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

55–842PDF 2010

FISCAL YEAR 2011 RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSALS AT THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 10, 2010

Serial No. 111–84

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

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 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

March 10, 2010

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking Member, 

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ......... 13

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee 

on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................. 16

Panel I:

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

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19

Biography .......................................................................................................... 21

Discussion 

Electronic Waste .................................................................................................. 22

EPA’s Endangerment Finding ............................................................................. 23

Research on Social Behavioral Sciences ............................................................. 24

The Science of Ocean Acidification ..................................................................... 25

Criticism and Support for the Science of Climate Change ............................... 26

The Scientific Method and Scientific Integrity .................................................. 29

Panel II:

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

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 33

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 35

Biography .......................................................................................................... 42

Discussion 

Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Verification ................................................... 43

Establishing the National Climate Service ........................................................ 44

Ocean Acidification .............................................................................................. 47

Permitting and Regulatory Issues ...................................................................... 48

Structure of the National Climate Service ......................................................... 49

Recreational Fishing ............................................................................................ 50

The Chesapeake Bay ............................................................................................ 51

The NPOESS Program and Joint Polar Satellite System ................................ 52

Asian Carp in the Great Lakes ........................................................................... 53

A NOAA Organic Act ........................................................................................... 53

Some General Comments .................................................................................... 55

The Relocation of NOAA’s Pacific Operations ................................................... 56

Satellite and Space Transportation Capacities ................................................. 57

The Science of Climate Change .......................................................................... 58
Page

IV

The NOAA Aquarius Lab and Harmful Algal Blooms ...................................... 62

More on the NPOESS Program .......................................................................... 63

Fishing Catch Shares ........................................................................................... 65

Closing .................................................................................................................. 66

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ....................................... 68

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration .......................................................................................................... 76
(1)

FISCAL YEAR 2011 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSALS AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) 

AND THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:23 p.m., in Room 2318 

of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
2
3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Fiscal Year 2011 Research and Development

Budget Proposals at the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

2:00 P.M. TO 4:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

PURPOSE 

On Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. the House Committee on Science and 

Technology will hold a hearing to examine the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 

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. Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development 

(ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Panel II 

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

BACKGROUND

Overall FY 2011 Budget Request for EPA 

The President’s FY 2011 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is $10 billion, a reduction of 2.7 percent compared to the FY 2010 enacted 

levels. The table below shows the eight primary accounts of the Agency’s budget. 

The Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account funds the agency’s 

air, water, waste, toxics and pesticides programs. The Superfund account supports 

clean up of hazardous waste sites. The Superfund account also includes funds for 

Superfund enforcement to develop and test new methods for clean up and set cleanup standards, and funds for the Inspector General’s office to address Superfund 

issues. The State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account provides grants to 

States and local communities to support water and sewage treatment infrastructure 

construction and improvements. The largest reduction in the Agency’s request is in 

the STAG account.
4

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

The Administration’s budget request for S&T is $847 million. This includes $605 

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 $25 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 the general treasury. 

Approximately 68 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 tables below provide breakouts of ORD funds among the various research 

programs at ORD, as well as further detail on STAR grants and fellowships program.
5
6

Within the context of a decrease in funding for EPA as a whole, the FY 2011 

budget proposes increases for a range of intramural and extramural research and 

development activities.

• $88 million for the STAR Program, an increase of $26 million over the FY 

2010 enacted levels, to invest in the next generation of environmental scientists and to leverage wider scientific community expertise on key issues.

• $20 million for research to support the safe development of nanomaterials.

• $10.3 million, an increase of $6 million, for green water infrastructure research to address storm water management.

• $1 million in extramural contracts for Electronic Waste and Electronic Design.

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

water quality and implications for public health and the environment.

• $85 million, an increase of $3.4 million, for the Next Generation Monitoring 

Network for ambient air pollutants.

• $17 million for endocrine disrupting chemicals research and $22 million for 

computational toxicology. Both are important for human health and ecological 

risk assessment. The budget proposals are an increase of $6 million and $2 

million, respectively.

• As with the FY 2010 budget, the FY 2011 budget again proposes the elimination of the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program 

and the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program. Both programs support the development and testing of innovative environmental technologies for cleanup of hazardous substances. The SITE program was created 

in the Superfund statute.

• The FY 2011 President’s Budget reflects the merging of the Air Toxics and 

NAAQS programs into a Clean Air program which will focus on multi-pollutant sources and effects rather than sources and effects of individual pollutants.

EPA–Science Advisory Board (SAB) FY 2011 budget analysis 

The EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) supports the investment in research reflected in the President’s budget request. However, the SAB argues that the marginal increases in clean air and global change research will not allow EPA to develop research to support regulatory strategies resulting from the Agency’s green-
7

house gas Endangerment Finding. The SAB is also concerned that the decrease of 

14 full-time employees and $2 million for the Ecological Services Research Program 

threatens the future of the program and the research needed to understand the 

causal links between stressors and changes in ecosystem processes. The SAB argues 

that repeated cuts in funding for ecological research have drastically reduced the 

agency’s ability to monitor and protect the nation’s ecosystems. The President’s 

budget request also proposes a near $1 million decrease for susceptible population 

and cumulative risk ($2.5 million) research; some believe this reduction undermines 

the environmental justice initiatives and announcements made by the Administrator 

of EPA, Lisa Jackson. The EPA budget request includes little to no proposed investment in the social, behavioral, and decision sciences which many believe are important to continued climate change, ecosystem, and environmental justice research.

OVERALL FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST FOR NOAA 

The President’s FY 2011 budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration (NOAA) is $5.5 billion for discretionary appropriations, a 17 

percent increase above the FY 2010 enacted levels, and $5.7 billion in direct obligations. NOAA’s mission includes weather forecasting, climate prediction, and the 

management of fisheries, coastal and ocean resources. In addition, NOAA is responsible for mapping and charting coastal areas and providing other navigation support 

services through the National Ocean Service (NOS). NOAA conducts research in 

support of these missions including atmospheric, coastal, and oceanic sciences, climate and air quality research, ecosystem research, and fisheries and marine mammal research. NOAA also operates a constellation of satellites that monitor and 

transmit data for weather forecasting, climate prediction, space weather forecasting, 

and earth and ocean science research through the National Environmental Satellite 

Data and Information Service (NESDIS). 

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

National Weather Service (NWS), the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 

(OAR), the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service 

(NESDIS), and Program Support received increases in the FY 2011 request. The Administration’s budget proposes to decrease funding for the National Ocean Service 

(NOS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

National Weather Service (NWS) 

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

United States, adjacent waters, and ocean areas. NWS provides a national infrastructure to gather and process data worldwide from the land, sea, and air. 

The request for NWS is a less than one percent net increase of $3.4 million over 

the FY 2010 enacted budget. The Administration is requesting a $10.4 million increase for the NWS Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) accounts and $7 mil-
8

lion decrease for the NWS Procurement, Acquisitions and Construction (PAC) accounts. Although the Administration is requesting an overall marginal increase for 

NWS, there are a number of reductions for specific line items in the PAC account. 

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

Warning and Forecasts Program for: (1) the completion of the required IT security 

improvements to the National Critical Space Weather System and Aviation Weather, (2) Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) development activities, and (3) improvement aviation weather services. 

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.’’ A number of these programs have been funded for many 

years and support on-going forecasting services (e.g., Susquehanna River Basin 

Flood System). A project that was eliminated is the U.S. Weather Research Program’s Hemispheric Observing System Research and Predictability Experiment 

(THORPEX), a multi-year international field experiment to improve two to ten-day 

forecasts done in cooperation with international partners and numerous U.S.-based 

research organizations ($1.5 million). 

The President’s FY 2011 request proposes to continue support in the following 

areas: strengthening the U.S. Tsunami Warning Network ($23 million); completing 

and sustaining a growing network of NOAA weather radios ($12.6 million); and operation and maintenance of the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System 

(AWIPS) ($39 million), the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) ($11 million), and the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) ($46 million). AWIPS is 

specialized software that enables forecasters to prepare 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. 

There are longstanding concerns that the incremental funding increases that 

NWS receives may not be sufficient to cover all operational and maintenance requirements for current weather forecasting equipment. This may be especially problematic if the United States experiences a year of severe weather events and frequent or intense hurricanes, resulting in damage or loss to weather monitoring and 

forecasting equipment.

National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) 

The President’s budget request for the National Environmental Satellite Data and 

Information Service (NESDIS) is $810.5 million, a nearly 60 percent increase over 

the FY 2010 enacted levels. Overall, the Administration request would reduce the 

NESDIS Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) account by $9 million (4.5 percent) relative to the FY 2010 enacted budget, and increase the NESDIS Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account by $819 million (68 percent) over 

the FY 2010 enacted budget.

NESDIS ORF 

The ORF budget for NESDIS is divided into two accounts: Environmental Satellite Observing Systems, and NOAA’s Data Centers & Information Services. 

The Environmental Satellite Observing System account contains the programmatic funding for management, processing, analyzing, and archiving the data 

received from all of NOAA’s weather monitoring equipment—both ground-based and 

space-based. The requested increases of $4.8 million over the FY 2010 appropriation 

would support the routine replacement and upgrading of ground based equipment 

and software and to maintain the continuity of data on sea ice used to forecast sea 

ice changes to support navigation. However, the budget request does not seem to 

demonstrate an investment in ocean vector wind studies. With the recent demise 

of the QuikSCAT satellite, the Tropical Prediction Center lost an important data 

source for its marine wind forecast products. The Center also employed QuikSCAT 

data in the early stages of predicting hurricane tracks. NOAA has not yet made a 

decision whether to proceed with the Extended Ocean Vector Wind Mission recommended by the National Research Council’s Earth Sciences Decadal Survey. 

The Data Centers and Information Services account funds data processing and 

analyses at the agency’s major data centers: the National Climatic Data Center 

(Asheville, North Carolina); the National Oceanographic Data Center (Suitland, 

Maryland) and the National Geophysical Data Center (Boulder, Colorado). This account also supports a number of regional climate centers that provide data and information services. The centers must also prepare to support the increase in delivery rates and quantities of information as NOAA’s new satellite systems enter oper-
9

2The JPSS satellite program was formerly known as the National Polar-Orbiting Operational 

Environmental Satellite System, NPOESS. 3 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 by OSTP, and NOAA/NASA are moving forward with the ‘‘JPSS’’ program. 4 NOAA has been operating the Defense Meteorological Satellites for DOD since May 1998. 

ation. The Administration’s budget proposes to reduce this data centers and services 

account by $13.7 million below the FY 2010 enacted budget.

