Dr. ANASTAS. —country, the—several studies from the National 

Academies. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And some of the National Academy studies 

rely—if you read them, rely on the IPCC research that was then 

given to them. 

Dr. ANASTAS. There are both original, as well as——— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. ANASTAS. —assessments in synthesis. There are also the 

studies from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, as well as 

the IPCC. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well—let me put it this way. After the 

disclosure of the Climategate e-mails, many of which talked about 

suppressing dissent, many of which talked about manipulating 

graphs, and as we know, one important graph by Mr. Hansen over 

at NASA eliminated an entire—what they call a hockey stick, an 

entire description of the mini-Ice Age and ended up saying that 

there wasn’t a mini-Ice Age. With all of that—the shenanigans that 

were indicated by these e-mails, you still think that we can rely 

upon people who suppress dissent, manipulate graphs and actually 

limit—and manipulate computer input? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I think it is always important to ask the kind of 

questions that you are asking, Congressman. What I think we have 

seen is the—whether it is reviews from universities, whether it is 

reviews from—even the House of Commons in the UK, that investigation after investigation on whether any of these concerns have 

changed the science or the scientific conclusions, the answer is definitively no. But I can’t say it better than the National Academies 

said it this past year, and I will quote, ‘‘A strong credible body of 

scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring is caused 

largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad 

range of human and natural systems.’’ 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And that climate change is something that 

now the EPA has expanded a definition of human health to include 

climate change. Mr. Chairman, I would, at this point, like to submit for the record a list of 10 quotes from the EPA Climategate 

documents, the e-mails that were made public that indicate that 

those involved in—the research centers being depended upon were 

engaged in manipulation of information, of suppressing dissent, 

and other unscientific activities. 

Chairman HALL. Without objection, they are admitted. 
48 

[The appears in Appendix II:] 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

appreciate this chance to get a chance to talk to you. 

Chairman HALL. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. I have never been confused—have you listened to 

the way I talk? You think I am from——— 

Chairman HALL. I have suffered from the way you talk. 

Mr. MILLER. I would have thought you would have been comforted by the way I talk. 

Chairman HALL. But you are a great lawyer. I want to hear from 

you. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Miller 

of North Carolina. One of the issues that this Committee and the 

Oversight Subcommittee has looked at in the last few years has 

been the clusters of rare cancers in rural areas, the clusters of rare 

birth defects in lightly populated areas, that has to have been 

caused by the environmental exposure. There really is no other explanation, but it is very difficult to tell exactly what it is that led 

to it. The EPA has had for some time now the IRIS Program, 

the——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. —registry of chemicals that are considered to have 

a public health effect, or may have a public health effect. The risk 

assessment for those, which has come under great criticism, although there are thousands—at least hundreds, certainly, and perhaps thousands of new chemicals entering the market every year, 

IRIS has really done—produced two or three new assessments a 

year. And the GAO has had the IRIS Program on the high risk 

watch for programs that simply are failing, and the apparent reason is the interference with the White House Office of Management 

and Budget. OMB is specifically—OIRA, the Office of Regulatory——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

Mr. MILLER. There you go, what you said. And we have been 

promised reform of that, and what is the status of that reform? 

Were you—or what steps are you taking to get IRIS off the high 

risk watch list? What are you doing to make sure that there is not 

political interference by OMB, by OIRA, by industry or by the 

agencies that themselves use chemicals that have public health 

consequences? 

Dr. ANASTAS. First of all, thank you very much for the question, 

and the chance to address this topic, because it is—it goes to the 

core of the scientific integrity that this President and this Administrator insists upon. The IRIS program is extremely important and 

was on the high risk watch list because of its importance and because of necessary changes that needed to take place. The changes 

that have taken place are a reformed IRIS process that Administrator Jackson put in place in May of 2009. 

Since that time, the number of IRIS assessments that have been 

produced exceeds the number of assessments from the previous 

four years combined. We made significant investments in fiscal 

year 2009 to the base of that program, an increase of 25 percent 

in personnel and 40 percent of the budget back in 2009. Because 
49 

of those—the reforms of the process, because of the reforms of 

the—and the advancements made, we believe that IRIS is on the 

right path to being a—to being the type of solid program that we 

can all be proud of. But we agree that a program of this importance, it is appropriate to have the level of scrutiny that the GAO 

is saying to keep it on the high risk list. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rohrabacher moved 

into the record, without objection, quotes regarding the e-mails 

from East Anglia. Those have been examined closely by several scientific bodies. The British House of Commons had an inquiry that 

produced a report that found that there was overwhelming scientific evidence of anthropogenic, in other words, man caused, 

human caused climate change, and cleared the—or University of 

East Anglia. That was by scientists. In addition, there was a Penn 

State inquiry as well that found the same thing. I do not have 

those reports with me, but I can gather them pretty quickly, and 

I would like to move those into the record as well. 

Chairman HALL. You don’t have anything from Libya? 

Mr. MILLER. I did not understand you, sir. 

Chairman HALL. I say, without objection, they will be admitted. 

[The appears in Appendix II:] 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Thank you. I am sorry, I do have one, which 

I will provide now, and I will provide the other later. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. I thank you. Now we recognize Dr. Harris from Maryland. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Doctor, for appearing for us. I have to tell you, I don’t always 

listen word for word for what—our wonderful Chairman when he 

introduces witnesses, but he did use that word organic chemist in 

there. And to a physician who went through pre-med, it still strikes 

fear in our hearts. Anyway—so congratulations, being an organic 

chemist. Anyone who has been there will know what I am talking 

about. 

Doctor, you know, you mentioned—I am going to follow up from 

the gentleman from California. You know, you gave the quote there 

that said, well, you know, there are going to be significant impacts, 

but you and I both know what significant means, to a scientist 

means P less than .05 at any amount, okay? 

And we are going to get into TMDLs in a second, but with regards to CO2—see, that is the problem. I mean, look, I know that 

the temperature is increasing, and I know that CO2 probably has 

a little bit to do with it. The question is, can we make a significant—have a significant effect by spending trillions of dollars doing 

it? So that—in my mind, that is the question. It is not whether 

there—we could significantly affect it. Sure, we probably can. We 

can probably make that much change, or that—I don’t know, and 

it is all based on modeling. 

I am going to segue into TMDLs, the total maximum daily loads 

out of tributaries, very important to the Chesapeake Bay. I just 

need to know, did your office have anything to do with developing 

the modeling for TMDLs? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The Office of Research and Development works 

very closely with the Office of Water in developing underlying 
50 

science. It is the Office of Water that then is involved with the 

determinature of the——— 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. So let me get into that, because you say 

the underlying science, but my understanding is that the Chesapeake Bay Watershed model—and, look, I have done scientific research. My understanding of science is you go out, you make some 

observations, and you collect data from a group of observations, 

and you comment on those observations, and then postulate about 

the possible meaning of those observations. 

This Chesapeake Bay Watershed model is a computer model. I 

mean, it is modeling, and most people who know computers know 

you can kind of program it to get whatever results you kind of 

want. So it is based on—I mean, I think that is true. That is what 

my kids tell me. It is—so what you have got is you have got a 

model based on urban point sources that then have to have something called the scenario builder application applied to it to actually go and to look at agricultural non-point sources, and then come 

up with a justification for TMDLs. 

Now, I am just going to ask you do we have any evidence, real 

evidence, in any water shed anywhere that implementing a TMDL 

regulation of this magnitude, because this will cost tens of billions 

of dollars in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. I have one county 

alone, $1.87 billion in that county. They would have to double or 

triple their property taxes to pay for it. Similar to the CO2 speculation—I will call it speculation because we really don’t know what 

that curve looks like, except we do know it is flatter than postulated originally. 

Given that speculation, are we, you know, how do you call that 

science if what you are doing is you are creating a computer model 

that doesn’t work on real data and has no real data, in terms of 

efficacy, to prove that it is worth the investment of tens of billions 

of dollars? I mean, is this really just based on a computer model? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you very much for the question, Dr. Harris. 

This is an important point. The Office of Research and Development plays an important role in looking at what the different contaminants are, what the different substances are that might cause 

adverse consequence to the environment, to the ecosystem, et 

cetera. The modeling that you discuss is something employed by 

the Office of Water in making regulatory determinations. 

I will suggest, just as a general comment on modeling, that validation of models is an essential and important part of the utilization of any model. And so, when we take a look at this model that 

is being used by the Office of Water to make these determinations, 

certainly sensitivity analysis modeling validation is crucial. And 

one of the other, I think, very important points to make is some 

of the basic research that is being developed is how do we look at 

the various approaches, for instance, in the Chesapeake Bay, of 

comparing the traditional—what is called gray infrastructure, or 

constructed facilities, to help purify the water with green infrastructure, the natural ways that the ecosystem does it, and——— 

Mr. HARRIS. Sure. I understand, Doctor, and I just don’t—I only 

have three seconds left, so I am just going to ask, is there validation, and could you share that validation? Is it based on real obser-
51 

vations, and if it is, could you—are you willing to share that with 

my office, what conclusions you came up with, or validations? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I will be more than happy to go and take that question back to the Office of Water and get that information. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Doctor. Now recognize the gentleman really from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering if you were going to say I was from North Carolina, I appreciate that you didn’t. Anyway, I have some very direct questions 

here. 

How do you think the continuing resolution that was passed 

would affect the agency’s ability to prevent another Love Canal or 

similar type of occurrence? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The role of the Office of Research and Development 

is to provide the scientific basis for the actions that are taken, the 

scientific basis for the decisions that are made. So we know that, 

in general, the types of cuts that are being proposed would significantly impair the ability of our research programs on air, water, 

land, but it is difficult, with the current level of specificity, to know 

exactly which would be impacted at this time. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, one of the complaints that the majority 

has about the Environmental Protection Agency is that it will cost 

jobs, but I think that that is a false choice. We can have jobs, and 

we can have clean air, and we can have clean water. In fact, we 

have to have clean air and clean water to have jobs. So—and also, 

I think there is an effect that many jobs were created because of 

the Clean Air Act. Could you comment on that? 

Dr. ANASTAS. It is an excellent point, because we have heard this 

discussion about the tradeoff between jobs and that, and we know 

we are all concerned about job growth, especially at this time. 

When we take a look at the accomplishments that have taken place 

since the founding of the EPA, the dramatic improvements to air 

quality, the purification of the water at the same time that our 

gross domestic product has increased 207 percent over that time. 

When we take a look at the study required by the Congress on the 

effect of the Clean Air Act that you mentioned, that—the Clean Air 

Act would result in $2 trillion of benefits over the course of the life 

of the—since the passing of the Clean Air Act amendments, and a 

30 to one return on the cost of those regulations. That is dramatically—that is a dramatic return on return on investment. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, that is certainly dramatic. Another thing 

is that the, again, the CR’s effect on the EPA’s ability to promote 

stem education, science, technology, engineering, mathematics. 

Would this discourage students from getting into those fields, this 

kind of a CR, and also does it drive current practitioners out of the 

fields—of those fields? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Our STEM fellowships are one of the real gems 

that we are very proud about. It allows students to be involved in 

this area, and it is extremely competitive. We are able, because of 

the popularity of this particular program, to only fund a small percentage of those students who apply for it. But those students who 

compete successfully are the cream of the crop, true excellence, and 
52 

are the vanguard of the scientists who will inform the environmental protection into the future. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So—I mean, it sounds to me like the majority 

party is willing to risk our ability to protect our communities from 

toxic waste, the—they are willing to risk the creation of new jobs, 

and they are willing to put—or prevent scientists from going into 

the field, and all because of a few—not a few, but many misguided 

e-mails sent by a few scientists in East Anglia. Thank you. That 

is the last of my question. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you. At this time we will recognize Mrs. 

Adams, the gentlelady from Florida, who will be given some excess 

time. She didn’t get all of her answers last time, but we recognize 

you for five or five d a half minutes, or something like that. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Well, quite honestly, I have just been listening, and I heard you 

say it was 31—30 to one return. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Yes. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Do you have what those 30 are? I mean, can you 

provide that to—my office? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Oh, would be happy to. As a matter of fact, this 

is a report that is required by Congress to be put out on the effectiveness and the costs and the benefits of the Clean Air Act. Would 

be happy to provide that, and what the number is in the Clean Air 

Act amendments, which are largely known to be among the most 

expensive regulations that the EPA puts out, also have the highest 

return, as I mentioned, $30 in benefits for every $1. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Correct, but I—as a new Member, I would love to 

see that, if you——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. Be—- 

Mrs. ADAMS. —get it to my office. 

Dr. ANASTAS. —happy——— 

Mrs. ADAMS. You know, I was listening to Congressman Smith, 

and when he was asking about the Deepwater oil spill, and I am 

sure you heard the discussion that was being had. And one of the 

things that—the Doctor said something about—she mentioned this 

Gulf seafood and everything else, and there has been some discussion on whether it is safe to eat, whether it is not safe to eat. It 

has been ruled that it is safe to eat, but listening to discussion this 

morning, I wondered if the American people that were listening 

were wondering if that was now true, based on her comments. 

But I noticed that there has been, you know, there has been 

crossover between agencies, and—related to the August 4 Deepwater Horizon budget report, titled ‘‘What Happened To The Oil?’’ 

An e-mail from EPA Deputy Administrator Bob—I——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. Perciasepe. 

Mrs. ADAMS. There you go. Summarizes comments made by you, 

Al Venosa and Greg Williams, opposing the idea of distinguishing 

between oil that is in the ocean naturally or dispersed via—versus 

the chemical dispersions—I will say Bob, not real good with his last 

name, states, ‘‘The physically dispersed versus chemically dispersed 

has a logical basis. However, that is different from saying it is accurate.’’ He also stated, ‘‘EPA feels that the evidence is currently 

not sufficient to enable us to distinguish accurately chemical from 

physical dispersence mechanisms.’’ And, you know, blurring the 
53 

lines between, as Mr. Moore said, what was chemically dispersed 

and what was naturally dispersed. Do you believe the Administration, and specifically the Administrator that just was here before 

you, was trying to give the information that the Federal response 

was greater than it was actually needed? 

And I just want to note something. There was an e-mail to Bob 

from her that said, ‘‘Chemically dispersed is part of the Federal response, and naturally dispersed is not, and there is an interest in 

being able to sum up the Federal response efforts.’’ 

Dr. ANASTAS. So—thank you for the opportunity to speak to this 

important question. Couple of things. One, NOAA took on the very 

difficult scientific question of estimating the current state at the 

time of where the oil was going, and the natural scientific discussions about the approaches were an important discussion. The one 

thing——— 

Mrs. ADAMS. I asked a question, though, and that was——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. Oh, I am—I——— 

Mrs. ADAMS. —was the Administration trying to give the impression that Federal response was greater than it actually was? 

Dr. ANASTAS. No. Let me explain why. Even with that first draft, 

it would be the exact opposite. If you wanted to demonstrate that 

the government response was more needed or more effective, the 

assumptions would have been exactly reversed. The revision—the 

later revisions and refinements of the data increased the amount 

of chemically dispersed oil. And so the first——— 

Mrs. ADAMS. So you don’t believe that chemically dispersed——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. —in an understatement. 

Mrs. ADAMS. So you don’t believe—because, I mean, when I interpret this e-mail, and it says, because naturally dispersed is not 

part of a Federal response, we need to, you know, there is an interest. 

Dr. ANASTAS. In that first draft that you are discussing, naturally dispersed was portrayed as being higher——— 

Mrs. ADAMS. Okay. Why are there no EPA scientists listed on the 

August 4 BP Deepwater Horizon’s oil budget report, titled ‘‘What 

Happened to the Oil?’’ There were earlier drafts of the report listed, 

and at least one, Dr. Venosa was on that one. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Dr. Venosa was asked to comment on the report 

after it was drafted. Dr. Venosa, it is my best understanding that 

he was not involved with the drafting of the report, but asked to 

comment on it after it would, I believe, be——— 

Mrs. ADAMS. So why are there no other EPA scientists on there? 

Dr. ANASTAS. They weren’t involved with the drafting of the report. Commenting on the report after it is drafted probably isn’t 

the best way to include somebody as an author. 

Chairman HALL. Gentleman’s time expired. Recognize Mrs. 

Fudge, the young lady from Ohio, five minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Anastas, on this Committee we talk a lot about innovation 

and technology development, and much of what we hear in this 

Congress about the EPA relates to regulatory work and how regulations kill jobs and hurt our economy. Last week, during a hearing 

with DOE, I asked Secretary Chu about how the Clean Air Act has 

helped compel new developments in clean technologies. Secretary 
54 

Chu explained that regulations have helped spur a variety of new 

technological developments. 

In fact, I have a Department of Commerce report that states that 

the environmental technology and services sector have experienced 

dramatic growth since the passage of the Clean Air Act, and by 

2008 had generated approximately $300 billion in revenues and 

supported nearly 1.7 million jobs. 

I just want you for—again, for the record, to talk about the impacts of the Clean Air Act on jobs and the economy, and how do 

EPA regulations and scientists spur innovation. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this 

topic, because I certainly believe that some of the most—among the 

most important jobs that we can have is jobs that do contribute to 

protecting Americans’ health, protecting Americans’ environment. 

And you are correct in saying not only has that emerging area of 

environmental technologies, as you cited, been a $300 billion market, but globally it is projected to be a $700 billion market, which 

would allow for some of the technologies built here in America to 

be an export in a growing market. 

Perhaps one of the most exciting areas of innovation is how we 

start thinking about our understanding of what causes us concern 

for environmental and public health, such as some of the chemicals 

that we use every day, you know, the basis of our society and our 

economy. And in addition to getting the deep insight about what 

makes some of these chemicals cause the problems for our health 

and for our environment, we are able to take this insight and turn 

it into design of next generation substances that both increase performance, increase profitability and are good for humans and the 

environment. This is the area of green chemistry that is recognized 

by the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards, with leaders in industry, small business and academia showing that they 

can use innovation to make themselves more profitable, while 

being environmentally beneficial. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Doctor. Thank you for your 

testimony, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. This time recognize Vice-Chairman 

of the Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Dr. Anastas. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I want to go back to Mr. Rohrabacher’s line 

of questioning——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. Um-hum. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. —and I just want to reiterate some figures. 

With the technical support document released on December 7, 

2009, there are 35 references from the IPCC and the Climate 

Change Science Program. There are an additional 43 references for 

the individual chapters or summary within those 35. There are five 

more studies that were incorporated into Chapter Seven of the 

2007 Working Group One IPCC report, which again, is 35 mentioned—one of the 35 mentioned above, and there are further 29 

reports from either the National Academy of Science or from government agencies. 
55 

Now, the total of that is, out of the 146, 77 came from inside the 

government, or from the IPCC, or the Climate Change Science Program, and 69 outside. So a majority of the studies were from government or government related, because the IPCC is a UN group. 

Do you agree that this is a high amount of dependence on the 

IPCC? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I think it is important to recognize that the IPCC— 

and as I—I believe I have the figure that there is 619 contributing 

authors of scientists from different universities, from different research institutes that contribute to the IPCC. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I am asking you whether you think 

it is a high amount of dependence upon the ICC—IPCC and related 

sources. 

Dr. ANASTAS. I think what we are talking about——— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes or no? 

Dr. ANASTAS. No. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. What are you doing about ensuring 

that the EPA’s policies are based on a diversity of sources for scientific input into its decisions? This doesn’t look very diverse to me, 

where it is 77 from inside and 69 from outside. 

Dr. ANASTAS. The contributions to these assessments are from 

the primary scientific literature conducted by research institutes 

and universities. This is what makes up these assessments. So the 

diversity is not on the assessments themselves, it is where those 

assessments compile their primary scientific literature, the primary 

research. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. There have been a lot of mistakes that 

have been, unfortunately, discovered, the worst of which was when 

the Himalayan glaciers would melt. It has gotten so bad that the 

government of India doesn’t rely on the IPCC, even though its 

chairman is an Indian citizen, and they have one of their institutes 

outside of New Delhi. So, you know, I think there is at least one 

government that wants to reach independent conclusions from the 

IPCC in determining what they are doing. 

Now, let me ask you, sir, since you are the principal science advisor to the Administrator, how can you assure us that the data relied on meets all basic EPA data quality standards? 

Dr. ANASTAS. One of the things that the Administrator said to 

me when she approached me about taking this position was her 

commitment to scientific integrity and her insistence that I always 

do everything in my power to ensure scientific integrity. What we 

have is a framework for preserving that scientific integrity. It involves everything from insisting on peer review of the scientific 

analyses that are conducted, and it says——— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And I am sorry, Dr. Anastas, but, you 

know, there was one report that was in one of the IPCC documents 

that was written by, you know, some student that appeared in a 

scientific magazine, it might have been ‘‘Nature’’, or somebody else 

with absolutely no peer review. Now, have you gone back and look 

at how much of this stuff was vigorously peer reviewed and how 

much simply slipped through the cracks and was published as gospel by the IPCC without any peer review? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Of the thousands of scientific studies that are published in the peer review literature that contribute to these assess-
56 

ments, the data that is relied upon by the agency not only looks 

at peer review, we also look at review by a science advisory board. 

We also get input from such bodies as our Board of Scientific Counselors. The structure of preserving scientific integrity is something 

that is——— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Um-hum. 

Dr. ANASTAS. —of paramount importance to me, and of paramount importance to this Administrator. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I, you know, as you know, I disagree 

with this Administration on the job killing global warming thrust 

that I think has been sufficiently discredited. Even the last Congress defeated it. But let me suggest you put the wagons in a little 

bit tighter circle, because you will hear more about this. And I 

yield back. 

Chairman HALL. I thank the gentleman. Finally I recognize Mr. 

Sarbanes from Maryland. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for being here, Mr. Anastas. Just on the climate change issue briefly, before I ask a question on another line, as I understand it, the 

mistakes that the IPCC has made along the way are ones that 

have been acknowledged, that they have recognized, that when you 

lay them against all the rest of the information and analysis and 

assessment that has been done, really pales in comparison to the 

very good work that has been done there. And I just want to commend you and the EPA for being careful in responding to criticism 

of the IPCC to make sure that you don’t sort of throw the baby out 

with the bath water. 

And, frankly, having scientists acknowledge that a mistake may 

have been made here or there, but that the overall weight of the 

evidence and analysis is still very, very powerful and compelling, 

I think, frankly, will give it more credibility going forward, and I 

commend the agency on trying to make those distinctions, because 

that is how you need to proceed in order to make important recommendations with respect to policy relating to climate change. So 

I just did want to acknowledge that. 

I wanted to get back to the Chairman, when he initiated the 

questioning on this round, did refer to the fact that the EPA will 

be taking a look at this hydrofracking issue, and I am glad that 

that is the case. The folks in Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed, our radar is starting to go up on this issue as we see 

what is happening with the development of the Marcellus Shale. 

Frankly, my perspective is that the industry is moving faster than 

is prudent in this region right now. There is a kind of a pell-mell 

quality to the way they are moving. If the promise of this is what 

it is described as by the industry, and certainly there is profitability in it, from what I can gather, it is all that it is being touted 

as, then certainly we can afford to make sure that we are proceeding in a careful manner, that it is being done right, and that 

it is being based on science. 

What I was curious about is whether the study that will be conducted by the EPA will be taking a look at the impact with respect 

to waste water, the impact of that being released into tributaries 

within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the potential now for there 

to be radioactive elements. There is one concern now that is being 
57 

looked at. Are those all things that will be within the boundaries 

of the study? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you very much. This is an important—another important topic that is so appropriate. When the American 

people raise these types of concerns, when their representatives in 

this Congress raise the concern to call on the EPA to carry out this 

study, I think it is so important. Will this study be focusing on the 

so-called radionuclides in the water? Yes, that is definitively and 

explicitly part of this study. Will this study be focusing on the impacts of drinking water and the vast number of questions that we 

are looking at around drinking water and water quality? Yes. Can 

this study answer all of the questions that we would like to have 

addressed, because there are quite a few that we have been informed about through this engagement with the stakeholders, with 

the industry, with the scientific community? This is a study that 

is going to be responsive to the charge from Congress, and this 

study will inform other research questions and important questions 

that I think need to be addressed. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. And then I wanted to just quickly 

touch on a third topic. My colleague raised the issue of the TMDLs, 

and——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. Um-hum. 

Mr. SARBANES. —I understand that, you know, the plan going 

forward with respect to TMDLs obviously has to rely to some degree on the modeling that was mentioned. My perspective is also 

that the kind of data we have available to us now is much more 

extensive and robust than we have ever had before, and also that 

we can take it down to a level of particularity that wasn’t available 

before so that, in doing these models, building these models, we do 

have a robust data source out there that can help promote the accuracy of it. And then, again, as is always the goal here, inform our 

policy going forward. 

I did just want to put in a plug for the idea of citizen stewardship——— 

Dr. ANASTAS. Um-hum. 

Mr. SARBANES. —with respect to the health of the Chesapeake 

Bay, and, frankly, connecting the efforts of ordinary citizens to the 

TMDL goals. And what I mean by that is I think there may be an 

opportunity going forward to quantify the contribution of the ordinary homeowner to improving water quality in the Chesapeake 

Bay. So, for example, if somebody meets a particular standard that 

may be set with respect to reducing the impermeability of surfaces 

and so forth, that can count towards a TMDL obligation. I look forward to working with you on that. And I yield back. Thank you 

very much for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you very much. You were worth waiting 

for. Chairman recognizes Mr. Palazzo, gentleman from—Minnesota? 

Mr. PALAZZO. Mississippi, Mr. Chairman, but—almost spelled 

close. Not——— 

Chairman HALL. Not very far off. 

Mr. PALAZZO. It is a lot warmer in Mississippi. 

Chairman HALL. Both start with an M. 
58 

Mr. PALAZZO. M-i. Well, my colleague from Florida started out— 

she mentioned something—and I haven’t been tracking all the testimony today, and talking about Gulf seafood. And I, for one, being 

from the Gulf states, South Mississippi, I am the only Congressman in Mississippi that borders the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and I 

have to say our seafood has been tested more than any time in our 

history. It has to be the safest seafood in America, if not the world, 

because of the testing process. And our Gulf seafood is not only 

safe, but it is the best in the world. And I am just going to tell you 

how it is, and if you don’t believe me, come on down to the Mississippi Gulf Coast, enjoy our seafood, our golf, our beaches, our entertainment and our hospitality that is only found in the South. 

Doctor, I appreciate you coming out here today. A major concern 

of constituents in my district is the overreach of the EPA restricting business growth and development. I am concerned that regulation is adversely affecting job growth in my district, in our country. 

One example of such overreach is the EPA’s recent expansion of 

the interpretation of its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions, which threatens to cost out economy seven trillion in lost GDP by 2029, according to The Heritage Foundation, 

and hundreds of thousands of jobs. 

By comparison to this anticipated economic loss due to overregulation by the EPA, what will be the net private sector economic 

gain, if any, from the $584 million investment stated in your testimony, which basically went—research and innovative technologies 

and promotion of synergies between environmental protection, public health protection and the pursuits of economic growth and job 

production by the Office of Research and Development? 

Dr. ANASTAS. One of the things—if I could just say, at first, especially over the course of this year, I got a chance to spend a lot of 

time down on the Gulf Coast, and specifically in our Gulf Coast Resource Program down at Stennis. And every time, I can tell you, 

I ate a lot of that Gulf Coast seafood, and it was delicious and wonderful, and I would do it again. So——— 

Mr. PALAZZO. Great. 

Dr. ANASTAS. —thank you very much. One of the things that we 

focus on at the Office of Research and Development is certainly not 

only using our traditional expertise of understanding the nature of 

the problems that we are confronting, but how those problems will 

lead to solutions, providing the basic information, the basic insights 

that are going to be crucial to the innovations that our private sector will make, very fundamental issues of chemistry and molecular 

science and ecosystems biology. Tying these—this understanding of 

how to be both proper—profitable, creating jobs, while at the same 

time being environmentally protective I think is essential to the 

mission of the agency as a whole, as this Administrator has said. 

Mr. PALAZZO. What exactly are these deliverables on the investments? What, and if, are the job numbers that will be created? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Oh, as a matter of fact, there are several examples 

out of our Small Business Innovative Research Program. We have 

companies that have just recently been recognized by the Small 

Business Administration on technologies, one small business now 

employing—has grown to over 1,000 employees, and looking at a 

range from energy efficiency to water technologies. We have a stu-
59 

dent program that founded businesses where they are looking at 

water technologies, where they have both patents, as well as creating jobs and engaging in export. So there is a range of programs 

that have resulted in innovations. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Are the pursuits of economic growth and job creation, is that a taxpayer, you know, because the EPA is taxpayer 

funded, is that a mission of the EPA? 