NESDIS PAC 

The budget for NESDIS 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 the different phases of the satellite acquisition. There is a proposed increase of $62.5 million above the FY 2010 enacted budget 

for the current series of GOES satellites, GOES–R, to support the continued development and procurement of this new series, which is currently scheduled for launch 

in 2015. The GOES–R satellite series was originally scheduled for launch in 2014. 

Cost overruns have plagued this program, and in 2006 the GOES–R series was projected to cost $5 billion more than 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 major sensors, reducing the capabilities of the satellites. The PAC account also reflects the $678.6 million requested increase for the Joint 

Polar Satellite System (JPSS) 2. The JPSS total request of $1.1 billion contributes 

to the nearly 60% increase of the NESDIS line office over the FY 10 enacted level. 

This increase is a sizable portion of the agency’s total $806 million proposed growth 

in FY 2011. 

Originally, NOAA was part of a tri-agency effort 3 to develop the NPOESS satellite program. 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. 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 $15 

billion and were not yet stabilized. 

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

Administration’s FY 2011 budget contains a major restructuring of NPOESS. This 

decision will dissolve 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 is now known as JPSS and it will be 

responsible for satellites flying in the afternoon orbits while DOD satellites will be 

responsible for the morning orbits. The United States will rely on European satellites for operational weather observations for the remaining 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 4. The United States has already invested nearly $6 billion in the 

overall system, and developed five sensors to date. 

In addition to procuring these satellite systems, the Administration is requesting 

$49.4 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 $9.5 million to initiate refurbishment of the satellite and to develop a Coronal Mass Imager 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 Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT). The JASON–
10

3 satellite FY 2011 budget request is a $30 million increase over the FY 2010 enacted 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, representing over half of all NOAA research programs. OAR conducts 

the scientific research, environmental studies, and technology development necessary to improve NOAA’s operations. OAR activities are carried out through seven 

NOAA laboratories and via extramural research activities at 30 National Sea Grant 

colleges and universities. The Administration proposes to increase funding for OAR 

by nearly $16 million, approximately a four percent increase above the FY 2010 enacted funding levels. The OAR PAC account is flat funded; therefore, all requested 

increases in the OAR FY 2011 budget are in the ORF account.

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

Storm Research.

• An increase of $5 million in Weather and Air Quality Research.

• An increase of $29 million in competitive research programs including the National Integrated Drought Information (NIDIS).

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

Ocean Acidification Research program. This work will enhance current knowledge to improve adaptive strategies and management of living marine resources impacted by ocean acidification.

These increases are offset by a few reductions:

• A marginal decrease of $500,000 from the National Sea Grant Program.

• A decrease of $3 million from Ocean Exploration and Research. The Administration continues the merger of the National Undersea Research Program 

(NURP) with the Ocean Exploration Program.

• A $4 million decrease for the Partnership Programs of Climate Research.

• A $5.5 million decrease for the Partnership Programs of the Weather & Air 

Quality Research.

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 2011 request would reduce overall funding for NOS programs by $28 million, or five percent, compared to the FY 2010 enacted budget. 

The NOS ORF account is reduced by $22 million. Navigation Services has a proposed decrease of $12 million. The Ocean Resources, Conservation and Assessment 

account has a proposed net reduction as compared to the FY 2010 enacted budget 

of $17 million. This includes a $24 million reduction in the Ocean Assessment Program (OAP), and $3 million decrease in Response and Restoration. The Ocean Assessment Program includes a decrease in funding for the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Regional Observations of $12 million. The FY 2011 budget request for the Ocean and Coastal Zone Management accounts would receive an increase of $15 million along with a $10.5 million increase for the National Centers 

for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS). The NOS–PAC accounts are also reduced by 

$6.5 million. This includes a cut in the Marine Sanctuaries Construction ($8.5 million) and an increase of $5 million in the acquisition of the Coastal and Estuarine 

Land Conservation Program.

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 $29.2 million (a six percent increase over the FY 10 enacted funding 

level).

• Most of this increase is due to continued construction of facilities under the 

PAC accounts ($24.8 million), in particular the Pacific Regional Center in 

Honolulu ($14 million).
11

• NOAA Education Program FY 2011 budget request is reduced significantly 

below its FY 2010 funding level of $53.8 million to a proposed funding level 

of $20.8 million for FY 2011.

Æ The Competitive Education Grants request was decreased by $7 million.

Æ The Education Partnership and Minority Serving Institutes Program is 

flat funded.

Æ Eleven education programs are proposed to be eliminated, including the 

JASON education and outreach program.
12

Chairman GORDON. This hearing will come to order. Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request for the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

When air and water pollution become a threat to our public and 

economic health, we need strong science and research programs at 

NOAA and EPA to help us understand the problems and respond. 

EPA leads the Nation’s environmental science research education 

and assessment efforts. These investments have been critical to 

protecting the environment as well as our own health since the 

1970s. Four years ago the Agency’s research budget sustained a 

five percent cut. The fiscal year 2011 request proposes to reduce 

EPA’s overall budget, however, we are pleased to see a slight increase in funding for research and development. 

We also applaud the Administration for substantial increases in 

funding in the STAR Grant and Fellowship Program. As this committee prepares to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act, it is 

equally important for our Federal agencies to recognize the value 

in investing in our future science, scientists, and engineers. 

However, the budget request appears to lack funding in certain 

areas that are key to protecting our environment, both now and in 

the future. For example, research on global change and ecological 

services is important to improving the quality of life of every American. I don’t see this reflected in EPA’s research budget, and I look 

forward to discussing this with you further this afternoon. 

Now, another agency that is essential to improving our understanding of the environment is NOAA. NOAA provides Americans 

with a daily weather forecast, severe weather warnings, coastal 

conditions, and climate information. The wintry weather that we 

have been experiencing in DC and the tsunami warnings that were 

issued across the Pacific provided clear examples of what NOAA 

may be famous for, weather and storm forecasts. 

NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and tools 

to provide the public, city planners, emergency managers, and 

other decision makers with reliable information. NOAA’s missions 

are large and diverse. Sound investments are needed in the agency’s workforce, equipment, and research and education programs. 

For the first time in a long time the budget request for NOAA has 

been increased. This is a step in the right direction. 

That said, most of the increase is allotted for the satellite system, 

NPOESS, which is now known as JPSS, the Joint Polar Satellite 

System. For the ones of us that have followed NPOESS for awhile, 

we think it is probably good to have another name. 

This committee certainly understands the importance of missioncritical satellite programs. We depend on satellites for forecasting, 

observation, and understanding of climate and weather phenomena. However, this budget proposal still lacks the level of funding needed for NOAA to actually fulfill all of its diverse missions. 

Likewise, EPA has a great deal of work to do. It is time to move 

these agencies, their missions, and our country forward by giving 

them the resources they need to fulfill their responsibilities. In today’s hearing we will hear from both agencies on separate panels. 
13

I look forward to discussing the Administration’s budget proposal 

with each of you. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good Afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on the Administration’s FY 2011 Budget Request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). When air and 

water pollution become a threat to our public and economic health, we need strong 

science and research programs at NOAA and EPA to help us understand the problem and respond. 

EPA leads the nation’s environmental science, research, education and assessment 

efforts. These investments have been critical to protecting the environment as well 

as our own health since the 1970s. Four years ago, the agency’s research budget 

sustained a five percent cut. The fiscal year 2011 request proposes to reduce EPA’s 

overall budget. However, we are pleased to see a slight increase in funding for research and development. 

We also applaud the Administration for the substantial increase in funding for the 

STAR Grant and Fellowship Program. As this Committee prepares to reauthorize 

the America COMPETES Act, it is equally important for our Federal agencies to 

recognize the value in investing in our future scientists and engineers. 

However, the budget request appears to lack funding in certain areas that are key 

to protecting our environment, both now and in the future. For example, research 

on global change and ecological services is important to improving the quality of life 

for every American. I don’t see this reflected in EPA’s research budget. And I look 

forward to discussing this with you further this afternoon. 

Now, another agency that is essential to improving our understanding of the environment is NOAA. NOAA provides Americans with daily weather forecasts, severe 

weather warnings, coastal conditions, and climate information. The wintery weather 

that we’ve been experiencing in DC. and the tsunami warnings that were issued 

across the Pacific provide clear examples of what NOAA may be most famous for—

its weather and storm forecasts. 

NOAA’s dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and tools to provide the 

public, city planners, emergency managers and other decision makers with reliable 

information. NOAA’s missions are large and diverse. Sound investments are needed 

in the agency’s workforce, equipment, and research and education programs. 

For the first time in a long time, the budget request for NOAA has been increased. This is a step in the right direction. That said, most of this increase is allotted for the satellite system, NPOESS, which is now known as JPSS, the Joint Polar 

Satellite System. 

This Committee certainly understands the importance of this mission-critical satellite program. We depend on satellites for forecasting, observation, and understanding climate and weather phenomena. However, this budget proposal still lacks 

the level of funding needed for NOAA to actually fulfill all of its diverse missions. 

Likewise. EPA has a great deal of work to do. It is time to move these agencies, 

their missions. and our country forward by giving them the resources they need to 

fulfill their responsibilities. 

In today’s hearing we will hear from both agencies on separate panels. I look forward to discussing the Administration’s budget proposal with each of you. At this 

time, I would like to recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Hall of 

Texas for his opening statement.

Chairman GORDON. And with that I would like to thank you for 

being here, and now I want to yield to my friend from Texas, the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I think I thank you for 

holding this hearing. I would like to welcome our witnesses here 

today one at a time, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

That ought to be all I have to say, but I will go on and redress this 

since I haven’t had a chance to read it until I got here today, but 

I wrote it. 

In the last three weeks we have held budget hearings on NASA, 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Department 

of Energy, and each of these hearings Administration has proposed 
14

radical changes to longstanding science and technology policies 

with very little detail or clear direction forward and with billions 

of dollars at stake. We have seen this with NASA and human 

spaceflight as well as DOE with Yucca Mountain. 