Dr. ANASTAS. This is—getting the synergies—in other words, accomplishing our mission and ways that we think about how it can 

be beneficial, mutually beneficial, and not in any way decreasing 

our shared desire to have job growth and economic growth. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Well, I think a lot of people in my district believe 

that not only the EPA, but a lot of the regulatory agencies are 

going to kill and hurt vibrant industries that are currently in existence today in search of unproven, unpredictable jobs in the green 

market. It is almost as if there is a lot of people in the Federal 

agencies running around with solutions, and they are just in search 

of a problem. So please be careful moving ahead, because I know 

we depend on a lot of those jobs. 

Dr. ANASTAS. I think you are making an extremely important 

point. What we are not looking to do is to drive any particular approaches, any particular products. That is the business of the private sector. What is the business is providing the science that can 

be used in order to make sure environmental protection and economic growth are synergistic and working hand in hand. 

Mr. PALAZZO. My time is up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. And I ask unanimous consent to the letter 

dated March 10, 2011 from Debra L. Swackhamer, chair of the 

EPA Science Advisory Board, addressed to Mrs. Johnson and to 

me, be included in the record. This is at their request. They 

couldn’t appear. Is there objection? Chair hears none. 

[The information follows:] 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Dr. Anastas, for your very valuable 

testimony, and the Members for their questions, and we have done 

real good at staying within the five minute range this time. The 

Members of the Committee may have additional questions for you, 

Doctor, and we will ask you respond to those in writing, if you will, 

and the record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments from Members. I have some questions that I want to send 

you and ask for an answer, and would like to have that answer 

within two weeks, if we could get it. And you are excused, and we 

thank you, and the folks with you for your time. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you, Chairman Hall. 

Chairman HALL. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(67) 

Appendix I: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
68 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Atmospheric and Oceanic 

Administration 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. There has been a lot of discussion about what a climate service would look like. 

Certainly, NOAA’s proposal is not the only way a climate service could be structured. Please describe why you chose this format over the four others suggested 

by the NOAA Science Advisory Board. 

A1. Yes, there has been significant analysis and discussion both internal to NOAA 

and among external groups about the best organizational structure for a climate 

service in NOAA. The breadth of expertise and interests represented and the time 

that was afforded for these discussions was tremendously beneficial to the formulation of NOAA’s proposed reorganization. The Department of Commerce and NOAA 

have taken such discussions and the ideas they have generated very seriously. In 

response, NOAA has worked with some of the brightest minds on institutional planning and administration, service delivery, stakeholder involvement, and climate 

science to develop, evaluate and integrate the many ideas that have arisen from 

these discussions into the proposed reorganization contained in the President’s FY 

2012 budget proposal. 

The idea of creating a Climate Service in NOAA is not new. The concept first surfaced in the early 1970s and later gained prominence in NOAA during the George 

W. Bush Administration. NOAA and external groups have been engaged in efforts 

ever since to further develop this idea and improve climate science and services. The 

proposed Climate Service would better respond to our constituents’ growing demands for accessible and authoritative climate information by consolidating NOAA’s 

existing world-class climate capabilities in one Line Office—a single point of access 

to NOAA’s climate science, information, and products. For example, this proposed 

change would provide a clear point of access to the burgeoning private sector climate 

industry that is emerging around NOAA’s climate information, in much the same 

way that the roughly $1 billion weather industry has grown up around NOAA’s 

weather data. The proposed reorganization is also budget-neutral; a clear good government solution for science, services, and the American taxpayer. It would allow 

NOAA to operate more efficiently and effectively to better meet growing public demands for climate information with the climate science and service funding we are 

appropriated. 

NOAA’s proposal to create a Climate Service took great care to consider and reflect recommendations from numerous prominent studies and external groups, including the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) and more recently the National 

Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) study that was requested by the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees, to provide recommendations for how NOAA should be better organized 

to deliver reliable and timely information on climate to a variety of stakeholders. 

From 2008 to 2009 the NOAA SAB and its Climate Working Group (CWG) undertook an effort to compare and contrast specific options for the development of a National Climate Service—a broad enterprise of agencies, including NOAA, and organizations comprised of users, researchers and information providers. The CWG established four Tiger Teams and a Coordinating Committee to evaluate the pros and 

cons of each option. This effort resulted in the June 5, 2009, SAB report entitled 

Options for Developing a National Climate Service. 

The four options evaluated in the report were: 

1. Create a national climate service federation that would determine how to deliver climate services to the nation 

2. Create a non-profit corporation with federal sponsorship 

3. Create a national climate service with NOAA as the lead agency with specifically defined partners, and 

4. Expand and improve weather services into weather and climate services 

within NOAA. 

In evaluating these four options, the SAB’s report concluded that each option had 

significant strengths and weaknesses and that no option was viewed as an ideal option for a National Climate Service. The report did not make specific recommendations as to how NOAA should reorganize its own internal climate capabilities. 

Among its findings, however, the SAB clearly stated: 
69 

‘‘The current NOAA organization is not well-suited to the development of a 

unified climate services function. Greater connectivity between weather and 

climate functions and between research, operations and users is required.’’ 

The SAB also recommended that the successful development of a National Climate Service hinges on collaboration between the research and user community, and 

an internal reorganization of NOAA that enables greater connectivity of weather 

and climate functions. NOAA’s proposal was designed to specifically address these 

and numerous other findings and recommendations from the SAB’s insightful work. 

More recently, the SAB CWG winter 2011 report further reinforced NOAA’s proposal for a dedicated Climate Service Line Office, stating: 

The lack of action in several areas highlighted in the previous reviews speaks 

loudly to the need for a new line organization for climate services. These responses clearly illustrated the considerable inertia that exists within the 

present system and the difficulty in moving from a matrix managed program 

to a line organization. Let there be no mistake: there is a tremendous amount 

of world-class climate research being performed within the agency. Yet, 

transitioning such high quality research into a service-oriented and operational setting is quite another matter. There are some fairly major systemic 

challenges that need to be confronted going from a loose federation of somewhat independent NOAA organizations to a functioning climate service. Short 

of a Climate Service line organization with budgetary authority, the CWG believes it will prove very difficult to effect change if NOAA’s approach to climate 

services continues in a matrix structure or manner. (SAB CWG Winter 2011 

Report) 

In the end, NOAA’s proposal to consolidate components from several Line Offices 

to create a Climate Service Line Office as outlined in NOAA’s current FY 2012 

budget request was developed after great deliberation and consideration for its impacts and opportunities across the agency, in particular on NOAA’s science. NOAA 

used input from the Congressionally-requested NAPA study and analysis of organizational options for a Climate Service within NOAA, the SAB CWG, and other internal and external input, to guide the development of its Climate Service proposal. 

NOAA’s reorganization proposal closely aligns with NAPA’s final recommendations, 

such as the inclusion of the National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center, 

and recognizes the importance of having a temporary leadership position for change 

management in the new organization. 

The proposed Climate Service Line Office structure reflects NOAA’s response to 

the needs of numerous demands for climate services, so that the agency can: 1) promote integration of NOAA’s climate science and service assets; 2) heighten the accessibility and visibility of NOAA’s climate services for our partners and users; and 

3) allow NOAA to more efficiently address user and partner needs compared to our 

current distributed structure. To make this new organization successful, it will encompass a core set of longstanding NOAA capabilities that have proven success, including climate observations, research, modeling, predictions and projections, assessments, and service delivery infrastructure. NOAA has proposed that the Climate 

Service be a Line Office, providing a single point of entry for people to access 

NOAA’s climate science and service assets, and enabling improved information sharing and more productive partnerships with federal agencies, local governments, private industry, other users, and stakeholders. 

NOAA’s proposed reorganization also maintains the highest standards of scientific 

integrity for all NOAA science and seeks to strengthen and integrate science across 

the agency. The proposed Climate Service Line Office will enable better transition 

of high quality climate science into usable services. It will also be an opportunity 

to refocus OAR’s efforts to incubate solutions to tomorrow’s long-term science challenges, integrate an agency-wide science portfolio, and drive NOAA science and 

technology innovation. In addition, the OAR Assistant Administrator will serve as 

vice-chair of the NOAA Research Council. Further, as leader of the central research 

Line Office, the OAR Assistant Administrator will become the senior advisor to the 

NOAA Chief Scientist. Of critical importance, none of NOAA’s climate or other research capabilities are diminished by this proposed reorganization, and we do not 

anticipate any marked change to the balance of internal vs. extramural funding, 

pending appropriations. 

Q2. Arguably, the Climate Service is providing information to assist decision-makers 

with adaptation choices. 

a. Is the research moving from OAR into the Climate Service only adaptation research? 
70 

b. Or does it include basic, physical science research as well? 

A2. (a&b) The proposed Climate Service would include basic, physical science research as well as adaptation research. In total, the proposed Climate Service would 

consolidate many of NOAA’s existing climate science and service components currently dispersed across the agency into one Line Office. That said, select climaterelated programs and research would remain in OAR and other Line Offices because 

climate is an issue that intersects all of NOAA’s mission areas. 

As proposed in the PB FY 12, OAR would transfer the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, the Climate Program Office, and three divisions of the Earth System 

Research Laboratory—Chemical Sciences Division, Physical Sciences Division, and 

Global Monitoring Division—to the proposed Climate Service. The proposed transfer 

would not result in deviations from the core missions or activities of these programs. 

Virtually all of the climate adaptation research in OAR is conducted by the Climate Program Office through its Grants Program, in particular the Regional Integrated Science Assessment Centers (RISAs), based on the U.S. Global Change Research Program working definition of ‘‘Adaptation Science.’’ The Global Change Research Program defines adaptation science as ‘‘integrated scientific research that directly contributes to enabling adjustments in natural or human systems to a new 

or changing environment and that exploits beneficial opportunities or moderates 

negative effects.’’ 

Creating a single Line Office would establish a stronger position for NOAA to 

strategically guide its climate research, monitoring, and assessment work in a coordinated fashion. It also would create an easy to find, single point of entry for people to access NOAA’s climate science and service assets, and enable improved information sharing and more productive partnerships with federal agencies, local governments, private industry, and other users and stakeholders. 

As mentioned above, this reorganization proposal would maintain the highest 

standards of scientific integrity for all NOAA science. In doing so, the proposal 

would preserve the OAR as NOAA’s core research and innovation hub, a key NAPA 

recommendation, and would seize on the opportunity to strengthen science across 

NOAA by strategically renewing OAR’s forward looking research agenda. In proposing to house much of OAR’s climate research in the proposed Climate Service 

Line Office, NOAA would both be able to better transition its high quality climate 

science into usable services and seize upon the opportunity to refocus OAR’s efforts 

to incubate solutions to tomorrow’s long-term science challenges, integrate an agency-wide science portfolio, and drive NOAA science and technology innovation. 

c. How will NOAA ensure that the pressures of a service organization will not force 

the focus of the research in one direction over another? 

A2c. To ensure that the pressures of the service aspect of a Climate Service would 

not force the focus of the research in one direction over another, a climate senior 

scientist is included in the reorganization proposal. This new position would ensure 

sound business practices that embrace a ‘‘co-production of knowledge,’’ wherein climate science informs, but does not prescribe, decision-making, and decision-making 

informs climate science, but does not prescribe research priorities. In addition, 

NOAA is in the process of seeking confirmation for a Chief Scientist and the OAR 

Assistant Administrator will serve as the senior advisor to the NOAA Chief Scientist once on board. 

In contrast to the National Weather Service model, where science and service (or 

operations) are housed in separate Line Offices, NOAA does not envision a service 

delivery component for the Climate Service that is remotely on the scale of the NWS 

with its 122 local forecast offices and other regional infrastructure. In fact, the research and science component of the proposed Climate Service is expected to continue to be much larger than its services component; NOAA plans to leverage the 

service delivery infrastructure of the NWS and other partners like NOAA’s Regional 

Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISAs), Regional Climate Centers, state climatologists, Sea Grant extension, Coastal Services Centers, National Marine Sanctuaries, and other parts of NOAA. 

The proposal to bring climate science and services together under one Line Office 

provides a tremendous opportunity to integrate science and service delivery without 

detracting from a commitment to pursue, fund, and sustain basic climate research 

and science. Science is an essential component of all NOAA responsibilities, and underpins the agency’s ability to provide quality services, based on sound science. 

Americans depend on NOAA’s climate information to make smarter choices at 

home and in their communities and businesses. NOAA’s climate information (e.g. 

forecasts of conditions from two weeks to seasons to decades out) continues to be 

at the forefront of this improved decision making. Similar to information about 
71 

weather, information about the climate is not new or controversial. Throughout history, as well as today, people around the country and the world use climate information—long-term forecasts on the order of two weeks to seasons to decades- to inform 

major decisions from agriculture to national defense to energy production. For example, electricity providers use climate data to determine anticipated user demands for 

heating and cooling power and set electricity prices. Additionally, home insurance 

companies use climate data such as the ‘‘normal’’ temperature and precipitation to 

calculate your insurance premium. These are just a few examples of how NOAA’s 

climate science currently translates into applicable services for Americans. High 

quality climate science is at the core of climate services. Housing both science and 

services under one organizational structure will allow NOAA to better transition research findings into usable information and services that help businesses and communities make better economic decisions and safeguard lives and property. 

Climate science and service must go hand in hand in order to develop products 

and services that can evolve and be initiated rapidly when needed, in response to 

scientific information as it emerges. The continuous advancements in climate 

science demand a close proximity to the service, not only so that those advancements can constantly improve products (science push), but also so that the users can 

be asking new questions of the science (user pull). 

Related to this issue, the NOAA Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) 2009 report, Options for Developing a National Climate Service, found: 

′′The current NOAA organization is not well-suited to the development of a 

unified climate services function. Greater connectivity between weather and 

climate functions and between research, operations and users is required.’’ 

The SAB also recommended that the successful development of a National Climate Service hinges on collaboration between the research and user community, and 

an internal reorganization of NOAA that enables greater connectivity of weather 

and climate functions. NOAA’s proposal was designed to specifically address these 

and numerous other findings and recommendations from the SAB’s insightful work. 

NOAA scientists and their academic and governmental partners, both nationally 

and internationally, have long been involved in cutting edge climate system research and have contributed greatly to advancing the scientific understanding about 

the climate system. NOAA is committed to ensure this basic research does not get 

diluted and remains a priority as part of the climate service. This Administration 

is committed to the honest and open conduct of science. One of my first actions as 

NOAA Administrator was to appoint a scientific integrity team at NOAA. Their 

charge was to review the state of science and scientific integrity at NOAA, to actively assist OSTP in developing recommendations that would strengthen the integrity of science in government, and to draft a scientific integrity policy for NOAA. 

Q3. In your testimony, you cite ‘‘a rapidly increasing public demand for climate services.’’ Please provide the Committee a listing and description of all requests to 

NOAA for climate services from State and municipal governments as well as private sector stakeholders. 