The two agencies before us today follow that trend, and I am concerned about several of the proposed changes in their budgets. 

NOAA has recently made announcements that move the agency in 

a dramatically new direction. As a final arbiter of this inner-agency 

project, OSTP announced their decision to dissolve the National 

Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System or 

NPOESS, thereby severing a 16-year effort between NOAA, NASA, 

and the Department of Defense to create a single, next-generation 

system of weather satellites. 

And the decision to split the program into two parts with NOAA 

and NASA responsible for the afternoon orbit and DOD responsible 

for the morning orbit comes as a bit of a surprise. It is even more 

surprising that this decision was reflected in NOAA’s budget request but was not reflected in DOD’s request. DOD has not announced whether it plans to use legacy technology or build a new 

satellite for this orbit. Their decision comes without a full transition plan, a detailed cost estimate, or an idea of how a joint grant 

system will impact data coming from potentially two different satellite systems. This committee has been engaged from the beginning on this issue, and it will need to exercise substantial oversight 

before we can approve of moving forward. 

I am also concerned about the recent announcement regarding 

the creation of a NOAA Climate Service. NOAA’s announcement indicated that the Agency would be creating a new line office and reorganizing research by moving labs, data centers, and observing 

networks into the new office. I am not supportive of this change, 

and as Ranking Member I believe that this committee should have 

an opportunity to examine this proposal in detail. I do not think 

it is appropriate for a change of this magnitude to be decided on 

solely by the Appropriations Committee through a reprogramming 

request. 

I am also uncomfortable with the idea that this budget requests 

$47 million dollars under the Ocean and Atmospheric research 

budget line when this funding is intended to go into the new line 

office. 

Finally, I am troubled that the EPA has recently made some 

landmark decisions that could dramatically alter the U.S. economy. 

The Endangerment Finding, which states that carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare, that was finalized last December, if allowed to stand could wreck havoc throughout the economy. 

Last December after the Agency’s announcement, when I introduced House Resolution 954, which expresses a sense to the House 

of Representatives regarding the scientific protocols, data collection, methods, and peer review standards for climate change research which are necessary to preclude future infringements on the 

public trust. 

After the release of the e-mails from the Climate Research Unit 

at the University of East Anglia and several admissions by IPCC 

regarding its conclusion, our trust in what the experts have called 

the, ‘‘gold standard,’’ of climate science is severely shaken. The fact 
15

that the Administrator did not conduct her own extensive review 

of the scientific literature as is required for adjustments to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards raises a red flag. 

It makes us wonder and makes us question why such a thorough 

review was not undertaken, why similar protocols were not followed for a decision of this magnitude. There are many questions 

we have about this decision, not the least of which is its validity. 

Decisions made without the appropriate or, for that matter, legally 

required justification, often result in obvious and not so obvious unintended consequences. 

When determining how to spend taxpayer dollars one expects the 

Administration would provide detailed analysis, information, and 

transparency. 

I look forward to listening to our witnesses and learning the 

basis for which many of these decisions were made. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today on the 

President’s 2011 budget requests for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. I would like to welcome our witnesses here today and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

In the last three weeks, we have held budget hearings on NASA, the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the Department of Energy. 

In each of these hearings, the Administration has proposed radical changes to 

long-standing science and technology policies with very little detail or clear direction 

forward and with billions of dollars at stake. We have seen this with NASA and 

human space flight, as well as DOE with Yucca Mountain. The two agencies before 

us today follow that trend, and I am concerned about several of the proposed 

changes in their budgets. 

NOAA has recently made announcements that move the agency in dramatically 

new directions. As the final arbiter of this interagency project, OSTP announced 

their decision to dissolve the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 

Satellite System, or NPOESS, thereby severing a 16-year effort between NOAA, 

NASA and the Department of Defense to create a single next-generation system of 

weather satellites. The decision to split the program into two parts—with NOAA 

and NASA responsible for the afternoon orbit and DOD responsible for the morning 

orbit—comes as a bit of a surprise. It is even more surprising that this decision was 

reflected in NOAA’s budget request but was not reflected in DOD’s request. 

DOD has not announced whether it plans to use legacy technology or build a new 

satellite for their orbit. This decision comes without a full transition plan, a detailed 

cost estimate, or an idea of how a joint ground system will impact data coming from 

potentially two different satellite systems. 

This Committee has been engaged from the beginning on this issue, and it will 

need to exercise substantial oversight before we can approve of moving forward. I 

am also concerned about the recent announcement regarding the creation of a 

NOAA Climate Service. NOAA’s announcement indicated that the agency would be 

creating a new line office and reorganizing research by moving labs, data centers 

and observing networks into this new office. I am not supportive of this change, and 

as Ranking Member, I believe that this Committee should have an opportunity to 

examine this proposal in detail. I do not think it is appropriate for a change of this 

magnitude to be decided on solely by the Appropriations Committee through a reprogramming request. 

I am also uncomfortable with the idea that this budget requests $47 million under 

the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research budget line when this funding is intended 

to go to the new line office. 

Finally, I am troubled that the EPA has recently made some landmark decisions 

that could dramatically alter the U.S. economy. The endangerment finding, which 

states that carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare, that was finalized 

last December, if allowed to stand, could wreak havoc throughout the economy. Last 

December, after the Agency’s announcement, I introduced House Resolution 954 

which expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the scientific 
16

protocols, data collection methods, and peer review standards for climate change research which are necessary to preclude future infringements of the public trust. 

After the release of the emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University 

of East Anglia, and several admissions by the IPCC regarding its conclusions, our 

trust in what the experts have called the ‘‘gold standard’’ of climate science is severely shaken. The fact that the Administrator did not conduct her own extensive 

review of the scientific literature as is required for adjustments to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards raises a red flag. It makes us question why such a thorough review was not undertaken; why similar protocols were not followed for a decision of this magnitude. There are many questions we have about this decision, not 

the least of which is its validity. 

Decisions made without the appropriate or, for that matter, legally required justification, often result in obvious and not so obvious unintended consequences. When 

determining how to spend taxpayer dollars, one expects the Administration would 

provide detailed analysis, information, and transparency. I look forward to listening 

to our witnesses and learning the basis for which many of these decisions were 

made. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. That is exactly the reason we are having this hearing so that you can ask those very legitimate questions. 

If there are Members who wish to submit opening statements, 

your statements will be added to the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on the Fiscal Year 2011 (FY 11) research and development budget requests for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

First, the President’s FY 11 budget calls for $10 billion for the EPA, a $278 million reduction from Fiscal Year 2010 (FY 10). While the overall EPA budget has decreased, I am pleased to see the administration continues will invest $605 million 

in research and development, which will ensure EPA’s regulations are informed by 

science-based research and reflect up-to-date information. However, the State and 

Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG), which provides grants to state and local communities to support water and sewage treatment infrastructure construction and improvement, had the largest reduction. STAG grants are critical to the communities 

in Southern Illinois, and I am concerned this decrease will have an impact on rural 

access in Illinois and throughout the nation. 

In addition, I was pleased to see the Administration’s budget increases funding 

for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grants program. The additional $26 million will allow EPA to dramatically increase research grants and fellowships for students around the country, ensuring that we continue to develop new ways of protecting public health and the environment. I have seen the impact of STAR grants 

in Southwestern and Southern Illinois, where students at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville are currently using a STAR grant to uncover the environmental 

impact of toxic metals in frogs. I would like to hear from Assistant Administrator 

Anastas how EPA will utilize this new funding to expand the reach of the STAR 

grant program. 

Second, the President requests $5.5 billion for NOAA in the FY 11 budget, an 

$806 million increase from FY 10. The majority of this expanded funding will be 

put towards the acquisition of two weather satellite systems, which provide necessary civilian and defense weather observations. My congressional district in 

Southern Illinois frequently faces extreme weather conditions, including tornados 

and ice storms that can destroy property, take out electricity for long periods of 

time, and even take lives. I appreciate the efforts of NOAA and NASA to continually 

update and improve the technology of these satellite systems to increase warning 

times for extreme weather events. I have concerns about the additional $62.5 million investment in the geostationary satellite, GOES–R. This program has been behind schedule and over budget for several years, which the Committee discussed in 

a hearing last year. I would like to hear from Administrator Lubchenco how NOAA 

plans to keep GOES–R on schedule and on budget as the 2015 target launch date 

approaches. 

Finally, I am concerned about the marginal increases included in the budget for 

the National Weather Service (NWS). The 0.34 percent increase in funding from FY 
17

10 may not be sufficient to cover the costs and needs of the NWS in FY 11. In particular, I am concerned about the impact of this funding on NWS’ role in the development of Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) because an enhanced weather reporting system through NWS is vital to improving air transportation. I would like to hear from Administrator Lubchenco, how this funding level 

in FY 11 will impact NWS’ role in implementing NextGen. 

I welcome Assistant Administrator Anastas and Administrator Lubchenco, and I 

look forward to their testimony.

Panel I 

Now it is my pleasure to introduce our witness on our first panel. 

Dr. Paul Anastas is the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development [ORD] at EPA. Before joining ORD, Dr. 

Anastas was the Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and 

Green Engineering at Yale University and the Chief of the Industrial Chemistry Branch in EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 

and Toxic Substances. So welcome and since you are new on the 

block, is this the first time you have testified before a committee? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Only the first as——

Chairman GORDON. As the new Administrator. Well, we welcome 

you here, and you pretty well know the rules, I am sure, that your 

written statement will be made a part of the record. We welcome 

your oral statement. We normally try to limit that to five minutes, 

but as the only panelist I think you should take what you need, 

and then I am sure Mr. Hall will have some good questions for you. 

STATEMENTS OF PAUL ANASTAS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD), 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Dr. ANASTAS. Well, thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman 

Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and the distinguished 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. 

EPA, and it is a pleasure to be with you to discuss the fiscal year 

2011 President’s budget for ORD, as it is called. 

In my 60 days since being sworn in as Assistant Administrator, 

I have seen that ORD is a leader in cutting-edge environmental 

and human health research, providing a scientific basis to EPA’s 

decisions to support our mission and to protect human health and 

the environment. 

We focus our efforts and resources on those areas where we can 

make the most value in identifying hazards, quantifying exposures, 

assessing risks, and enhancing environmental risk management 

decisions that both protect against and mitigate risks. 