A3. NOAA’s climate capabilities have significantly matured and markedly grown in 

sophistication over the past 40 years to the point where Americans who depend 

upon this essential information to make decisions for their family, business and 

community balance sheets are now demanding more data, increasingly complex 

products, and advanced scientific study. 

The following statistics demonstrate the tremendous increase in demand via incoming requests through a number of NOAA’s user interfaces. 

1. Direct requests from users for climate related data and information services: 

From fiscal year 2009 to 2010, NOAA saw an increase of 11 percent in direct 

requests (includes individual requests via phone calls, emails, and other direct correspondence) from 26,000 to 29,000 individual requests. 

2. Climate related data provided from data centers: NOAA saw an 86% increase 

in climate related data provided from data centers in FY 2010 compared to 

FY 2009—from 806 terabytes to 1500 terabytes (or 1.5 petabytes). To put 

this in context, your favorite Kindle or other electronic book download averages about 800,000 bytes. So, in calendar year 2010, NOAA served up a total 

of at least 1.9 billion Kindle books worth of climate data, roughly 867 million 

more Kindle book equivalents than in 2009. 

3. In calendar year 2010, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Comprehensive Large Array data Stewardship System site served over 5 times 

as much climate related data as in calendar year 2009—from 43 terabytes 

to 253 terabytes. 
72 

4. From FY 2009 to FY 2010, web-hits for NOAA climate services experienced 

a 57% increase in climate related data and information website hits—from 

906 million to 1.4 billion hits. This does not include hits to our new Climate 

Portal that launched in February 2010 and currently hosts over 27,000 visitors every month. Because of the huge numbers involved it would not be 

practical to provide documentation of each request. We can however, provide 

statistics as to the origin of the requests related to the domain name of the 

user request. Our statistics indicate the following approximate distribution 

over the past two years. 

.com — 15% 

.edu — 9% 

.gov — 12% 

.mil — 1% 

.net — 24% 

.us — 7% 

Foreign — 13% 

Unresolved — 19% 

Such demands come in from multiple interfaces across multiple Line Offices within NOAA, and we are unable to track all in a comprehensive manner. Housing 

NOAA’s climate programs in one Line Office could allow us to more effectively track 

and analyze the nature of these requests. Within this increasing demand are requests from a breadth of economic and industry sectors, including both governmental, private sector, and non-governmental stakeholders. Specific examples of 

these types of requests that were received include: 

• In the first days of the Fukushima Nuclear Plant situation following the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami tragedy, the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy requested long-term historical climate data for 

numerous locations in Japan. This preliminary analysis established a historically-based likelihood for springtime winds by direction and speed, as well as 

the likelihood of rainfall events of varying intensities. Both of these factors 

are important climatological considerations when assessing the potential distribution of airborne hazardous material. 

• An agricultural expert in Wilkes County, NC requested daily high and low 

temperatures for the 2010 growing season from April 1st, 2010 thru October 

31, 2010 to calculate the growing degree days or temperature above 50 degrees fahrenheit in the Wilkes County area. He is researching growing degree 

days and length of growing season for a possible vineyard in the Yadkin Valley, American Vitacultural Area. 

• Public Service/Utility Commissions around the country downloaded NOAA’s 

Climate Normals, which include spatial and temporal averages of climatological variables (e.g., temperature, precipitation, etc.) that describe base climatic conditions. Utilities subsequently use this information in formal processes to determine the rate that each utility is allowed to charge its customers. 

• Municipalities around the country accessed NOAA’s U.S. Snowfall Climatology information, which includes historical information about the severity of 

extreme snowfall events and return period probability. This information is 

used to develop annual municipal snowfall removal budgets and results in efficient planning and cost savings. 

Overall, as much as one-third of U.S. gross domestic product depends on accurate 

weather and climate information, and American communities and businesses are 

using NOAA’s climate information to make smart investments to manage their risks 

and reap economic benefits. For example, through an effort with the National Association of Homebuilders, NOAA provided climate data to help the home building industry establish the most cost-efficient insulation standards for protecting building 

foundations from frost. According to industry estimates, this information is said to 

save roughly $330M in annual building construction costs and annual energy cost 

savings of 586,000 megawatt hours. 

NOAA’s climate forecasts, from seasonal precipitation and drought outlooks to 

weekly on-the-ground assessments of the U.S. Drought Monitor, are also helping 

firefighters in Texas to prepare for and respond to a record wildfire season. And 

NOAA’s improved maximum precipitation predictions have been used to develop 
73 

new standards for dam design that are being implemented around the Nation to improve dam safety and reliability. 

These are just a few examples of how the importance of NOAA’s climate services 

to decision makers is fueling an increased demand for more data, increasingly complex products, and advanced scientific study. Throughout NOAA’s efforts to develop 

the proposed Climate Service reorganization, the agency has consulted with and 

benefited from the input and advice of a wide array of external partners and stakeholders across public and private sectors. The unanimous conclusion of internal and 

external scientists and decision makers is that establishing a single management 

structure for the agency’s core climate capabilities is required if the agency is to rise 

the meet the Nation’s growing need for increasingly sophisticated information. 

In the conduct of the National Academy of Public Administration’s research for 

its report to Congress, ‘‘Building Strong for Tomorrow: NOAA Climate Service,’’ a 

survey found: 

The themes that the Panel heard often and found compellingly stated were: 

strong support for the concept of creating a NOAA (or a National) Climate 

Service; the need to improve federal interagency coordination of resources and 

service delivery; the importance of partnerships with the public and private 

sectors; a need for more localized and more accessible research; the potential 

positive impact of using innovative service delivery technologies and tools; and 

the importance of supporting a user community that is large and diverse. 

(Building Strong for Tomorrow: NOAA Climate Service, pg 16). 

The Academy report’s survey results were based on over 40 interviews with current and former government officials, and external stakeholders; three roundtable 

discussions with over 50 key NOAA climate constituents, including federal agency 

partners, state and local government leaders, and academics and other subject matter experts; and lastly, a national Online Dialogue that solicited ideas about how 

to structure and operate a NOAA Climate Service from June 14 to June 28, 2010. 

The Academy’s report, resounding as it is in its response, is one of a vast array 

of expressions of support for NOAA’s proposed reorganization. Below are a number 

of additional examples of external stakeholder feedback for the need for climate 

services: 

‘‘Our organizations, representing hunters and anglers across the country, are 

very concerned about the impacts of climate change on fish and wildlife, and 

we recognize that providing good information to resource managers will be critical to helping ecosystems, fish, and wildlife adapt to the coming changes in 

climate.’’ 

‘‘While the broad implications of climate change are becoming better understood, the need for more regional and local understanding of future climate impacts is urgent. The federal government’s investment in observing, researching, 

modeling, and developing tools to respond to the impacts of climate change will 

be significant, and the ability to disseminate that information to states, municipalities, and non-governmental organizations, while responding in turn to their 

specific information needs, is critical. NOAA’s climate service can play an important role in gathering, analyzing, and presenting that information to those 

in need of it.’’ 

Randi Swisher, President, American Fly Fishing Trade Association; Tom 

Franklin, Director of Policy and Government Relations, Theodore Roosevelt 

Conservation Partnership; and Steve Moyer, Vice President for Government 

Affairs, Trout Unlimited 

‘‘WGA supports the establishment of a NOAA Climate Service, and we commend the leadership and work of NOAA to make the climate service a reality’’. 

Western Governors Association 

‘‘As climate adaptation becomes an increasingly important strategic path, the 

new climate service will provide essential information to the public and private 

sectors. The insurance industry is heavily dependent on public data and information related to climate, and the creation of a NOAA Climate Service with 

new data services will greatly enhance the industry’s analysis of climate and 

extreme event weather risk.’’ 

Frank W. Nutter, President, Reinsurance Association of America 
74 

‘‘Addressing climate change is one of our most pressing environmental challenges. Making climate science more easily accessible to all Americans will help 

us gain the consensus we need to move forward. The new NOAA Climate Service is a welcome addition to our national climate change capabilities. It will 

help bring people together so we can also bring about an economic recovery by 

more rapidly modernizing our nation’s energy infrastructure.’’ 

Jim Rogers, President and CEO, Duke Energy 

‘‘Establishing a NOAA Climate Service demonstrates that the Administration 

and NOAA understand there is a real need to deliver climate services in this 

country. This is a giant leap forward in meeting this need. NOAA plays a central role in many aspects of climate science including climate modeling, observations, and assessments, and has a major role to play in the efforts to establish a more coordinated and integrated government-wide National Climate 

Service. The creation of a new NOAA Climate Service will allow it to be a more 

effective partner with other federal agencies, the private sector, and the research 

and academic community, in that effort.’’ 

Dr. Rick Anthes, President, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 

‘‘NOAA’s proposed climate service would be a welcome and critically needed 

asset to the public health community, both in the U.S. and around the world. 

Every key sector of the public health community, from first responders to those 

who provide food and medical supplies and services, would draw on the information. Forecasting air quality, drought, natural hazards and climate-sensitive 

diseases all impact public health. Better predictive tools, monitoring and other 

resources will inform our decision-making and advance our efforts to get further ahead of the curve. Lives can be saved as a result.’’ 

Georges C. Benjamin MD, FACP, FACEP (Emeritus), Executive Director, 

American Public Health Association 

‘‘I was delighted and thrilled to learn of the commitment by the Administration 

to form the NOAA Climate Service. I have been a long time supporter of this 

vision and it is very gratifying to see it accomplished. NOAA has worked for 

many years to become proficient in climate science, climate observation, and 

data management. Additionally, with vast experience in producing world-class 

weather forecasts, extension of these skills to climate is a natural step and will 

go far in improving the foundation for rational science based policy making. 

My thanks and congratulations to the hardworking NOAA team members who 

over many years have made this event possible.’’ 

Honorable Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Ph.D.,Vice Admiral (U.S. Navy Ret.) 

Vice President, Science Programs, CSC, ATG, Under Secretary of Commerce 

for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator, 2001–2008 

‘‘I am very excited by today’s announcement regarding formation of the NOAA 

Climate Service. Working in tandem with the highly skilled work force from the 

National Weather Service, the NOAA Climate Service will enhance NOAA’s 

ability to deliver world class climate services and to address the wide variety 

of issues related to climate change. 

‘‘NWSEO intends to work closely with the Obama Administration, NOAA’s 

leadership and the NOAA Climate Service to effectively launch this new venture. We look forward to forging a close working relationship with the NOAA 

Climate Service, which will effectively utilize the skills of NWSEO’s members 

and satisfy America’s needs to better understand and to predict climate 

change.’’ 

Dan Sobien, President, National Weather Service Employees Organization 

(NWSEO) 

These are examples of the broad array of support for NOAA’s proposed Climate 

Service from stakeholders; and many more are listed at: http://www.noaa.gov/ 

climateresources/testimonial.html. As a final example of feedback that has been received, attached please find a letter the Department received from a diverse and distinguished group of business leaders including Microsoft, Deloitte, and Governor 

Jim Geringer. 
75 

1The NOAA provided instruments are the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer 

(AVHRR/3), the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU–A), the High Resolution Infrared 

Radiation Sounder (HIRS/4), and the Space Environment Monitor (SEM). 

Q4. After the Nunn-McCurdy recertification and restructuring in 2006, it was realized that providing satellite coverage in all three orbits would be financially impossible within the budget the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) had at the time. The strategy was then 

changed to rely on the Europeans to cover the late-morning orbit, but to use instruments provided by NOAA. It is our understanding that these instruments, 

whose total design life is eight years, were delivered to the Europeans more than 

nine years ago. 

a. Has NOAA conducted a risk analysis of using data from the European satellites 

using instruments that are beyond their design life? 

A4. (a) Yes, NOAA continues to employ an active risk mitigation program by conducting annual activation checks on the NOAA-supplied instruments 1 on the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) 

Metop-B and -C satellites. NOAA-provided instruments have been designed for a 

three-year mission once in-orbit. Prior to launch, these instruments are maintained 

in a controlled environment and placed in a storage container before integration 

onto the Metop spacecraft. After the instruments and spacecraft are integrated, they 

go through a rigorous test program to verify their flight readiness prior to receiving 

the go-ahead to proceed to launch. If an anomaly arises as a result of this testing, 

the instrument is de-manifested from the spacecraft so that additional testing can 

take place at the instrument level by the manufacturer. If applicable, component or 

subsystem refurbishment or replacement upgrades are completed before re-integrating onto the spacecraft. NOAA has also funded a spare parts program for each 

of the instruments. 

NOAA and NASA engineers are present at the facility when spacecraft testing occurs. For example, the Metop-B AVHRR Instrument is currently progressing 

through its annual recalibration test program, with NOAA and NASA personnel onsite during this testing. On a parallel track, the NOAA/NASA Instrument Team also 

have personnel on-site participating in readiness reviews and training for the upcoming mechanical testing of the Metop-C satellite in Toulouse, France. 

NOAA believes that there are sufficient engineering processes in place to ensure 

that the instruments on Metop will perform as designed. 

b. If something happens to the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) or the VIIRS instrument, and the Europeans have trouble with these older instruments, it could 

cause the loss of data from two orbits. What is the operational impact of such a 

data loss? 

A4. (b) The operational impact of losing all data from both the European satellite 

in the mid-morning and NOAA satellite in the afternoon polar orbits would be catastrophic to the Nation. Observations from the microwave and infrared sounder instruments on these satellites are critical to the accuracy of National Weather Service forecast models. Without these data, model forecast accuracy will revert to 1970s 

levels. The ability to accurately predict weather events 3–5 days in advance will be 

severely degraded. 

The operational impact of losing the imager data from both the European and 

NOAA polar orbiting satellites is also significant. The Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) on the current NOAA and European satellites provides 

many products used by NOAA and its customers to monitor and predict changes to 

the atmosphere, oceans, and land. 

AVHRR is the primary source of observations for the NOAA global sea surface 

temperature product, used in atmosphere predictions and ocean models, hurricane 

forecasting, fisheries management, and many other applications. In the high-latitude regions of the globe, including Alaska, where NOAA geostationary satellites 

have limited coverage, AVHRR is the primary source of satellite data for use in 

weather forecasts and warnings to the public. AVHRR detects volcanic ash plumes, 

which are hazardous to aviation, and can be carried thousands of miles from their 

source. It is also used for wildland fire detection and response activities, and as 

input for warnings to the public on smoke and other unhealthy air advisories. 

AVHRR is also an input to the NOAA global vegetation index product, and is used 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. 