ORD is unique in the environmental science community because 

we conduct research across the various disciplines, the spectrum of 

disciplines necessary to support environmental and human health 

decision making. ORD conducts mission-critical research that is 

multi-disciplinary, integrated, and rigorously peer-reviewed. We 

also synthesize research, conduct assessments, and provide impartial advice to ensure EPA uses science credibly in its decisions. 

President Obama has proposed a budget of $10 billion to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency in a time of significant economic 

challenges faced by families across this Nation. The proposed budget aims to increase efficiencies across the Agency while at the same 
18

time allowing us to continue our critically-important work. The proposed budget clearly demonstrates that science is one of the priorities for the Agency. The Office of Research and Development’s 

total budget request is $605.7 million, an increase of $11 million 

over the 2010 enacted budget. 

In January, Administrator Jackson laid out her themes to guide 

our work at the EPA for the coming year and beyond. She expressed to me personally that ORD will play a critical role in addressing these priorities, which include taking action on climate 

change, improving air quality, ensuring the safety of chemicals, 

cleaning up our communities, protecting America’s waters, expanding the conversation on environmentalism and working for environmental justice, and building strong state and tribal partnerships. We are proposing $14 million for fellowships through the Science 

and Technology to Achieve Results, the STAR Program, an increase 

of $6 million over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This will enable EPA to award approximately 240 new fellowships and support 

an ongoing 120 through the STAR Fellows Program. New fellowships will be awarded through nationwide competition in academic 

areas of top priority including nanotechnology, climate and clean 

air issues, and green infrastructure. In this budget we are also proposing $17.4 million for research on endocrine disrupting chemicals, including a $7 million increase 

in STAR grants. These resources will help accelerate the application of the latest state-of-the-art innovations to advance assessment 

and management of EDCs and other emerging contaminants of 

concern. 

We are also requesting a $21.9 million budget for computational toxicology research. This includes an increase of $1.8 million to develop the next-generation tools that will greatly accelerate the evaluation of chemicals and the agency’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. In the area of electronics, our 2011 budget includes a $1 million 

investment to lay the groundwork for research efforts on sustainable design methods and management strategies for electronic devices to mitigate human exposure and environmental releases from 

the recycling and disposal of electronic waste. 

Natural gas plays a role in our Nation’s energy future. Hydraulic 

fracturing is one way of accessing this resource. Recently there 

have been concerns raised and questions asked about whether hydraulic fracturing may impact ground water and surface water. 

To address these questions, the President’s budget includes $4.4 

million for hydraulic fracturing research, an increase of $2.5 million. We are proposing to begin the research in fiscal year 2010. 

We are also proposing a $10.3 million budget for green infrastructure research. These resources fund research to advance the 

design of sustainable solutions to clean water challenges faced by 

state and municipalities. Consistent with the President’s goals of 

addressing the grand challenges of the 21st century, EPA’s Research Program has the potential to spur innovative solutions for 

America’s aging water infrastructure through approaches that 

could help produce significant long-term cost savings. 

I would like to conclude by providing you with my views on the 

way that we at the Office of Research and Development view our 
19

work. Sustainability is our true north. Innovation is our most powerful tool. All science and technology alone cannot lead us to a sustainable civilization. The path towards sustainability must have 

scientific and technological innovation as essential elements. This 

means that our work at EPA must not merely review, assess, and 

quantify problems. It must inform the design of innovative new 

products, processes, and systems that incorporate sustainability as 

a design criterion, such as the important areas of green chemistry 

and green engineering. 

Our work must be catalytic to inform and empower the broader 

collection of people who seek to protect the environment. Research 

is a promise that if we engage in the often-difficult scientific endeavor, we can understand the world better and will be better able 

to make the world a better place. 

I look forward to working with the Committee to address the current and emerging environmental issues that will help our agency 

protect human health and the environment. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you here today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Anastas follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL ANASTAS

Good morning Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and other members of 

the Committee. My name is Paul Anastas. I am the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development (ORD). It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning 

to discuss EPA’s FY 2011 President’s Budget the Office of Research and Development. 

ORD is a leader in cutting-edge environmental and human health research, providing the scientific underpinnings to EPA’s decisions in support of our mission to 

protect human health and the environment. We focus our efforts and resources on 

those areas where we can add the most value to identifying hazards, quantifying 

exposures, assessing risk, and enhancing environmental risk management decisions 

that both prevent and mitigate risks. 

ORD is unique in the environmental science community because we conduct intramural and extramural research across the entire spectrum of disciplines necessary 

to support environmental and human health decision making. ORD conducts mission critical research that is multi-disciplinary, integrated and rigorously peer-reviewed. We also synthesize research, conduct assessments, and provide impartial 

advice to ensure EPA uses science credibly in its decisions.

Introduction 

President Obama has proposed a budget of $10 billion for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. At a time of significant economic challenges faced by families 

across the nation, the proposed budget aims to increase efficiencies across the Agency while at the same time allowing us to continue our critically important work. 

The proposed budget clearly demonstrates that science is one of the priorities for 

the Agency. The Office of Research and Development’s total budget request is $605.7 

million, an increase of $11 million over the 2010 enacted. 

In January, Administrator Jackson laid out her themes to guide our work for the 

coming year and beyond. She expressed to me personally that ORD will play a critical role in addressing these priorities. These themes provide a framework to guide 

our research efforts and help the Agency achieve measurable results to protect 

human health and the environment. Important ways the EPA’s research and development effort supports these themes include: 

Taking Action on Climate Change—ORD research on the impacts of climate 

change on health and the environment has been used as the scientific foundation 

for Agency decisions. Our future efforts will provide the scientific roadmap EPA 

needs to reduce greenhouse gases and help our nation adapt to the effects of climate 

change. 

Improving Air Quality—ORD provides timely scientific information that supports 

Agency decisions to reduce harmful air pollution. Our future research efforts to better understand and prevent the effects of air pollution will ensure that our nation’s 

communities have healthier air to breathe. 
20

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals—Our work in chemical assessment provides the 

foundation for our regulatory actions that improve the management of chemicals. 

Our fundamental research in this area in the coming year and beyond will transform not only the pace, but also the depth of our analysis. 

Cleaning Up Our Communities—Our science informs Agency decisions on effective 

ways to clean up communities all across our nation. This research, and the expert 

scientific consultation that ORD scientists and engineers offer, will provide critical 

tools and information needed by the Agency to meet the environmental challenges 

posed by contaminants in local communities. Additionally, our research on human 

exposure and exposure metrics will help schools and communities design risk mitigation strategies. 

Protecting America’s Waters—ORD researchers develop both analytical methods 

needed to evaluate chemical and microbial contaminants in water distribution systems and approaches for managing watersheds and controlling sources of water 

quality impairment. Our future water research will advance methods and practices 

to promote the safety and sustainability of the nation’s water resources.

2011 Budget Highlights

Strengthening Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education 

We are proposing $14 million for fellowships through the Science to Achieve Re- sults (STAR) program, an increase of $6 million over the FY 2010 enacted level. 

This will enable EPA to award approximately 240 new STAR fellowships and support an estimated 120 continuing STAR fellows. New fellowships will be awarded 

through nationwide competition in academic areas that are top priorities for EPA 

including nanotechnology, climate and clean air issues, and green infrastructure.

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals 

We are proposing $17.4 million for research on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC), including an increase of $7 million in STAR Grants. These resources will 

help to accelerate the application of the latest state of the art innovations to advance the assessment and management of EDCs and other emerging contaminants 

of concern. 

We are proposing $21.9 million for computational toxicology research. This in- cludes an increase of $1.8 million to develop the next-generation tools that will 

greatly accelerate the evaluation of chemicals in the Agency’s Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP).

E-Waste 

Our 2011 budget includes $1 million to lay the groundwork for research effort on 

sustainable design methods and management strategies for electronic devices to 

mitigate human exposure and environmental releases from the recycling and disposal of electronic waste.

Protecting America’s Waters 

Natural gas plays a role in our nation’s energy future. Hydraulic fracturing is one 

way of accessing that resource. This process involves drilling a well, dewatering the 

formation, and then injecting fluids under high-pressure to fracture the rock so gas 

can be extracted. Recently, concern has been growing that hydraulic fracturing may 

impact ground water and surface water quality which may threaten human health 

and the environment. To address those concerns, the president’s Budget includes 

$4.4 million for hydraulic fracturing research, an increase of $2.5 million. We are 

proposing to begin the research in FY 2010. We are proposing $10.3 million for green infrastructure research, including an in- crease of $5 million in STAR Grants. These resources will fund green chemistry and 

green engineering approaches to advance the design of sustainable solutions to clean 

water challenges faced by EPA’s Office of Water, states, and municipalities. Consistent with the President’s goals of addressing the ‘‘grand challenges’’ of the 21st 

century, this EPA research program has the potential to spur innovative solutions 

to America’s aging water infrastructure challenges though approaches that could 

have significant long term cost savings.

Conclusion 

I would like to conclude by providing you with my views on the way we at EPA’s 

Office of Research and Development approach our work. Sustainability is our true 

north. The work that we do—the research, the assessments, the policy develop-
21

ment—is part of ensuring that we have a sustainable society; a sustainable civilization. While science and technology alone cannot lead us to a sustainable civilization, 

the path toward sustainability must have scientific and technological innovation as 

essential elements. 

This means that our work at EPA must not merely review, assess, and quantify 

problems; it must inform the design of innovative new products, processes, and systems that incorporate sustainability as a design criterion. The traditional, piece-bypiece approach to research has enabled a tremendously deep understanding of our 

world. We will complement this approach with an integrative systems approach. 

Our work must be catalytic to inform and empower the broader collection of people 

who seek to protect the environment. Research is a promise that if we engage in 

the often difficult scientific endeavor, we can understand the world better and be 

able to make the world a better place. 

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.

BIOGRAPHY FOR PAUL ANASTAS

Paul Anastas, Ph.D. is the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research 

and Development (ORD) and the Science Advisor to the Agency. Known widely as 

the ‘‘Father of Green Chemistry’’ for his groundbreaking research on the design, 

manufacture, and use of minimally-toxic, environmentally-friendly chemicals, Dr. 

Anastas has an extensive record of leadership in government, academia, and the private sector. 

At the time he was nominated by President Obama to lead ORD, Dr. Anastas was 

the Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering, and the inaugural Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for 

the Environment at Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Prior to joining the Yale faculty, Dr. Anastas was the founding Director of the 

Green Chemistry Institute, headquartered at the American Chemical Society in 

Washington, DC. From 1999 to 2004 he worked at the White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy, concluding his service there as the assistant director for the 

environment. Dr. Anastas began his career as a staff chemist at EPA, where he rose 

to the positions of chief of the Industrial Chemistry Branch, and director of the U.S. 

Green Chemistry Program. It was during his work at EPA that Dr. Anastas coined 

the term ‘‘green chemistry.’’

Trained as a synthetic organic chemist, Dr. Anastas’ research interests have focused on the design of safer chemicals, bio-based polymers, and new methodologies 

of chemical synthesis that are more efficient and less hazardous to the environment. 

A leading writer on the subjects of sustainability, green chemistry, and green engineering, he has published ten books, including ‘‘Benign by Design,’’ Designing Safer 

Polymers,’’ ‘‘Green Engineering’’ and his seminal work with co-author John Warner, 

‘‘Green Chemistry: Theory and Practice.’’

Dr. Anastas has been recognized for his pioneering work with a host of awards 

and accolades including the Vice President’s Hammer Award, the Joseph Seifter 

Award for Scientific Excellence, the Nolan Sommer Award for Distinguished Con-
22

tributions to Chemistry, the Greek Chemical Society Award for Contributions to 

Chemistry, the Inaugural Canadian Green Chemistry Award, a Scientific American 

50 Award for Policy Innovation, the John Jeyes Award from the Royal Society of 

Chemistry, and an Annual Leadership in Science Award from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. He was a Special Professor at the University of Nottingham and an Honorary Professor at Queens University in Belfast where he was also 

was awarded an Honorary Doctorate. 

Dr. Anastas earned his B.S. from the University of Massachusetts at Boston and 

his M.A. and Ph.D. in chemistry from Brandeis University.

DISCUSSION

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Anastas. At this point we 

will begin our first round of questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

ELECTRONIC WASTE

Last year this committee and the House on a large bipartisan 

basis passed the Electronic Waste Research and Development Act, 

which dealt with e-waste. I noticed that you have put $1 million 

into the budget for e-waste and e-design. Can you tell me about 

how you intend to—or what you hope to get for that $1 million, 

how much of it is going to be internal research versus external, and 

is this a foundation for a more robust program in the future? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Yes. We are looking at this important program and 

this initial investment as laying the groundwork for what we expect to be a more robust program. We look at—in this coming year 

for how to scope out where the possibilities are for looking at not 

only the ways of handling the waste, but also the ways of informing 

design so that that waste doesn’t continue into the future. 

As we all know, some numbers are as high as 300 million of used 

desktop and laptop computers sitting in closets waiting to be disposed of. This is a large legacy problem. We want to make sure 

that we do not continue with this legacy issue by engaging appropriate designs moving forward. 

Chairman GORDON. Will you be looking at alternatives to some 

of the different elements? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Absolutely. Yes. As a chemist one of the ways I approach most of the issues that I face is at the molecular level. 

When we recognize that every cell phone has about two-thirds of 

the periodic table in that one phone, we recognize that there are 

things to consider and perhaps new designs and new materials that 

can be used. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, I think this is an excellent area of interest, and I think that it can—if we can get alternative materials, 

then it is going to save a lot of bad material going into our landfills 

as we have better design. I think if—on the front end if we can design them to recycle on the back end, once again, we are going to 

be saving a lot of money and the landfills. I think this is a very 

cost-effective program, and I am glad to see that it is in your budget. 

Now, I yield to Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
23

EPA’S ENDANGERMENT FINDING

EPA relied heavily on the findings of the IPCC in making its 

endangerment determination. I guess I will ask a question, and I 

won’t ask you to answer it yet until I enlarge on the question a little bit. 

First is, has there ever been another instance in the history of 

the EPA where the agency essentially justified the decision where 

scientific underpinning was based on the judgment of other bodies 

that are not subject to the U.S. Federal policies on scientific research? You may answer that yes or no if you want to. 

Dr. ANASTAS. I would say that the bodies that were consulted 

with were broad, ranging from the National Academies all the way 

through the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and so I think 

that the science that was relied upon was from a wide range of 

sources. 

Mr. HALL. I take that as a no. Not really. Do you want to—have 

you finished answering the question? If not, I will go further. 

Well, the combined effects of leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the several admissions in the last few months from the IPCC of the mistakes in the 

2007 Fourth Assessment Report and a continuing insistence by several Administration officials that the underlying science has not 

been compromised despite all the evidence has severely undermined public trust in the IPCC process. Yet, the IPCC findings are 

the cornerstone of the agency’s endangerment findings. 

Given all these issues since finalizing the endangerment findings, do you think it would be appropriate for the agency to go back 

and review the scientific basis for its finding? And do you intend 

to do that? 

Dr. ANASTAS. One of the things that I think is most important 

is to recognize that the science for any decision, certainly a decision 

as consequential as this, has to be solid and reliable, and I do believe that the overwhelming science that this finding is relying on 

is solid and reliable. 

Now, let me be clear. Any time, whether in this case or others, 

any time there are questions of scientific integrity and questionable 

science, that needs to be treated accordingly as the scientific community always does. That is in this case, that is in any issue that 

the EPA deals with. 

What doesn’t change is that we are seeing a body of knowledge 

across many sources, across, as I said, the National Academies, the 

13 U.S. departments that make up the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a wide body of knowledge. 

I have seen nothing in these individual questions that changes 

my perspective that the overwhelming science supports the 

endangerment finding. 

Mr. HALL. Well, let me ask you this. I will repeat part of my 

question. Given all these issues since finalizing the endangerment 

finding, do you think it would be appropriate for the agency to go 

back and review the scientific basis for its findings, or are you just 

going to rely on your finding, and the heck with anything else? Is 

that your attitude? 

Dr. ANASTAS. If I believed that there were any——
24

Mr. HALL. I don’t care what you believe. I am interested in what 

you have researched. 

Dr. ANASTAS. What I have researched——

Mr. HALL. I know what you believe because I know who you 

work for. 

Dr. ANASTAS. I see. What I have researched is that great body 

of knowledge upon which the endangerment finding was based is 

solid and not in question. There aren’t questions being asked about 

the great, overwhelming, vast scientific contributions that make up 

that finding. 

Mr. HALL. So when I ask that question, I don’t think I have an 

answer. My next would be how does EPA justify moving forward 

on the questionable foundation when the magnitude of the 

endangerment findings will impact every sector of the Nation’s 

economy? Is your answer that you don’t think it is questionable? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The answers that—even the—with this less-thanhandful of questions that have been asked about the studies that 

have been put forward, by comparison to the overwhelming body of 

knowledge, I do not think that as a whole the scientific basis is 

questionable. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. I am doing my best to be fair with you, so you 

are going to go back and review it, or are you telling me you are 

not going to review it? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I am saying that if there is any reason to believe 

that the findings are based on a body of knowledge that is questionable, then that would warrant a review. I have not seen anything that would cause me to question the vast body of knowledge. 

Mr. HALL. If you have not seen anything, then did you not talk 

to your own scientists within the EPA and don’t some of them 

question the science? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I ensure that there is a wide body of perspectives 

when we are looking at the science. Scientists will always draw the 

conclusions that the data tells them, and so I am—I, like you, sir, 

am not interested in what people believe. Scientists believe what 

the data tells them. 

Mr. HALL. I guess I am glad my time is up. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Hall may not be the only one that is glad his 

time is up. 

I thank the gentleman, Chairman. 

RESEARCH ON SOCIAL BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

EPA’s Science Advisory Board has argued that ORD needs to 

conduct intramural research and social behavioral and decision 

sciences as part of its activities. Describe to us how the budget accommodates that or how your research strategy accommodates the 

social behavioral sciences. 

Dr. ANASTAS. One of the things that we recently have not only 

been discussing but moving toward is, rather than creating isolated 

disciplinary programs, for instance, around social or behavioral 

sciences, it is about how we do integrated trans-disciplinary research. So while it would be possible to create a discrete area of 

social and behavioral sciences, I do believe that it is perhaps more 
25

effective to integrate social and behavioral sciences throughout the 

research as a thread that goes throughout everything we do. 

Mr. BAIRD. I actually agree with that. How will you do it? 

Dr. ANASTAS. So one of the steps that we are taking in real time 

is as we consider the ‘‘how’’ of what we do, it is not separate from 

the ‘‘what’’ topics we take on, but how we conduct this research is 

to, from the very beginning of what we are going to tackle, make 

sure that the wide range of disciplines are there at the table, from 

problem definition to study design, all the way through the conduct 

of research. 

THE SCIENCE OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

Mr. BAIRD. That is good news. I want to—on the climate change 

issue, I want to talk not just about the temperature issue but your 

understanding of ocean acidification and the chemistry behind that, 

because to the best of my knowledge nobody credible has questioned the issue that CO2 goes into the air, gets dissolved in the 

water, forms carbonic acid, the acid eats away at the minerals that 

make up the shelled organism, shells, everything from terapods up 

to oysters and others. 

Is it your understanding that that is a pretty settled science and 

that you could demonstrate this on a lab bench? In other words, 

you don’t need sophisticated computer models, tree rings or measurements? We could actually bring in—if I am correct or if I am 

incorrect, correct me, but we could bring in some water, put CO2— some ocean water, put CO2 above it, measure what happens to the 

acidity. Right? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Uh-huh. 

Mr. BAIRD. And what would happen to the acidity? 

Dr. ANASTAS. What we have seen and what is easily obeying the 

laws of chemistry is that you will see that type of acidity as you 

increase the atmospheric CO2 and the concentrations of CO2, as 

you mentioned, as carbonic acid. I do want to say that there is reasonable research about what are the feedback loops, what is the 

role of buffering solutions, and so there is generally—genuinely 

useful research that can be conducted on that, but certainly as a 

first approximation your description of the issue is correct. 

Mr. BAIRD. And there are some types of plankton that paradoxically seem to actually thrive in higher CO2 levels. We are not sure 

why that is. 