Agency for International Development for drought monitoring and other land products. 
76 

Current NOAA and European Metop polar-orbiting satellites carry a Space Environment Monitor (SEM) to measure the impacts of the space weather environment 

on the satellite and its sensors. The SEM suite of instruments provides us with the 

ability to determine if the magnitude of solar events, such as geomagnetic storms, 

will be detrimental to telecommunications and power grids. In the future, the Metop 

and the Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS) will carry SEM, from which 

NOAA will leverage their data needs. 

NOAA and European satellites also carry a Search and Rescue Satellite Aided 

Tracking (SARSAT) antenna/transmitter and on-board storage system to receive and 

relay distress signals from mariners, aviators, and other users who have activated 

their beacons. Without this capability on NOAA and European polar-orbiting satellites, the ability to locate distressed individuals in a timely manner is reduced, 

leading to an increased risk of injury or death. 

Finally, NOAA and European satellites carry a Data Collection and Relay Service, 

called Argos. The system consists of an antenna/transmitter and on-board storage 

system to receive signals from remote platforms, such as ocean buoys, remote 

weather stations, and endangered animal species. In many cases, Argos is the only 

way to monitor changes, such as the pre-cursor changes to the ocean environment 

in remote locations, which signal the start of an El-Nino or La-Nina event. 

The operational impact of losing all data from both the European satellite in the 

mid-morning and NOAA satellite in the afternoon polar orbits would result in loss 

of capability across the global weather community. The lack of information and data 

would affect each and every U.S. citizen. NOAA would be unable to provide advance 

warning of extreme weather conditions and events, which would impact military 

planners, airport planners, emergency managers, environmental disaster responders, Alaskan mariners and pilots, coastal residents, and fisherman. Across the Nation and throughout the global weather community, NOAA’s ability to provide 

weather information needed to make decisions to protect lives and property would 

be compromised. 

Q5. Although the Nunn-McCurdy requirement of recertification only applied when 

the Department of Defense provides funding to a program, NOAA and NASA 

have each been directed to provide a baseline for the National Polar-orbiting 

Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) in two separate laws. 

Public Law 109–155 and Public Law 110–161 require NASA and NOAA to perform this baselining. Even with the dissolution of the NPOESS program into the 

Joint Polar Satellite System, or JPSS, it would not remove the requirement of 

rebaselining. 

a. Where is NOAA in the process of this task? 

A5. (a) NOAA notes that the NPOESS Program was explicitly excluded from the 

reporting requirements in section 112(a)(3) of Public Law (PL) 110–161. However, 

going forward, NOAA will comply with the provisions of PL 110–161 for the JPSS 

program. 

The JPSS program planned to establish a formal baseline for both the JPSS Program and the first mission, JPSS–1, by the 4th Quarter of FY 2011. This plan was 

made with the assumption that the program would receive the President’s requested 

FY 2011 funding. The delay in receiving FY 2011 funding created uncertainty in the 

program and led the program to focus much of its existing resources on fielding and 

testing the ground system in support of the NPP mission (scheduled for launch in 

October 2011), which NOAA plans to use to support its operational weather forecasting mission. The additional FY 2011 funds that NOAA has redirected to JPSS 

(please see the Department’s spend plans submitted on June 15, 2011 for more details) combined with receipt of the FY 2012 appropriation of $1.070 billion, will 

allow the program to ramp up work on JPSS instruments and spacecraft; however, 

the funding delays have prevented the JPSS program from completing the program 

baseline as planned. 

b. When can we expect to see a full life-cycle accounting of the JPSS program compared to the original NPOESS program? 

A5. (b) Due to the postponement of JPSS formulation into FY 2012, the program 

will not have a full life cycle baseline until the 3rd Quarter of FY 2012. The program is currently re-planning the formulation phase of JPSS based upon the final 

FY 2011 appropriation, and should have an updated schedule this summer. 

Q6. NOAA has provided a 90% certainty of a forthcoming data gap if funding is not 

provided for JPSS. Please provide a description of how this figure of 90% certainty was attained, including assumptions, calculations, and procedures used 

to generate the estimate. 
77 

2 NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SoHO, also at L1) has been operating for 16 

years, and the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) has been in orbit for 14 years. 

A6. There is now at least a 90% probability of a gap since the requested increase 

of $677.8 million for the JPSS Program was not provided in the FY 2011 Continuing 

Resolution Appropriations Bill (P.L. 112–10). This gap probability was derived by 

using a series of probability runs that are common in the satellite community. The 

number is derived by taking the probability of selected components still fully functioning at their end of design life (called wear-out probability) and forms an overall 

probability of the mission still performing at the same period. Only the critical (those 

which perform the key parts of the mission) sensors and the spacecraft (the electronics and communications part of the mission) are considered. For NPP and JPSS, 

NOAA used the spacecraft and the following sensors, Visible/Infrared Imager/Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS), and Crosstrack Infrared Sounder (CrIS) in its assumptions. 

The critical sensor wear-out probabilities are multiplied by the space craft wearout probability over time to form a wear-out curve. This is combined with a random 

probability of success (done by running thousands of simulations) and plotted 

against time (data are derived in monthly increments) to get the probabilities in 

question. 

Q7. As you know, the Space Weather Prediction Center’s critical solar wind and 

storm prediction satellite, the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), is currently failing. NOAA and the President’s budget request have indicated that the 

former NASA environmental observation satellite, Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), is to be selected as its replacement. 

a. What other options have been considered beyond DSCOVR and in what way is 

DSCOVR better suited to meet the Nation’s important space weather prediction 

needs? 

A7. (a) NOAA considered three options for the follow on to the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite. One option was to refurbish the existing Deep Space 

Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite. The second option was to build a new government procured satellite with a government procured launch vehicle. The third 

option was a potential commercial data buy. A joint-agency, Office of Science Technology Policy (OSTP)-requested study determined that refurbishing the existing 

DSCOVR satellite is the most favorable option on the basis of cost, risk and schedule. An independent NOAA–Air Force analysis concurred with this finding. 

The Nation is currently at risk for a gap in solar wind measurements because the 

existing assets have been operating well beyond their design lives. 2 This is a serious 

concern given the need for reliable warnings of geomagnetic storm conditions that 

can negatively impact global military operations, communications, the nation’s electrical grid, aviation, and other activities. Based upon the extensive interagency analyses regarding the most favorable approach for addressing this concern, NOAA has 

partnered with NASA and has the highest confidence in the schedule, costs, and 

risk assessments associated with the DSCOVR refurbishment option. The DSCOVR 

satellite, which will be positioned at the Sun-Earth Lagrangian Point (L1), already 

has space weather sensors that have been thoroughly tested by NASA and, after refurbishment, could be made flight worthy. Steps for this refurbishment are well understood. Further, the L1 point is located approximately one million miles inside the 

Earth’s orbit around the Sun and is the ideal location for a solar winds monitoring 

platform. The DSCOVR satellite bus has been stored under carefully regulated climate controlled conditions for the last ten years. It can be launched in FY 2014 if 

NOAA receives the $47.3M requested in FY 2012 to begin refurbishment and the 

U.S. Air Force receives the FY 2012 funds of $134.5 million it requires to support 

the launch and launch services for DSCOVR. 

While refurbishing DSCOVR for this purpose is the prudent and appropriate next 

step to address our solar wind monitoring needs, NOAA continues to assess the potential of commercial services for the future and will solicit commercial participation 

in the DSCOVR project for the purpose of assessing the performance of the commercial business case in association with an operational space weather warning project 

in order to assess future commercial viability. 

b. Congressional staff have requested a report from the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology (OFCM) that was submitted to OSTP regarding the other 

options for ACE’s replacement. Can you assist the Committee in the procurement 

of that document? 

A7. (b) We have informed OSTP of the Chairman’s request for a copy of the study. 
78 

Q8. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 

Drilling Staff Working Paper titled, ‘‘The Amount and Fate of the Oil’’ notes that 

‘‘in late April or early May 2010, NOAA wanted to make public some of its longterm, worst-case oil trajectory models, which were based upon flow rates of up 

to 50,000 bbls/day, and requested approval to do so from the While House’s Office of Management and Budget. The Office of Management and Budget did not 

grant NOAA’s request.’’ 

a. Please explain OMB’s authority to approve or deny NOAA’s request to release 

worst-case oil trajectory models? 

b. What was OMB’s official role within the National Incident Command (NIC) hierarchy? 

c. Did OMB supersede the U.S. Coast Guard’s role within NIC? 

A8. (a–c) OMB did not prevent release of information regarding oil spill trajectory 

models, nor did it supersede the U.S. Coast Guard’s role within the National Incident Command. Consistent with its traditional coordination role for Executive 

Branch agencies on legislative, budget, and regulatory matters, OMB coordinated 

interagency review of materials related to the oil spill, including NOAA’s report on 

the potential threats to U.S. coastlines that might result before a relief well stopped 

the flow. OMB worked to help ensure that the information conveyed to the public 

was as clear as possible and reflected input from the relevant agencies, as well as 

the latest response efforts. The report was released on July 2, 2010. As NOAA concluded in its letter to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Spill 

and Offshore Drill, ‘‘I believe the end product was consistent with the highest professional standards and best available scientific data.’’ 

Q9. The budget for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) includes 

a reduction of $3 million for the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) research 

program. This program seems to be the innovative, transformative research that 

you describe as being OAR’s new mission and seems to have the potential for 

long term benefits at very little upfront cost. 

a. Where do these aircraft come from and how much does NOAA pay for them? 

A9. (a) The NOAA UAS Program has conducted a wide variety of scientific UAS 

demonstrations using high, medium, and low altitude platforms and payloads. Generally, these demonstrations are conducted in partnership with other Federal agencies, universities, or private industry who own UAS assets. During the last three 

years, the NOAA UAS Program has utilized approximately 75% of its annual program budget to sponsor field demonstrations with partners. The NOAA UAS Program contributes approximately $200,000–500,000 per demonstration through university grants or interagency agreements. One exception was a NOAA contribution 

of $3.5 million plus personnel and payload support for a three-year partnership with 

NASA to demonstrate the scientific capabilities of the high altitude Global Hawk 

UAS. NOAA generally provides in-kind contributions such as personnel support or 

ship services to field demonstrations conducted with private industry. NOAA has 

also purchased five small low altitude short endurance UAS for an approximate 

total of $800,000. The results of these numerous demonstrations have identified 

promising UAS technologies which could improve NOAA observations for high impact, polar, and marine monitoring. 

b. This program seems to be the definition of a win-win scenario, so why is it being 

cut? 

A9. (b) In FY 12, NOAA requested a decrease of $3 million to reflect the planned 

completion of the High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) UAS testing and demonstration program. Currently, the UAS Program is drafting its Strategic Plan, to 

be completed by the end of FY 11. OAR and NOAA hope to reemphasize and renew 

an even greater focus on innovative and transformative research by identifying 

emerging R&D priorities to enhance U.S. competitiveness; promoting U.S. leadership in oceanic and atmospheric science in the applied use of such knowledge; and 

advancing ocean, coastal, Great Lakes and atmospheric R&D, including transformational research, consistent with NOAA’s mission. 

Q10. It is the Committee’s understanding that OAR is currently using less than $2 

million of the $13 million annual Information Technology R&D appropriation 

for the integration and conversion of commodity 64-bit Graphic Processor Units 

(GPUs) into ‘‘massively parallel fine-grain’’ supercomputer boards to run 

weather and climate models up to 30 times faster. 
79 

a. Can you provide more detail and specificity regarding GPU potential for increasing NOAA high-performance computing capability and reducing hardware costs 

through this innovative initiative? 

A10. (a) The use of Graphics Processor Units (GPU) is showing great promise as 

an innovative and cost effective approach to increasing the computational capability 

for NOAA, especially for geophysical (weather and climate) models. In order to effectively use GPU systems to run geophysical models, however, a completely new approach to programming these models is required. This is because most current models have been designed to run on computing systems with a relatively smaller number of powerful processors, with each processor making complex calculations over 

one data point (for example: one spatial point out of many points across a geographic region) at the same time. This type of computing system differs from GPU 

systems that are highly parallel, or comprised of a large number of significantly less 

powerful, relatively less expensive, processors that are programmed to simultaneously execute the same calculation over different data points. Because geophysical 

models themselves are highly parallel—i.e., require many of the same relatively 

smaller calculations to be run on vast numbers of data points—GPU systems are 

proving to be a good fit and able to provide extraordinary speed and savings as compared to existing systems. This additional speed allows for additional computing capability over the same time period. 

NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in collaboration with industry has 

been researching a programming approach for GPUs that scientists could use to develop geophysical models. Recent research has demonstrated that a full atmospheric 

model runs 30 times faster on a GPU system, as compared to a standard single 

CPU. The cost performance comparison for a GPU versus a standard multicore cluster has yet to be determined. By pursuing research needed to run weather and climate models on GPUs and other similar technologies, NOAA is advancing transformative research and technology development at the cutting edge of cost and performance innovation in support of its operational weather and climate supercomputer acquisitions. 

b. What is the optimal annual level of funding to most rapidly research and develop 

this technology and maximize performance? 

A10. (b) Answer: NOAA’s Information Technology appropriation has kept NOAA at 

the forefront of cost effective and state-of-the-art supercomputing. With the exciting 

new potential for massively parallel fine grain computing, NOAA is assessing the 

possibility of reprioritizing some of its developmental efforts, particularly at its 

three supercomputer development centers (National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, and Earth System Research Laboratory) to pursue the use of GPUs and other similar technologies for 

their respective weather and climate models. 

c. What level of annual funding starting in FY 2011 is required to make much more 

affordable GPU high-performance computing capability available for the next 

planned NOAA supercomputer infrastructure procurement or acquisition? 

A10. (c) In FY 2011 and previous years, about $2 million of NOAA’s Information 

Technology appropriation has been used to develop the basic approach needed to use 

GPUs for an atmospheric model (ocean and other geophysical models are similar 

enough that they can use the same software frameworks). 

Q11. Since the announcement of the NOAA Climate Service proposal in February, 

2010, have offsite trips, travel, conferences, workshops and/or retreats been 

used to make transition and reorganization decisions and do Climate Service 

planning, development, strategy, vision, and implementation? 

a. How many meetings outside the Washington DC metro area have there been? 

A11. (a) NOAA’s climate research, information and services staff and capabilities 

are distributed throughout the United States in numerous labs and centers. In order 

to ensure NOAA’s climate vision, strategy, and priorities reflect the breadth of its 

expertise, it continues to be critically important for the agency’s key climate scientists and managers to be brought together in person from time to time. Particularly, as NOAA developed its reorganization proposal and the draft Vision and Strategic Framework, it was more critical than ever that NOAA hear from scientists and 

managers across the agency to ensure that these developments benefit from their 

insights, expertise, and experience. 

Since NOAA’s announcement in February 2010 of the intent to create a Climate 

Service in NOAA, there have been a total of five meetings outside the Washington, 

DC metro area focused on developing NOAA’s reorganization proposal, which is con-
80 

tained in our fiscal year (FY) 2012 Budget Request currently before Congress for 

approval, and writing the draft Vision and Strategic Framework document. The majority of these meetings have been held in locations where NOAA has facilities (one 

in Boulder, CO and two in Asheville, NC), and the others were held in a central 

location (Chicago, IL) relative to the NOAA scientists and managers who participated. 

b. How many NOAA employees have traveled and attended these gatherings outside 

the Washington, DC metro area? 

A11b. A total of approximately 81 NOAA employees have traveled to one or more 

these five meetings. The number of employees who traveled to each meeting is listed 

below. 

1. Boulder, CO. 65 travelers. 

2. Asheville, NC. 12 travelers. 

3. Chicago, IL. 13 travelers. 

4. Chicago, IL. 23 travelers. 

5. Asheville, NC. 23 travelers. 

c. How much has all such travel cost? 

A11. (c) Total travel costs (e.g., airfare, lodging, per diem, ground transportation, 

and miscellaneous) for these meetings were approximately $117,517.61. 

d. Please submit a listing of all the trips, conferences, workshops, retreats, and other 

sessions, their itineraries, who attended, and how much each cost NOAA? 

A11. (d) Meetings listed below were attended by climate scientists, subject matter 

experts, lab and center directors, headquarters staff, and administrative staff, including representatives across all NOAA Line Offices. 

1. Boulder, CO. Travel cost: $ 61,979.60; no facilities cost. 

2. Asheville, NC. Travel cost: $ 12,433.93; no facilities cost. 

3. Chicago, IL. Travel cost: $ 17,542.00; facilities cost: $16,486.32 (for both Chicago meetings). 

4. Chicago, IL. Travel cost: $ 29,784.55; facilities cost included in item 3. 

5. Asheville, NC. Travel cost: $ 12,263.85; no facilities cost. 

Questions submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer 

Q1. In your written testimony you specifically mentioned that your budget proposal 

makes responsible reductions. As I am sure you are aware, we are currently facing a $1.6 trillion deficit this year and a national debt over $14 trillion. Even 

if you make choices within the budget to cut certain programs, you are still drastically increasing spending in other areas. How can any budget that, in total increases funding by nearly 16 percent over Fiscal Year 2010 levels be considered 

fiscally responsible? 

A1. The Fiscal Year 2012 President’s Budget request is the result of a rigorous bottom-up review. NOAA continues to be as efficient as possible in performing its mission and is also committed to controlling costs by proposing planned reductions for 

FY 2012. The reductions to lower priority programs were made out of necessity and 

many of those cuts, under different budget conditions, NOAA would not support. In 

addition to the program cuts, a large reduction is $67.7 million in administrative 

costs. These reductions are a key component of the President’s Administrative Efficiency Initiative and were identified by consolidating activities, identifying more efficient acquisition vehicles, and cutting back on travel. 

Most of the proposed budget increase for FY 2012 is related to NOAA’s on-going 

satellite acquisitions, critical assets for many of NOAA’s programs and services. 

$687.8M of the $749.3M increase is associated with NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite 

System (JPSS). With the transition from the National Polar-orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program to JPSS, NOAA is now solely 

responsible for acquiring polar satellites for the afternoon orbit and ground system 

development, activities that were previously shared with the Department of Defense. 

NOAA’s satellites, including JPSS, are critical to our Nation’s infrastructure and 

economy and provide 98% of the input to the Nation’s prediction models. They ensure the safety and viability of the maritime commerce sector. They allow coastal 
81 

managers to safely evacuate millions of residents during hurricane season. They 

give our farmers the long-term weather information that they need to know when 

and what to grow. They provide our military and homeland security leaders with 

critical information to keep our Nation safe and deploy troops overseas. 

The U.S. weather satellite program has been in place since the early 1960s and 

is now threatened by funding uncertainty. Funding decisions made now will determine the long-term costs and the quality of essential weather services provided by 

NOAA to the American public as early as 2016. 

Delivering satellites and their data services on time maximizes the public benefit, 

allows the government to execute acquisitions at the lowest cost, and demonstrates 

NOAA priorities are focused on its most critical assets to protect lives and property. 

Q2. What practices will you put in place to ensure that scientific objectivity will not 

be compromised in favor of more agenda-driven research practices within the 

Climate Service, as included in FY 2012 budget proposal? 

A2. Science guides all of NOAA’s activities, and the proposed Climate Service would 

be no exception. NOAA holds itself to the highest standards of data quality and 

transparency, and as a science agency is well positioned to provide trusted information on climate variability and change. 

This Administration is committed to the honest and open conduct of science. One 

of Dr. Lubchenco’s first actions as NOAA Administrator was to appoint a scientific 

integrity team at NOAA. Their charge was to review the state of science and scientific integrity at NOAA, to actively assist the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy (OSTP) in developing recommendations that would strengthen the integrity 

of science in government, and to draft a scientific integrity policy for NOAA. 

NOAA’s first priority is to maintain the highest quality climate science while 

being responsive to user needs. The principal goal of the proposed Climate Service 

is to make the scientific data and information about climate easily accessible in 

order to help people make informed decisions in their lives, businesses, and communities. 

The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) endorsed this approach 

in their study and recommended that NOAA bring its research, observation and 

monitoring, and service development and delivery capacity into a single Line Office. 

NAPA noted that, ‘‘It would undermine the whole concept of an integrated NOAA 

Climate Service if these research assets were not an integral part of the new line 

office.’’ The National Academies of Science have also stated that a decision support 

initiative for climate should be ‘‘closely linked’’ to its research element. (Informing 

Decisions in a Changing Climate, 2009). 

NOAA would also use the proposed reorganization as an opportunity to strategically realign its existing core research Line Office, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), to strengthen the agency’s overall science enterprise. OAR 

would refocus its work to serve as an innovator and incubator of new science, technologies, and applications for its missions, and an integrator of science and technology across all of NOAA. The OAR Assistant Administrator would serve as vicechair of the NOAA Research Council. Further, as leader of the central research Line 

Office, the OAR Assistant Administrator would become the senior advisor to the 

NOAA Chief Scientist. 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Q1. The President’s budget request includes a $2 million increase for research related to wind renewable energy. It is my understanding that NOAA is working 

closely with the Department of Energy on this research. 

a. Please describe your wind research activities? 

A1. (a) NOAA is currently engaged in several wind research activities in relation 

to renewable energy. Several projects and initiatives are described below: 

1. Boundary Layer Characterization Research in the NOAA FY 12 

Budget—NOAA is requesting $2 million in FY 12 to improve the Nation’s 

understanding of the atmospheric phenomena driving and determining 

boundary layer winds. Developing more accurate nationwide wind forecasts 

will enable industry to make more accurate predictions of wind power production, which will help facilitate the expansion of U.S. clean energy generation. Additionally, the improved weather forecasts that result from this work 

will benefit many other NOAA efforts and national priorities, such as aviation, surface transportation, air quality, and plume dispersion studies. The 

$2 million will focus on two activities: 
82 

a. (1) Deploying wind test beds—To improve short-term operational predictions, 

NOAA will deploy wind test beds in different regions of the Nation because 

there are different factors that influence weather, including wind speeds and 

wind direction in different regions. These test beds will help determine the 

optimal mix of instrumentation needed for wind resource characterization 

and forecast improvement. Regions include the Pacific Northwest, offshore 

along the Atlantic Coast, the Appalachian region, the inter-mountain west, 

and California. 

b. (2) Improve the HRRR weather model—The observations collected at the test 

beds will be used to initialize the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) 

weather model to understand how to best utilize new observations in different locations to produce a more accurate forecast of wind speed and direction. In addition, operational observations will be obtained and assimilated 

into the HRRR weather model. NOAA will leverage high performance computing investments that the agency has already made to facilitate improved 

Numerical Weather Prediction forecasts. 

2. Wind-Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP)—The WFIP is a 12-month 

field demonstration project funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) that 

will occur in two regions of the country: the upper Midwest and Texas. DOE 

is funding NOAA in this project because DOE recognizes NOAA as a key 

partner in the atmospheric science and services required for the development 

of renewable energy. NOAA’s weather forecasts are currently used by the renewable energy sector but are not advanced enough to provide the level of 

accuracy needed. The WFIP is a one-time field project, and it aims to demonstrate that forecasts of turbine-level (80–100 m) wind speeds and wind 

ramp events can be improved by collection and assimilation of additional meteorological observations. In addition, the results of the WFIP will add to the 

published estimates of the economic value of wind forecasts to the energy industry. Published studies currently indicate that day-ahead wind forecasts 

save the industry $1-$5 billion per year. 

To do this, NOAA will deploy meteorological instruments, run a researchgrade weather model (High-Resolution Rapid Refresh model), and analyze 

data from the WFIP. DOE is also funding two private-sector companies that 

will use NOAA’s improved wind forecasts to create more accurate wind power 

predictions in the WFIP. 

3. Collaboration with Duke Energy Generation—NOAA’s Air Resources 

Laboratory (ARL) is currently working under a Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreement (CRADA) with Duke Energy Generation 

(headquartered in Charlotte, NC). This CRADA was initiated as a public-private partnership to explore potential improvements in techniques used to 

support hub-height wind forecasts. Through the CRADA, ARL has deployed 

various weather measurement capabilities at the Duke Energy’s Ocotillo 

wind farm located near Big Spring, Texas. The goal is to conduct research 

on the structure of low-level winds affecting wind turbines. ARL’s research 

and observations are also being made available to the various NOAA weather forecast groups supporting renewable energy. 

4. Planning for the Future via the NOAA Energy Team—On January 24, 

2011, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) formalized cooperation between the DOE/Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and DOC/NOAA to 

work on initiatives of mutual benefit and interest to the two parties on 

weather-dependent and oceanic renewable energy. The MOU also requires 

that by May 20, 2011, the two parties sign an action plan that identifies key 

challenges, goals and proposed initiatives to develop improved science and 

services to support growth of renewable energy, such as wind (terrestrial and 

offshore), solar, biomass/biopower, conventional hydropower and marine 

hydrokinetic (waves, tides, and currents). A draft action plan is currently 

being prepared. 

Q1. (b) What is the arrangement between DOE and NOAA and what is DOE’s contribution to NOAA’s work? Is DOE procuring equipment for NOAA or providing technical assistance related to wind energy generation? 

A1. (b) While DOE is not procuring equipment or providing direct support for this 

wind research initiative, staffers of the two agencies meet regularly to share information and advice on how to best support the information needs for wind, solar and 

other renewable energy generation such as hydrokinetic and biomass sources. The 

primary focus of this request is wind energy as DOE and NOAA are in agreement 
83 

that the information needs for wind energy are currently most pressing and most 

attainable. NOAA’s expertise lies in meteorology and climate science that are needed for optimal operations and planning for both renewable energy generation and 

facility siting. Separate from the FY 12 request for Boundary Layer Characterization Research (as described above), DOE is funding NOAA to participate in a onetime, 12-month field research project. This project is called the Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP). NOAA hopes to have all instruments turned on and collecting data from July 2011–July 2012. 
84 

1Standard procedures outlined in p605–608 Principles in toxicology http://books.google.com/ 

books?id=vgHXTId8rnYC&pg=PA606&lpg=PA606&dq=pathology+working+group+procedures&s 

ource=bl&ots=IW8kjubP–d&sig=iSYelcWvpgzlxs5002MMIKUudME&hl=en&ei=naTJTdnMEafu0 

gGvhemZCg&sa=X&oi=booklresult&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q 

=pathology %20working%20group%20procedures&f=false 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development(ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

IRIS ASSESSMENT 

Q1. On June 15th, the EPA placed the IRIS assessments for several chemicals ‘‘on 

hold’’ citing the need to determine whether questions raised by the National 

Toxicology Program’s review of the Ramazzini Institute’s methanol study will require the Agency to revise the assessments or take additional action to verify the 

data used in these assessments. 

a. It is my understanding that the Agency is in discussions with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to send an additional team of pathologists to Italy to visit the Ramazzini laboratory to conduct a full review of the 

chemical studies in question. Is that accurate? 

A1. (a) EPA and NIEHS are jointly sponsoring an independent Pathology Working 

Group (PWG) review of selected studies on methanol, MTBE, ETBE, acrylonitrile, 

and vinyl chloride conducted by the Ramazzini Institute. The PWG review is currently underway and involves a team of pathologists traveling to the Ramazzini laboratory in Italy to conduct the review. 

b. If so, how do you intend to conduct this review? 

A1. (b) EPA coordinated with NIEHS to outline the issues related to the specific 

chemicals of concern and is co-sponsoring the effort. NIEHS is overseeing the PWG 

review, which was designed in accordance with standard procedures established for 

NIEHS’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) pathology reviews. 

c. What will you do to ensure that this effort is conducted in a fully transparent 

manner that allows for the public to comment? 

A1. (c) EPA announced in an April 11, 2011 press release that a PWG review was 

being conducted, co-sponsored by NIEHS and EPA and in cooperation with the 

Ramazzini Institute. The PWG review is ongoing and is being conducted independently by NIEHS using standard pathology review procedurespathology review 

procedurespathology review procedures 1

d. If you are not in discussion with NIEHS, please tell me in detail what you are 

doing regarding the IRIS assessments that are currently on hold? 

A1. (d) EPA continues to work closely and collaboratively with NIEHS on methanol 

cancer review. The non cancer assessment for methanol is not impacted by 

Ramazzini data and is moving forward to an independent external peer review. 

Based on other available data, EPA has determined that reliance on Ramazzini Institute study results is not necessary to continue with assessment development for 

MTBE, ETBE and acrylonitrile (EPA released for a 60 day public comment and peer 

review on June 30, 2011), including an assessment of cancer risks. Therefore, work 

on the assessments for the three chemicals will continue during the PWG review. 