Dr. ANASTAS. That is right. 

Mr. BAIRD. But there are at least research efforts I am familiar 

with out of Israel and Jordon that take different types of coral species, raise them in different levels of acidified water, actually, the 

water is coming right off the beach, and then they adjust the CO2

levels and the acidity. And the corals that are being raised in the 

more acidic water actually fail to thrive and in some cases their 

shell actually dissolves. Is that——

Dr. ANASTAS. That is correct, and there are situations where 

there are organisms known as extremophiles that will thrive in 

high salt content, high acid content, even higher temperatures. 

Those extremophiles are exceptional, but they are notable outliers. 

Mr. BAIRD. Now, one of the issues as well, organisms can adapt. 

My understanding is that the pace of change, the pace of acidifica-
26

tion, the pace of temperature increase is so much more rapid than 

the normal geological time pace. Is that accurate? 

Dr. ANASTAS. That is a concern, that while adaptation is a natural part of evolution, it is the pace of change, the rate of change 

that is of highest concern because even if we are looking toward 

things like migration to different areas when you are talking about 

oceanic acidification, that is—that may not be an option. So the 

physical adaptation would be a challenge. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman, thank the Chair, and yield 

back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, and Dr. Broun is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think I was here——

Chairman GORDON. Oh, I am sorry. Excuse me. I understand 

that you were trumped by seniority, and so Mr.—I am sure Dr. 

Broun is accommodating and would let Mr. Rohrabacher go forward. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have 

another hearing to run off to. That is why I needed to get this time 

in. 

CRITICISM AND SUPPORT FOR THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE

CHANGE

I am afraid, sir, that you did not answer the Ranking Member’s 

question, so let me pose it to you again. Could you please, and 

more specifically, perhaps you could name another major ruling 

that the EPA has made that was not based on actual research done 

by the EPA but relying instead on other, perhaps even foreign 

sources and foreign laboratories to do the research? 

Dr. ANASTAS. With all due respect, I have to—I am not sure that 

I can accept the premise of the question because I don’t see that 

the endangerment finding was based solely on international bodies. 

One, there is——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is it based on your research, EPA-direct research? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Was it based on EPA-directed research? EPA research and certainly EPA science played a role, but like virtually 

everything that the——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So the answer is you cannot name another 

one because it didn’t exist because the EPA in the past has done 

direct research, and when it does findings, it is based on research 

that at least is verified inside your body. 

What—maybe you can tell us——

Dr. ANASTAS. Well, sir——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —the finding that your—the research the 

EPA had done that verified, for example, that there was no medieval warming period that was based—that was in the IPCC report. 

Dr. ANASTAS. So I guess a couple of things. Any time the EPA 

takes on a major question or a major finding it is not going to rely 

solely on the research done inside of its labs. It is going to also rely 

on the research that is done by the broad scientific community. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In this case you have suggested that the research you relied upon is something that is not questionable. 

Maybe you could tell me why is it not questionable that that research is not valid when the Russian Academy of Sciences charges 
27

that the computer models, that in establishing the computer models, that information that they gave, they provided was cherrypicked in order to come out with a pre-determined outcome. Does 

that mean—is that questionable science to you? 

Dr. ANASTAS. When we are looking at the findings of National 

Academies of Science from a dozen different countries coming to 

the same conclusion, when we are looking across the——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sir, I was told as far as—pardon me. I only 

got five minutes. I am going to have to—we were told that the 

Academy of Sciences in Russia agreed with this. I went to see the 

head of the Academy of Sciences in Russia, and he doesn’t agree 

with it. We have had lots of people who even told like this very offhandedly that so many people agree with that, the case is closed, 

and now we find out that the case isn’t closed, that there are heads 

of major science departments at major universities throughout the 

world who are calling into question something more specific in this. 

The—does it not ring some alarm bells for you that the information that was put into the database to produce this, you know, the 

computer models, that it is no longer available and that we have 

been told that that, that we can’t review that now? Doesn’t that 

ring an alarm bell with you that you don’t have the information to 

go over? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I can tell you that the scientific integrity of any 

study, whether it be this one or any, is something that is of highest 

importance. We always want to make sure that things are peer-reviewed at the highest level, and so any time scientific integrity 

is——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Has the EPA accepted the argument that 

they have to take on faith and that you have just accepted that the 

right information was put into those computers and that that data 

is no longer available for you to look at? You just accepted that? 

You call that to be responsible? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Faith may have a place in my life, but it doesn’t 

have a place in my science. When I am talking about scientific review, any scientific review should be peer-reviewed, scientists looking at the methods——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does it bother you then that when we see 

that the e-mails between these people which were purloined but 

now have exposed, the fact that they were going out of their way 

in order to suppress peer review of their science? Does that bother 

you? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Any individual claim, any individual claim of lack 

of scientific integrity, of course, is an affront to science——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Have you looked into that then to see that 

if that had an impact on the overall findings? 

Dr. ANASTAS. The overall findings are based on a wide range of 

science. The vast majority of the science is not in question. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would suggest that a wide range of science, 

yes, but—and also in ignoring specifics which would undermine the 

validity of that overall science. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Rohrabacher, and now Dr. 

Broun. 
28

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, I have to hand 

it to you. You really have very strongly endorsed something that 

is not scientific, and there is no scientific consensus to anthropogenic human—global warming, and you are proselytizing this idea 

that is being propagated by the radical environmentalists, and you 

and this Administration are just drinking the Kool-Aid and going 

down a road that is going to destroy our economy. 

Now, the press before us last summer revealed that important 

comments from career EPA analysts on the agency’s greenhouse 

gas endangerment finding was suppressed by a senior agency official. These press reports include e-mails that indicated that the director of the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics 

refused to include the comments, not because of lack of scientific 

merit, but according to the official because, ‘‘The Administration 

decided to move forward on endangerment,’’ and the ‘‘comments did 

not help the legal or policy case for this decision.’’

That is not scientific integrity, Doctor, and seeking to have his 

report included in the proceeding, the analyst wrote, ‘‘They are significant because they present information critical to the justification or lack thereof for the proposed endangerment finding. They 

are valid because they explain much of the observational data that 

have been collected while—which cannot be explained by the models, the IPCC models.’’

After muzzling the report the director stated, ‘‘With the 

endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move onto other 

issues and subjects. I don’t want to spend any additional EPA time 

on climate change. No papers, no research, et cetera.’’

I find it hard to reconcile these actions with the President’s direction or the EPA Administrator’s own words, which he promised, 

‘‘Political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA’s 

technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes.’’

And, ‘‘EPA’s addressing of scientific decisions should reflect the 

expert judgment of the agency’s career scientists and independent 

advisors.’’

As Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development, what is your reaction to the following statement that I 

just read? ‘‘With the endangerment finding near final, you need to 

move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any 

additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, et 

cetera.’’

Dr. ANASTAS. I guess you understand that since I have been at 

the agency for just over a couple of months that preceded my time 

there, so I can’t say that I have personal knowledge of that——

Mr. BROUN. Well, excuse me——

Dr. ANASTAS. —situation, but I——

Mr. BROUN. —for interrupting you. I think you have already answered it because——

Dr. ANASTAS. But——

Mr. BROUN. —what Mr. Hall told you, what Mr. Rohrabacher or 

what Mr. Hall and Mr. Rohrabacher asked you, you—I think you 

actually answered my question there. 

Dr. ANASTAS. I——

Mr. BROUN. You said no more investigation. You have told us 

that the science is convincing. It is not convincing. There are thou-
29

sands of scientists around the world that say that human-caused 

global warming is not factual, and in scientific integrity, Doctor, 

just for the name of scientific integrity, please look at other data 

besides what you have decided on. You said your belief structure 

doesn’t drive science, but actually your belief structure in that 

there is human-induced global warming is determining your scientific basis and is going to determine the policy that you and EPA 

are going to carry out. 

I find it appalling as a scientist. I find it totally disingenuous, 

and it is not scientific integrity. 

Let me go to my next question. NCEE’s direct exclusion of the 

staff’s report on the grounds that it did not advance the, ‘‘policy 

case for the endangerment finding,’’ consistent with the President’s 

guide that, ‘‘facts drive scientific decisions, not the other way 

around.’’

Dr. ANASTAS. Facts do drive scientific decisions. 

Mr. BROUN. They don’t drive yours because what you just told 

Mr. Hall, that is what you have told Mr. Rohrabacher, that is what 

you are telling this committee, and I——

Dr. ANASTAS. If I may make it clear, there is——

Mr. BROUN. Quickly. 

Dr. ANASTAS. —no orthodoxy in science. The only orthodoxy in 

science is the scientific method. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I am familiar with the scientific method, because I am a scientist as a physician. Some people would disagree 

with that, but I am an applied scientist, and I know the scientific 

method. Just arbitrarily accepting something when there are a lot 

of other data that are totally counter doesn’t mean that something 

is convincing, overwhelming evidence, and that is exactly what you 

said today. That is exactly what we have had, testimony time after 

time again. It is just totally disingenuous scientifically for you to 

be testifying the way you are this morning. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun, and Dr. Ehlers is recognized. 

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I start by asking 

forbearance if I go a little longer. As you know, am—I believe I am 

the only true scientist on this panel. No, no. You didn’t let me finish. On this side of the panel. Okay, and I define scientist as someone who regularly does experiments, writes articles, tests, and has 

many others review and test them. 

Mr. BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield for one moment? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

Mr. BAIRD. For the record that applies to myself. I have published in international science journals—

Mr. EHLERS. No. I know. 

Mr. BAIRD. —I want to be clear about that. Mr. Broun is making——

Mr. EHLERS. No. I already stipulated to that. But I have maintained my silence in spite of hearing many comments, but I think 

it is time for me to speak up, and I am sorry, Mr. Rohrabacher left, 
30

but I hope the Chair will be generous with his time because I have 

kept my mouth shut on many occasions. 

The scientific method is, unless you used it consistently and thoroughly, is not always well understood by people. It is also not—

many people think it is just so absolute, you know, you do the experiment, you discover something, and you write it, and that is it. 

Science is a continually-growing subject. I took a course from Edward Teller at one time at Berkeley, it did not affect my politics 

by the way, but he is a brilliant man, and he commented during 

one of his lectures, there are four stages to a scientific theory. 