RAMAZZINI INSTITUTE 

Q2. In June 2010, EPA announced that it had ‘‘under[taken] a thorough review of 

all ongoing and previous chemical assessments to determine which, if any, relied 

substantially on cancer testing from the Ramazzini Institute,’’ had ‘‘found four 

ongoing chemical assessments—on methanol, MTBE, ETBE and acrylonitrile— 

that rely significantly on cancer data from the Ramazzini Institute,’’ and had 

‘‘placed those assessments on hold and will determine whether the questions 

raised by NTP will require EPA to revise the assessments or take additional, action to verify the data used in these assessments.’’ The TCE assessment relies 

substantially on Ramazzini data, both to support its conclusion that TCE is a 

kidney carcinogen, the endpoint that drives the cancer risk assessment, and to 
85 

derive the cancer potency factor. Has EPA verified the TCE Ramazzini data? If 

not, why has EPA not placed the TCE assessment on hold along with the others? 

A2. In EPA’s 2009 draft Toxicological Review of Trichloroethylene (TCE), cancer potency estimates are based on epidemiologic data indicating that TCE increases the 

risk of cancer in humans. Human studies (see references below) are also the primary basis for the proposed conclusion in the draft assessment that TCE is a kidney 

carcinogen. EPA does not use the animal studies [e.g., Ramazzini Institute studies 

(Maltoni et al. 1986 and 1988)] as the primary basis for concluding that TCE is a 

human kidney carcinogen, or to derive the cancer potency factor in the draft assessment. 

Multiple positive rodent bioassays, one of which is the ‘‘Ramazzini data,’’ lend additional support for the human-based cancer classification and cancer potency values. The results from each of the independently run rodent bioassays are similar. 

In other words, multiple independent studies produced similar results. Therefore, 

removing one of these independent supporting studies (e.g., Ramazzini) would have 

no effect on EPA’s conclusions regarding the qualitative or quantitative assessment 

of cancer. EPA is not considering removing any study from the TCE assessment at 

this time. 

References 

Anttila, A; Pukkala, E; Sallmen, M; et al. (1995) Cancer incidence among Finnish 

workers exposed to halogenated hydrocarbons. J Occup Environ Med 37:797–806. 

Axelson, O; Selden, A; Andersson, K; et al. (1994) Updated and expanded Swedish 

cohort study on trichloroethylene and cancer risk. J Occup Environ 36:556–562. 

Boice, JD, Jr.; Marano, DE; Fryzek, JP; et al. (1999) Mortality among aircraft 

manufacturing workers. Occup Environ Med 56:581–597. 

Greenland, S; Salvan, A; Wegman, DH; et al. (1994) A case-control study of cancer 

mortality at the transformer-assembly facility. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 

66:49–54. 

Hansen, J; Raaschou-Nielsen, O; Christensen, JM; et al. (2001) Cancer incidence 

among Danish workers exposed to trichloroethylene. J Occup Environ Med 43:133– 

139. 

Morgan, RW; Kelsh, MA; Zhao, K; et al. (1998) Mortality of aerospace workers exposed to trichloroethylene. Epidemiology 9:424–431. 

Raaschou-Nielsen, O; Hansen, J; McLaughlin, JK; et al. (2003) Cancer risk among 

workers at Danish companies using trichloroethylene: a cohort study. Am J 

Epidemiol 158(12):1182–1192. 

Radican, L; Blair, A; Stewart, P; et al. (2008) Mortality of aircraft maintenance 

workers exposed to trichloroethylene and other hydrocarbons and chemicals: extended follow-up. J Occup Environ Med 50:1306–1319. 

Zhao, Y; Krishnadasan, A; Kennedy, N; et al. (2005) Estimated effects of solvents 

and mineral oils on cancer incidence and Mortality in a cohort of aerospace workers. 

Am J Ind Med 48:249–258. 

Bru ̈ning, T; Pesch, B; Wiesenhu ̈tter, B; et al. (2003) Renal cell cancer risk and 

occupational exposure to trichloroethylene: results of a consecutive case-control 

study in Arnsberg, Germany. Am J Ind Med 43:274–285. 

Charbotel, B; Fevotte, J; Hours, M; et al. (2006) Case-control study on renal cell 

cancer and occupational exposure to trichloroethylene. Part II: Epidemiological aspects. Ann Occup Hyg 50(8):777–787. 

Dosemeci, M; Cocco, P; Chow, WH. (1999) Gender differences in risk of renal cell 

carcinoma and occupational exposures to chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Am J 

Ind Med 36(1):54–59. 

Moore LE, Boffetta P, Karami S, Brennan P, Stewart PS, Hung R, Zaridze D, 

Matveev V, Janout V, Kollarova H, Bencko V et al. 2010. Occupational trichloroethylene exposure and renal carcinoma risk: evidence of genetic susceptibility by reductive metabolism gene variants. Cancer Res 70:6527–6636. 

Pesch, B; Haerting, J; Ranft, U; et al.. (2000) Occupational risk factors for renal 

cell carcinoma: agent-specific results from a case-control study in Germany. MURC 

Study Group. Multicenter urothelial and renal cancer study. Int J Epidemiol 

29(6):1014–1024. 

Siemiatycki, J. (1991) Risk factors for cancer in the workplace. Boca Raton: CRC 

Press. 
86 

HALOGENATED PLATINUM COMPOUNDS 

Q3. The IRIS program continues to be on the GAO High Risk list. Much, but by no 

means all, of the GAO’s stated concerns focus on the slow pace of completion of 

IRIS assessments. The Committee believes the Agency should improve the way 

it allocates its limited resources and more effectively prioritize the candidates for 

assessment. Please explain the process the Agency uses to prioritize candidate 

substances for review. Why did EPA choose to initiate an IRIS assessment of 

halogenated platinum compounds when there is no scientific information to conclude that there is the risk of ambient exposure? 

A3. In its solicitation for nomination of new chemicals, EPA asks the public, interagency partners, and Agency programs and regions for information to help prioritize 

the need for IRIS assessments. This information includes: 

• potential public health impact, 

• EPA statutory, regulatory, or program-specific needs, 

• availability of new scientific information or methodology that might significantly change the current IRIS information, 

• interest to other governmental agencies, the public or other stakeholders outside of EPA (e.g., states, tribes, local governments, environmental organizations, 

industries, or other IRIS users), 

• availability of other scientific assessment documents that could serve as the 

basis for an IRIS assessment, and 

• other factors such as widespread exposure or potential susceptible groups that 

would make the substance a high priority for assessment. 

EPA then uses this information to inform the decisions on which assessments to 

undertake. Two of the more important pieces of information that are used to gauge 

whether an assessment will be placed on the IRIS agenda are EPA program and 

regulatory needs and the availability of Agency resources to complete an assessment. 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) proceeded with an IRIS assessment of halogenated platinum compounds because EPA needed the assessment to 

inform its evaluation of platinum fuel additives for diesel engines in EPA’s diesel 

retrofit program. EPA has posted a general statement regarding emissions from the 

use of platinum-based fuel additives that can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

cleandiesel/verification/verif-list.htm (PDF file is found at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

cleandiesel/documents/420b08014.pdf). The need for the assessment of halogenated 

platinum salts and platinum compounds was not related to any concerns regarding 

emissions from catalysts commonly used on automobiles. 

RELATIONSHIP OF FUTURE CSS WORK TO EXISTING IRIS WORK 

Q4. How will the new draft plan ‘‘Framework for an EPA Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) Research Program’’ inform existing or pending IRIS assessments if the intent of the CSS research program is to look at chemicals in a 

more holistic, sustainable framework? 

A4. Once finalized, the draft CSS Framework will guide EPA’s chemicals-related research activities over an approximately five-year period beginning October 2011, 

thus its impact on current IRIS assessments may not be large in the short term for 

assessments being finalized and ones which have already undergone peer review. 

Results from the CSS program will be used as soon as they become available and 

are peer reviewed. These early inputs of CSS research will inform IRIS assessments 

under development by elucidating mode(s)-of-action and toxicity pathway information that informs hazard and dose-response assessments. This evidence is anticipated to strengthen weight of evidence determinations in IRIS assessments under 

development. The CSS program will derive information coming from alternative animal species testing, high-throughput and high content data source and will be integrated with other biological measurements to inform health assessments like those 

contained in IRIS. We expect the CSS research program to play an important role 

in informing IRIS assessments in the future. As defined by an approximate 3–5 year 

time horizon, one of the key objectives of the CSS program is getting stakeholder 

involvement and buy-in for the application of these new data in assessments. The 

full impact of CSS on IRIS must factor in this process and the routine inclusion into 

assessments will realistically take a few years. 
87 

2http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/C74350B789B646D4852576D900693B14/$File/ 

ORD–NCEA+Charge+Memo+for+ARSENIC–WG+Feb+26+2010.pdf 3http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/EADABBF40DED2A0885257308006741EF/$File/ 

sab-07–008.pdf 4http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?pldownload—id=494513 

INORGANIC ARSENIC 

Q5. The Science Advisory Board recently concluded its review of the IRIS assessment 

of inorganic arsenic. The SAB noted that it was not asked to conduct a full peer 

review of the assessment, including EPA’s calculation of the cancer risk estimate, 

a critical element of EPA’s conclusions regarding arsenic. Why did ORD intentionally limit the scope of the SAB peer review? Why has EPA never obtained 

independent peer review of the cancer slope factor it asserts for arsenic? 

A5. The SAB completed, in 2007, an independent peer review of the 2005 External 

Review Draft Toxicological Review of Ingested Inorganic Arsenic. After revising the 

draft assessment and in response to comments received from external stakeholders, 

EPA went well beyond the normal peer review process and opted to conduct a second external peer review focused on EPA’s implementation of the recommendations 

received from the 2007 SAB panel. In other words, the 2010 SAB panel review was 

a second peer review of the revisions that were made as a result of the 2007 SAB 

panel review. The scope of the review was discussed at the SAB face-to-face meeting 

on April 6–7, 2010, as well as during the chartered SAB meetings on June 16, 2010, 

and November 22, 2010. The following text was contained in the ChargeJune 16, 

2010, and November 22, 2010. The following text was contained in the ChargeJune 

16, 2010, and November 22, 2010. The following text was contained in the Charge 2

‘‘The goal of this focused external peer review is to evaluate EPA’s implementation of the key SAB (2007) external peer review recommendations. This focused 

review should concentrate on EPA’s Response to the SAB comments in Appendix 

A and the corresponding revisions in the 2010 draft IRIS assessment. Please 

provide specific response to the Charge below. If there are recommendations for 

further changes or additions to the assessment, please provide specific information on how those changes could be implemented with the currently available 

scientific information.’’ 

EPA completed an independent peer review of the EPA cancer modeling approach 

including the derivation of the oral CSF for inorganic arsenic through the Science 

Advisory Board (Advisory on EPA’s Assessments of Carcinogenic Effects of Organic 

and Inorganic Arsenic 3) in 2007. The charge (see Section A–1 of the Advisory report) presented to this 2007 SAB included five questions specific to the cancer modeling approach, including the derivation of the oral CSF. The 2007 SAB responded 

with several recommendations for revision and corrections to the derivation of the 

oral CSF contained within the EPA’s 2005 External Review Draft Toxicological Review of Ingested Inorganic Arsenic. 4 EPA considered all of the conclusions and recommendations from the 2007 SAB report in preparing the current 2010 External 

Review Draft ‘‘Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic (cancer).’’ We note that the 

oral CSF falls within the range of risk estimates developed by the National Research Council in 2001, as indicated on page 137 of the 2010 External Review Draft 

‘‘Toxicological Review of Inorganic Arsenic (cancer).’’ 

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION SCREENING PROGRAM 

Q6. The EPA has proposed a second list of 134 chemicals for testing under the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), which is intended to screen chemicals for their potential to interact with the human endocrine system. In publishing this list of chemicals, the EPA failed to abide by a requirement from the 

Office of Management and Budget that the Agency report on the actual costs and 

time companies have invested in the first round of testing of 67 pesticides. 

a. With testing costs estimated to be as high as $1 million per chemical, what is the 

EPA doing to ensure that experience gained from the first round of testing is captured before requiring testing for the second EDSP list? 

A6. EPA is committed to producing a full review of the EDSP Tier 1 Screening Battery to ‘‘ensure that experience gained from the first round of testing is captured.’’ 

EPA is currently reviewing the public comments we received on the amendment to 

the original EDSP Information Collection Request. A full review of the EDSP Tier 

1 Battery cannot occur until data from the first list of chemicals have been submitted and reviewed. The first sets of data from EDSP List 1 are not due until Octo-
88 

ber of this year. The last due date for the submission of data from EDSP List 1 

is May 2013. After submission of the data, the individual studies will be reviewed 

and integrated into decisions about the potential of the chemical to interact with 

the endocrine system. Only after completion of these chemical-by-chemical evaluations can EPA scientists most effectively evaluate the battery and coordinate a scientific peer review. The earliest timeframe for the completion of the scientific peer 

review would be 2014. 

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION SCREENING PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE 

WATER DRINKING ACT 

Q7. In developing the list of chemicals for the second round of EDSP screening test 

orders under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Agency must demonstrate that 

the chemicals ‘‘may be a contaminant in drinking water’’ and/or that ‘‘a substantial population must be exposed’’ to the chemicals. However, when it published the proposed second list of chemicals the Agency simply used the unregulated contaminant list from the third Containment Candidate List (CCL3) without conducting any effort to see if each of the chemicals on the CCL3 met the 

critical factors that the Agency is required to consider under the SDWA. 

a. What is the EPA doing to ensure that EDSP testing orders are only given to the 

manufacturers and distributors of specific chemicals that meet the criteria for 

EDSP testing established under the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

A7. Section 1457 of SDWA provides that ‘‘in addition to the substances’’ referred to 

in FFDCA section 408(p)(3)(B), ‘‘the Administrator may provide for testing under 

the screening program authorized by section 408(p) of such Act, in accordance with 

the provisions of section 408(p) of such Act, of any other substance that may be 

found in sources of drinking water if the Administrator determines that a substantial population may be exposed to such substance.’’ (42 U.S.C. 300j-17). The Agency 

used the third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 3) and the list of regulated drinking water contaminants as the starting point to develop the second EDSP list because these compounds represent the priority chemicals for the Office of Water and 

the chemicals that are most likely to meet the criteria specified by SDWA 1457. 

In developing the CCL 3, the Agency considered not only public water system occurrence data but also the occurrence data for ambient concentrations in surface 

and ground water, and release to the environment. The Agency believes these data 

are sufficient to anticipate contaminants that ‘‘may’’ occur in public water systems 

and furthermore, also represent those substances that may be found in sources of 

drinking water to which a substantial population may be exposed. 

When the Agency published the second EDSP list in November of 2010, we encouraged the public to submit comments and information related to the inclusion 

and exclusion of chemicals from the second list. The Agency is in the process of reviewing the public comments and information it received on the list and will consider this information before finalizing the second list and the schedule for issuing 

test orders. If our evaluation of the public comments and information submitted by 

commenters indicate that we should reconsider the inclusion of contaminants that 

may not meet the SDWA 1457 criteria, we plan to make any necessary changes before finalizing the second EDSP list. 