The first stage is absurd. It contradicts all previous ideas, previous theories. A good example of that is when Einstein developed 

the theory of relativity. A lot of people ridiculed him, a lot of them 

didn’t believe it, just said it is simply not true. It can’t be. It can’t 

be true. How can mass change as you move? How can light be the 

same speed no matter what the source of the light is moving, et 

cetera. So often the first response is absurdity. 

Then the second is, of course, more experimentation, more discussion, more talking, and you reach the second stage, which is, 

well, maybe there is something here, and then the third stage is—

it becomes widely accepted. Some people say it is true. A good scientist would never say it is true because you are always finding 

new knowledge, you are always expanding. But at any rate, it is 

generally accepted. 

The fourth stage that Dr. Teller said is when it is shown to be 

either wrong or superceded. This is part of the continual growth 

process of science. Then it is scientific knowledge. 

Now, the—I think the only reason there is so much controversy 

about this particular topic is because of the economic consequences, 

which has gotten a lot of people excited about it. It is also important to remember that every scientist has his or her own specialty, 

and I happen to be a physicist, and I happen to think physics is 

the most precise science, perhaps because the research I did was 

accurate to parts per billion, and in fact, using the same principles 

that set the time standard to the world, which sets time to one second out of two billion years. 

Every science has its liabilities and mistakes, but it is a continual growth process. Now, I have heard so much about it has 

been proved that the IPCC is wrong, or it has been proved that 

such and such is not true, or that the stolen e-mails from various 

universities show that they were trying to deceive people. They 

show no such thing. That sort of discourse is common in science. 

Lots of argumentation, particularly in the first stage of absurd and 

going to maybe there is something there. A lot of disagreements. 

Now, as I said, physics has fewer of them because it is more precise. Astrophysics has a lot more disagreements. Many of the biological issues have very, very many disagreements. But the point 

is science just keeps going on, keeps doing more experience, keeps 

acquiring more evidence, and out of that eventually an agreement 

emerges. 

Now, I have heard this said in this committee many times. There 

are thousands of scientists who disagree with the ideas about global warming. I tend never to get in that argument. That is not my 

field. If I am going to make public statements about the results and 
31

the accuracy, I am going to study them very thoroughly. I am going 

to get involved in that science. 

But I reviewed a good part of the list of the scientists who say 

it is wrong. Most of them are not in any field related to the subject 

at hand. Many of them are little known or not just to me but to 

others I have asked about it, and these are not experts in the field. 

When you go out and answer, you go to the experts in the field, 

ask them the right questions, and of course, you have to understand the subject, and ask them to go do an experiment to prove 

this or that is wrong. It is not a matter of relying on the Russian 

Academy of Sciences. It is a matter of what does the experiment 

say, and how good is the experimenter. 

Normally, the integrity of a scientist is not questioned because 

by and large over the years anyone who doesn’t have integrity in 

science is not going to be in the field very long because someone 

else is going to come along and disprove it, and boom, they are out 

of a job in seconds. But there are mistakes made. There is a lack 

of understanding, and the need is then for more experimentation 

to find out just what is going on. 

Today everyone believes Einstein’s theory of relativity, but yet it 

still doesn’t quite cover every area. There is still open questions 

there. When Newton advocated his theory of planetary motion, it 

went through that stage. The first stage was absurd. That can’t be 

true. Second, people believed it. For centuries we used it. We used 

it to send astronauts to the moon and to get them back. That was 

largely Newtonian physics. 

But Einstein shows that Newtonian physics is not wrong, but it 

has been superceded. It applies in its realm of domain, which is 

slowly moving objects in our normal universe. But if you want to 

understand astrophysics, the motion of stars, the life of stars, you 

have to understand Einstein’s theory of relativity because Newtonian physics doesn’t apply there. Those are very rapidly-moving objects, a totally different world than we live in, we can’t imagine it. 

But you probably heard that in elementary physics in high school 

you learn that no two objects can occupy the same space at the 

same time. That is blatantly false. They can if they are very tiny, 

atomic-size particles. Each of us is made of atomic and nuclear particles. We have particles in our—inside our body, electrons, atoms 

that occupy the same space at the same time. How can that be? 

That is not commonsense. But, in fact, it is true. Chrono-mechanics 

tells you it is true, and it fits the theory perfectly. 

So my point is simply we—I have heard a lot of debate in this 

chamber about this topic and much of it besides the point. The 

point is if you are trying to disprove the climate change issues or 

any of that thing, let us get the people together who can answer 

the question. Let us fund the research that is necessary. If you 

don’t believe someone can be honest about it, you hire a different 

scientists who wants to keep his job and therefore, will not lie. 

There are lots of ways to solve this. 

But I really think the economic factor is what has generated so 

much opposition that has led to a lot of people saying things that 

are simply not true or not correct in the scientific sense. 

So sorry to unload all that at once, Mr. Chairman, but I thought 

I was entitled to it at one point. 
32

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Doctor. I am glad to know the 

four steps of Scientists Anonymous now. 

Mr. EHLERS. Right. And also they work in politics, too. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you. That was very informative. 

Mr. Hall, do you have any further questions? 

Mr. HALL. Just briefly. 

The professor talked about Dr. Tellers and electrons and experts 

in the field. How about experts in the EPA? You have some, and 

you do have scientists within the EPA who question this science. 

Have you spent time with them? 

Dr. ANASTAS. Let me be clear. 

Mr. HALL. And tell me their names if you have. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Well, I wouldn’t be able to recite all of the names 

of all of our experts. There are just simply too many, and I would 

hate to leave somebody out. 

Mr. HALL. There is a whole bunch of them that question it. Is 

that what you are telling me? 

Dr. ANASTAS. No. I said we have many excellent scientists. I 

didn’t say we have many excellent scientists who question it. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Let me be clear about one thing. Something that 

I have said from the day that I came onboard was that it is antithetical to science to have any kind of political interference with 

science, that scientific integrity means scientific independence, and 

it would be antithetical to me as a scientist, it would be antithetical to me as a member of this Administration that has pledged to 

engage in scientific integrity, to in any way interfere with the genuine scientific work of our experts. 

Mr. HALL. Were there some in your—within the EPA that you 

considered experts on science that disagree with your testimony 

today? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I have not encountered them. 

Mr. HALL. So when I tell you that there is scientists within the 

EPA that question the science, are you saying that that is not true? 

You testified that there were just a little bit ago. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Oh, I am not questioning you. I am just saying that 

I have not encountered them. 

Mr. HALL. So you didn’t even discuss with them then when you 

come to the conclusion to bring this testimony to this committee. 

So you have not encountered them, but they were at your disposal, 

and why didn’t you use them? Why didn’t you question them? Why 

didn’t you ask them and give them the answers that you have 

given us today? 

Dr. ANASTAS. I always——

Mr. HALL. If you don’t think that they are exception or you don’t 

think they are experts in their field. 

Dr. ANASTAS. My greatest resource in this position is the expertise of the scientists, and I tap into that. In the two months that 

I have been in this position, I have been tapping into that expertise 

as deeply and as broadly as I can. 

Mr. HALL. Now, you have some more to go if you haven’t tapped 

into those within the EPA that don’t agree with your science and 

don’t agree with your testimony. You have some time to do that. 

How much longer do you plan to be with EPA? 
33

Dr. ANASTAS. Well, I certainly will hope that through this long 

Administration and perhaps the next President will find me attractive as well. I—so I——

Mr. HALL. He may find you attractive, but I don’t know how 

much he is going to believe you. 

Dr. ANASTAS. I certainly——

Mr. HALL. I find you attractive——

Dr. ANASTAS. —meant scientifically and professionally. 

Mr. HALL. —but I don’t want to get in trouble. 

Dr. ANASTAS. I certainly serve at the pleasure of the President 

and will look forward to continuing. 

Mr. HALL. He is a good President, and my Bible tells me to pray 

for him, and when I pray for him, God just grins at me, acts like 

he doesn’t believe me, that I am sincere. 

Dr. ANASTAS. I believe you. 

Mr. HALL. I believe you, too, and I do want you to go back and 

find these EPA people that question this science and have some 

kind of discussion with them and then when you are back here 

again, why maybe we will get some different testimony from you. 

Dr. ANASTAS. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. I hope I haven’t been rude to you in any way. I don’t 

mean to be. I just don’t like what you are doing and what you say 

and who you work for. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Anastas, we——

Mr. HALL. Other than that I think you are fine. 

Chairman GORDON. —recognize you have only been on the job for 

two months, and we thank you for coming. You have got an important job to do, and if there is no objection, then the witness is excused, and we will move to the second panel.

Panel II 

I will ask rather than take a break, we are going to try to move 

right in so that everybody can move forward. So as we are having 

the changing of the guard here, I will first—I would like to introduce our NASA Administrator, Dr. Jane Lubchenco is the Administrator of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration. 

Before joining NOAA Dr. Lubchenco was the President of the 

American Society for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], a professor at Harvard and Oregon State University and the MacArthur 

Foundation Genius Award winner. I think that is when she met 

Mr. Hall as a fellow genius winner. 

Okay. Sorry that you had to wait so long. As I mentioned earlier, 

we have lots going on today, and but now we would love to hear 

from you, and you are recognized for as much time as you may 

choose. 

STATEMENTS OF JANE LUBCHENCO, ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC ADMINISTRATION 

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

of the Committee. I greatly appreciate your continued leadership 

and support of NOAA. It is particularly important as NOAA continues to work to improve our products and services that we deliver 

to the American people. 
34

As you know, on February 27 the Pacific Ocean was impacted by 

a tsunami event originating from an 8.8 magnitude earthquake off 

the coast of Chile. Fortunately, the tsunami was not as destructive 

as it could have been, but it provided a graphic illustration of how 

very far we have come in the past decade in making timely and accurate tsunami warnings and providing the public with information 

needed to make decisions. This event demonstrates that the continued investment in observations, modeling, research, and outreach 

is vital to save lives and protect property. 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request provides a solid 

foundation to continue to advance NOAA’s mission and for meeting 

our most pressing needs. The request of $5.6 billion represents an 

$806 million increase over fiscal year 2010 enacted levels and addresses a set of priorities that will guide our actions in the coming 

years. 