STAR PROGRAM vs OTHER FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS 

Q8. Your testimony stated that ‘‘EPA will enhance its outreach to the broader scientific community through its STAR program, which funds competitive research 

grants across a broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines.’’ Does this 

program overlap with other scientific programs that offer research grants? If so, 

can you distinguish the STAR program from other federal programs? 

A8. EPA coordinates its research with other federal agencies and EPA programs 

through all stages of the STAR grant process to ensure we are funding unique research that meets the needs of the Agency. A number of steps are built into EPA’s 

grant solicitation and award process that provide a high level of confidence that we 

are not funding research that overlaps with the missions of other federal agencies 

in a duplicative way: 

• First, EPA chooses research topics based on projected future policy needs, current investments across the government, and available resources. When EPA 

pursues research in areas where other agencies have large investments, EPA 

consults these agencies during the solicitation development process. 
89 

5The Measure of STAR: Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science to 

Achieve Results (STAR) Research Grants Program 6 James H. Johnson, BOSC Review—http://www.epa.gov/osp/bosc/pdf/star0610ltr.pdf 

• Second, EPA’s collaboration with other federal agencies supporting related research ensures that roles are clearly defined and that EPA supports environmental research uniquely targeted to its science needs. For example, EPA’s 

membership on the OSTP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

ensures that EPA’s research is coordinated with the larger federal efforts in 

global change research. 

• Third, EPA frequently involves experts from other agencies to serve on its external peer panels for reviewing grant proposals. These rigorous peer-reviews 

are performed by panelists from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Homeland Security, 

(DHS) among others, and are a key part of the foundation on which excellence 

is achieved in all research programs. 

• Finally, EPA coordinates scientific research with other agencies through informal interactions at scientific meetings and workshops and also works closely 

with other agencies to communicate research progress and results. For example, 

EPA’s Nanotechnology Research Program has held research planning workshops with researchers from government, industry and academia to identify 

gaps in society’s understanding of nanotechnology in relation to human and environmental health, and to guide EPA’s research planning. In addition, EPA’s 

Computational Toxicology Research Program has a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the 

National Institute of Health (NIH), the National Institutes of Environmental 

Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to study high throughput screening, toxicity pathway profiling, and biological interpretation of the research findings. 

EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program was evaluated by the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) who released its findings in a report titled ‘‘The Measure of STAR.’’ According to the report, EPA’s STAR program fills a unique niche 

by supporting ‘‘important research that is not conducted or funded by other agencies’’ and is ‘‘directly relevant’’ to the EPA’s mission to protect human health and 

the environment 5. The report goes on to say that ‘‘the agency has taken effective 

steps to ensure that the process does not suffer from conflicts of interest’’ by providing a ‘‘firewall that shields the peer-review process from the influence of the 

project officers and staff who oversee the individual-investigator, fellowship, and 

center awards.’’ 

The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) also reviewed EPA’s STAR program 

and claimed that STAR fellows have made ‘‘excellent contributions in environmental 

science and engineering. The BOSC’s review highlighted the STAR program’s 

unique ability to perform targeted and unduplicated research: ‘‘Although other federal agencies fund a number of fellowship programs, none are dedicated exclusively 

to the environmental sciences and engineering.’’ Based on this finding, the Chair of 

the BOSC claimed that EPA’s STAR program is ‘‘clearly are of value to the Agency 

and the nation in helping to educate the next generation of environmental scientists 

and engineers.’’ 6

Questions submitted by Representative Judy Biggert 

NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN SCHEDULE 

Q1. I understand EPA plans to revise the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Schedule for dispersants in 2012. Can you indicate what the timeline and plans are 

around this revision? 

A1. EPA plans to propose revisions to the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Subpart J Product Schedule regulations by the end of this calendar year. EPA projects 

a publication date (in the Federal Register) of December 2011. Incorporating lessons 

learned from the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, EPA is developing revisions to 

the Subpart J regulations under the NCP that govern the Product Schedule. These 

regulations identify the tests and information required of product manufacturers to 

list dispersants and other chemical agents on the Product Schedule for use on oil 

spills in U.S. waters. Additional toxicity testing, toxicity thresholds, and more rigorous efficacy testing parameters are some of the priority issues being examined. 
90 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

Q2. As you know, natural gas development in the Marcellus shale, and related debate around the process of hydraulic fracturing, have received a lot of attention. 

There is a lot of support for this natural gas development and making sure it 

is done in a manner that protects the environment—specifically—water resources. How does EPA intend to support innovative technologies that can responsibly develop this resource? 

A2. EPA fully supports the development of innovative, responsible technologies for 

extracting natural gas deposits. We are working with the Department of Energy 

(DOE), particularly the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), on this 

issue. NETL has both experience and the lead at the Federal level to assess the efficacy and impacts of technologies related to hydraulic fracturing. This joint research 

includes wastewater treatment of produced and flowback waters. EPA and DOE 

wish to identify and assess the performance of options for wastewater treatment of 

produced and flowback waters. 

Q3. As an example, your testimony mentions ‘‘green chemistry’’ research. Are there 

potential green chemistry technologies that EPA is considering for water treatment in fracturing? 

A3. EPA’s research efforts are currently focused on its hydraulic fracture study. In 

addition to our research efforts, through the voluntary Design for the Environment 

Program, EPA may work with industry to evaluate alternative fracturing fluid systems. The goal is to see if there are greener chemical combinations that are at least 

as effective as current fracturing fluids. 

EPA GUIDANCE ON SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION 

Q4. On September 29, 2010, I joined several of my colleagues in a letter to acknowledge the EPA’s finding that SCR systems are vulnerable to tampering and to 

encourage the Agency to review the rules governing the operation of such systems. 

On November 19, 2010, the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation responded to our letter with a letter of her own. In that correspondence, Ms. Gina 

McCarthy indicated that the EPA planned ‘‘to issue new [SCR] guidance by the 

end of the year.’’ 

To date, EPA has not acted on any new guidance. Can EPA provide any idea 

what their timeline might be for new SCR guidance? 

A4. Since July 2010, EPA has been reviewing comments and information submitted 

in response to the public workshop and drafting updated guidance. We plan to publish the guidance in the Federal Register for public comment within the next few 

months. Question for the Record by Representative Neugebauer 

ENSURING SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY 

Q5. In my view the Environmental Protection Agency has recently imposed multiple 

costly regulations that have been based on unsettled science. Most notably, hundreds of scientists have opposed the science upon which the EPA based its greenhouse gas regulations. Moving forward, how will your agency ensure that research contains a variety of scientific input, including views that may diverge 

from the Administration’s agenda? 

A5. It is essential that the EPA’s scientific and technical activities are of the highest quality and credibility for the American people to have trust and confidence in 

EPA decisions and actions. We welcome differing views and opinions on scientific 

and technical matters as an important, legitimate and necessary part of the process 

to provide the best possible information to regulatory and policy decisions. 

Regarding your specific reference to climate change science: 

EPA Administrator made Lisa Jackson made the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment 

Finding on the basis of the science in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, the work of the United States Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP), and the work of the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) National Research Council (NRC). The products from all three of 

these groups were peer-reviewed. These reports and peer reviews involved thousands of scientists. 
91 

7 Anderegg, W.R.L., J.W. Prall, J. Harold, and S.H. Schneider, 2010: Expert credibility in climate change, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107 (27), 12107–12109. 8Doran, P.T., and M.K. Zimmerman, 2009: Examining the scientific consensus on climate 

change, EOS Trans. AGU, 90 (3), 22–23. 

Most recently, in 2010 the NAS/NRC published a report- Advancing the Science 

of Climate Change—which stated that ‘‘Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for-and in many cases is already 

affecting-a broad range of human and natural systems.’’ This is only the latest report by preeminent scientists that come to the same conclusion. 

The report further states: ‘‘Most of the warming over the last several decades can 

be attributed to human activities that release carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heattrapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuelscoal, oil, and natural gas-for energy is the single largest human driver of climate 

change, but agriculture, forest clearing, and certain industrial activities also make 

significant contributions.’’ 

Further, two recent publications, looking at both surveys of scientists and the scientific literature, found that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field agreed on anthropogenic climate change. 7 8 EPA is charged with 

making its decisions on science and in using that science for the good of the public 

and the environment. As such, EPA relied on the vast scientific literature, from a 

huge number and diversity of scientists, to develop its assessment reports and ultimately inform its endangerment finding. 

In addition, EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Endangerment 

Finding was peer reviewed and the Endangerment Finding was subject to public 

comment. The peer review was conducted by a panel of federal experts, including 

one expert from EPA, to assure consistency with the underlying assessment reports. 

There were two opportunities for public comment on the Endangerment Finding, 

once during the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) process and once 

after publication of the Proposed Finding. The public comment period for the Proposed Finding, including formal public hearings, was held after the proposal was 

issued but prior to the final action being developed. Public engagement was significant: over 380,000 public comments were received. EPA responded in depth to all 

the arguments raised within the approximately 11,000 unique and substantive comments in a comprehensive 11-volume Response to Comments document. EPA reviewed individual submitted studies that were not included in the major assessments, with an overall conclusion that the studies did not change the judgments 

EPA would draw based on the assessment reports. A limited number of appropriate 

revisions were made to the TSD in response to the public process, usually where 

public comments revealed that the TSD summary of the underlying assessments 

could be improved. These activities demonstrate that the development of EPA’s 

Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding included a broad variety of scientific input, 

including views that were divergent from the ultimate conclusion of the Finding. 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

E15 

Q1. Several U.S. ethanol associations submitted a waiver to the EPA to increase the 

ethanol blend up to E15 from E10. (That is a blend of 15 percent ethanol and 

85 percent gasoline.) EPA has partially granted a waiver to allow manufacturers 

to introduce gasoline that contains greater than ten percent ethanol and up to 

15 percent ethanol (E15) for use in motor vehicles newer than model year 2001, 

subject to several conditions. It is the Committee’s understanding that EPA is 

not finished with its work on this issue. What kind of research went into making 

the decision and what role did the Department of Energy play in conducting this 

research? 

A1. We based our decisions primarily on key data provided by the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) Catalyst Study which was designed to evaluate the long-term effects 

of gasoline-ethanol blends, including E15, on the durability of emissions control systems, including catalysts, used in passenger cars and light trucks to control emissions. The test fleets were designed to be reasonably representative of the national 

passenger vehicle fleet. They included several high sales volume vehicle models and 

models selected for their expected sensitivity to ethanol so that any potential problems would be more likely to become apparent. The results of the DOE study coupled with the results of other relevant test programs, including studies conducted 

by the Coordinating Research Council (sustaining members include the American 
92 

Petroleum Institute and a group of automobile manufacturers), confirmed the Agency’s engineering assessment that the changes in regulatory requirements for 

MY2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles led manufacturers to design and build 

vehicles able to use E15 without a significant impact on the performance of light 

duty vehicle emissions control systems. EPA believes that the available data and information were sufficient to grant the waiver request for MY2001 and newer lightduty motor vehicles. 

Q2. Can you provide us with a timeline of the expected additional studies underway 

or planned for ethanol blends? 

A2. As discussed in the partial waiver decisions, it is our understanding that the 

results of additional testing conducted by the Coordinating Research Council on E10 

and E20 are expected by the end of 2011. We did not believe it was necessary to 

await these program results to decide the waiver request for MY2001 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles given the lack of documented problems in our motor vehicle compliance program, the results of the DOE Catalyst Study and other studies, 

and EPA’s engineering assessment of vehicle emissions systems compatibility with 

E15. Based on this combined body of knowledge, we expect that MY2001 and newer 

light-duty motor vehicles will be able to operate on E15 without experiencing longterm deterioration. 

Q3. What is the long-term impact on our economic competitiveness? 

A3. The increased use of renewable fuels required by the RFS2 standards is expected to reduce dependence on foreign sources of crude oil and increase domestic 

sources of energy. We expect that the increased use of renewable fuels needed to 

reach the 36 billion gallons mandated by 2022 will displace a significant amount of 

petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel relative to market projections of gasoline 

and diesel use in the absence of the mandate. Furthermore, we expect the rule to 

decrease oil imports and sustain the market for U.S. agricultural products, including 

corn. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

Q4. At the hearing in response to a question on the Hydraulic Fracturing Study 

Plan, you mentioned EPA would ensure that strong and thorough consideration 

would be given to all stakeholders concerns in an objective and transparent 

manner? You further committed to providing opportunities for input by stakeholders, including states, industry and academia about concerns after the study 

has been initiated. a. Please describe how you intend to do this while maintaining scientific integrity and meeting tight time deadlines for the report. 

A4. EPA has committed to conducting the study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources in an objective and transparent manner. 

The Agency’s study will be conducted under EPA’s most rigorous quality assurance 

guidelines, which will ensure that all of the study results will be reported objectively. EPA has encouraged stakeholders to play an active role in the development 

of the study plan and will continue to communicate with all interested stakeholders 

regarding our progress. 

EPA has already undertaken efforts to ensure stakeholder engagement, as well 

as transparency in our deliberations and implementation actions. These efforts include: 

• Public meetings held in Texas, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New York in 2010. 

• Webinars and meetings with federal, state, interstate, and tribal partners during 2010. 

• An e-mail inbox dedicated to receiving comments from all interested stakeholders. 

• Webinars regarding the release of the draft study plan in February and March 

2011 

• A period for stakeholders to comment on the draft study plan to the Science Advisory Board in March 2011. We will continue to engage interested stakeholders 

throughout the course of the study by: 

Providing opportunities for public comment during the SAB review process. 

The SAB Review Panel held public teleconferences on May 19 and 25th to 

discuss their draft report of the review of EPA’s draft Hydraulic Fracturing 

Study Plan. Stakeholders were provided an opportunity to submit oral or 

written comments for consideration by the Panel. 
93 

Holding additional webinars-or other forms of communication-to report on 

the progress of the study. Providing the public with an opportunity to comment to the SAB during their review of the 2012 and 2014 reports. 

Summaries of all of these interactions can be found on EPA’s website at http:// 

water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wellslhydroout.cfm, 

or on the SAB website at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCal/ 

153AC7DF8D2626F98525781000648075?OpenDocument. 

(95) 

Appendix II: 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
96 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS BY REPRESENTATIVE DANA ROHRABACHER
97 
98 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS BY REPRESENTATIVE BRAD MILLER
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS BY REPRESENTATIVE BRAD MILLER
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 

Æ