I would like to highlight a couple of significant areas of progress 

over the last fiscal year. In the area of climate, we have continued 

to provide climate observations and analysis while engaging with 

our partners on how to strengthen our climate services. We have 

made important progress in rebuilding our fisheries, recovering 

protected species, and sustaining the livelihoods and communities 

that they enable. 

We introduced a draft catch share policy and are committed to 

improving fisheries enforcement and our relationships with fishing 

communities and industries. We made good progress in meeting the 

mandates of Magnuson-Stevens Act, and we commissioned the 

NOAA ship Pisces, which will support fisheries for search in the 

Gulf of Mexico and the southeast U.S. 

NOAA is fully engaged in the President’s Interagency Ocean Policy Taskforce. The release of a draft National Ocean Policy and a 

framework for coastal and marine spatial planning reflect a growing recognition that healthy oceans matter and that protecting and 

restoring critical habitat is essential. In fiscal year 2009, NOAA’s 

Coastal Estuarine and Land Conservation Program acquired or put 

under easement over 4,000 coastal acres. 

The 2011 budget includes new investments to strengthen our 

science and foster innovation, rebuild and improve fisheries, and 

sustain and enhance satellite observations. 

NOAA has become a global leader in reporting on the state of essential climate variables and proposes to establish a new line office 

called the NOAA Climate Service. I want to thank the Committee 

for all the support that you have given us for establishing the 

NOAA Climate Service. 

This office will enable NOAA to better address the growing needs 

for climate services. Our fiscal year 2011 request includes $435 

million in support of the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

[USGCRP], with 77 million in new increases for core climate services and observations. 

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

to every citizen in our Nation. A funding increase of $678.6 million 

for a total of $1.1 billion is requested to support the Administration’s decision to restructure the NPOESS Program and create 

within NOAA the Joint Polar Satellite System [JPSS]. 
35

NOAA is requesting an increase of $62.5 million for a total of 

$730 million to continue the development of the GOES–R Program, 

to be prepared for launch near the end of 2015. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget also supports NOAA’s responsibilities in transforming fisheries and protecting species. This budget 

includes an increase of $36.6 million to establish a National Catch 

Share Program. This program will provide a national framework to 

develop, manage, and improve catch share programs in fisheries 

across the Nation. This increase will also continue the transition of 

the Northeast Groundfish Fishery to sector management, as well as 

support new voluntary catch share programs in the Mid-Atlantic, 

Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Coast regions. 

The 2011 budget request also includes an increase of $10.4 million in the Community-Based Restoration Program. NOAA plans to 

increase fish passage and spawning and rearing habitats by implementing larger scale ecological restoration in targeted areas. 

We will continue supporting the Species Recovery Grant Program 

with a requested increase of $9.6 million. This will allow NOAA to 

provide grants to conduct priority recovery actions for threatened 

and endangered species, including restoring habitat, monitoring 

population trends, developing conservation plans, and educating 

the public. 

With a total request of $65 million, the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund Program will continue to leverage Federal, state, and 

tribal resources in the Pacific Coast region to implement projects 

that will store and protect salmonid populations and their habitats. 

NOAA’s fleet plays a central role in accomplishing NOAA’s mission. The fiscal year 2011 budget continues the recapitalization of 

NOAA’s fleet, critical for data collection to meet fishery management’s mandates. 

Overall, our 2011 budget request reflects the commitment to the 

President and the Secretary to public safety, a healthy environment, sound science, underpinning decision making, and job creation. These resources are critical to the future success of meeting 

our needs in climate, fisheries, coasts, and oceans, and I very much 

look forward to continuing to work with this committee and addressing any questions you may have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANE LUBCHENCO

Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, and Members of the Committee, before 

I begin my testimony I would like to thank you for your leadership and the generous 

support you have shown the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Your continued support for our programs is appreciated as we work to improve our 

products and services for the American people. 

NOAA’s mission and priorities support Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke’s priorities through innovation in science and technology, services benefiting the economy 

and ecosystems, and green and blue businesses underscored by a solid foundation 

of environmental information and stewardship. A healthy environment and a strong 

economy go hand in hand. Recreational and commercial activities, representing billions of dollars in economic impact, depend on healthy coastal, ocean and fresh 

water environments and the services they provide. NOAA is assisting communities 

with the data, tools, technology, training, and essential services and knowledge 

needed to make decisions in diverse disciplines and sectors—from the innovative 

management of our natural resources to the investments we make in public infrastructure. 
36

I am honored to be here as the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the Nation’s 

premiere environmental science and stewardship agencies. I am pleased to speak 

with you today regarding the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Request for 

NOAA. 

The FY 2011 President’s Budget provides a solid foundation to continue to advance NOAA’s mission. This is a critical budget for the Administration and NOAA, 

and provides support for meeting our most pressing needs. The FY 2011 request is 

$5.6 billion, representing an $806 million increase over the FY 2010 enacted level. 

After careful consideration of the key issues facing the Nation in which NOAA is 

mandated to and able to respond, we developed a set of priorities that helped to 

shape this budget and will guide our actions in the coming years. These priorities 

include ensuring the continuity of climate, weather, and ocean observations; eliminating overfishing and ensuring the sustainability of marine fisheries; strengthening climate science and services; promoting healthy and resilient coastal communities and ecosystems; improving weather forecasts and disaster warnings; and 

strengthening Arctic science and stewardship. Before discussing the details of this 

budget request, it is important to document some significant areas of progress over 

the last fiscal year.

FY 2009 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Climate 

In the area of climate, we have continued to provide climate observations and 

analysis while engaging other Federal agencies, the private sector, the science community, and many others on how to strengthen our climates services. In FY 2009, 

NOAA calculated sea-level trends for an additional 70 global stations. We also deployed ten additional Historical Climate Monitoring sites to provide high resolution 

regional climate data. Climate studies by NOAA scientists showed that changes in 

surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 

1,000 years after carbon dioxide emissions are completely stopped, and Arctic summers may be ice-free in as few as 30 years.

Satellites 

We are working to resolve many of the management challenges that will allow 

us to get our future polar satellite program ‘‘back on track.’’ These management 

challenges go back many years and resulted in significant delays and cost overruns. 

We still have a great deal of work to do, but this attention is critical to the continuity of the nation’s weather and climate information. In FY 2009, our other satellite programs saw major milestones accomplished with the launch of NOAA–19, 

a polar-orbiting satellite, and GOES–14, a geostationary satellite. These satellites 

are critical for NOAA’s weather-forecasting, storm-tracking, and space- and climatemonitoring missions. NOAA satellites also provided key support in the rescue of 184 

people throughout and near the United States during FY 2009, providing their location to emergency responders.

Weather 

Concern for public safety drives NOAA to continue to improve the timeliness and 

accuracy of warnings for all weather-related hazards. NOAA is committed to enhancing timely and accurate weather and climate forecasts through better observations, improved data assimilation, and collaboration with the research community. 

To this end, NOAA alerted the communities in Upper Mid-West in early February 

of record flooding they would experience in late March and April in the Red River 

Valley. NOAA also provided a Winter Outlook in early October which has been spoton in advising the American public of the conditions expected through February, including the El Nino-driven storms which have swept through the southern tier of 

the Nation, bringing heavy rains, snow and flooding from California to the Mid-Atlantic since December.

Fisheries 

We have made important progress in rebuilding our fisheries, recovering protected 

species and sustaining the livelihoods and communities dependent upon them. We 

introduced a draft catch share policy and are committed to improving relationships 

with the recreational and commercial fishing communities. We are exploring ways 

to improve fisheries enforcement efforts, as well as the science used to inform fisheries management decisions. We are also considering ways to expedite Endangered 

Species Act consultations to allow projects to move forward more quickly while en-
37

suring needed species protections. In FY 2009, NOAA continued to make progress 

in meeting the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act. NOAA also commissioned the NOAA Ship Pisces, which will support fisheries research in the Gulf of Mexico and the Southeast 

United States.

Oceans and Coasts 

NOAA was fully engaged in the President’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, 

participating in and supporting every public hearing and attending every working 

group and Task Force meeting. The result of the Task Force’s effort was the release 

of a draft national ocean policy and interim framework for coastal and marine spatial planning, the first time any Administration has so clearly committed to the 

ideal that ‘‘healthy oceans matter.’’ Protecting and restoring critical habitat is essential for healthy oceans. In FY 2009, NOAA’s Coastal Estuarine and Land Conservation Program acquired or put under easement over 4,000 coastal acres.

ARRA Stimulus Funding 

The distribution and management of funding made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is a success story for NOAA, 

as are the results of our projects. NOAA has obligated approximately 70 percent of 

the $830 million received. We have met all of our planned milestones and expect 

to obligate the remaining funds in the coming months. With this funding, we have 

infused new resources into the economy and also invested in critical infrastructure 

to meet NOAA’s mission needs. I am particularly proud of our efforts to restore 

habitat, creating jobs as we restore ecosystems. We awarded 50 grants for marine 

and coastal habitat restoration in 22 states and territories, obligating $155.4 million. Many of these projects were located in areas of high unemployment and have 

provided jobs to Americans during a critical phase of our economic recovery. For example, NOAA grant recipients reported creating or saving 372 jobs for the period 

of October 1 through December 31, 2009. 

The progress we have made toward our strategic priorities and the improvements 

made to NOAA’s core functions and infrastructure set the stage for even more success in the years to come.

FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST HIGHLIGHTS 

The FY 2011 Budget reflects NOAA’s efforts to focus on program needs leading 

to measurable outcomes, identify efficiencies, and ensure accountability. The budget 

includes new research and development investments to strengthen our science (including climate) mission and foster innovation; provides investments to rebuild and 

improve fisheries and the economies and communities they support; and proposes 

targeted investments to sustain and enhance satellite observations, including a 

major realignment of our NPOESS program.

Meeting the Rising Demand for Climate Services 

President Obama has made it clear that addressing climate change is a high priority, and that good government depends on and should be informed by strong scientific knowledge. NOAA has become a global leader in reporting on the state of 

essential climate variables. NOAA proposes to establish a new line office called 

NOAA Climate Service. This office would bring together NOAA’s longstanding and 

outstanding capabilities—Nobel Peace Prize award-winning researchers and assessments, observations, predictions, training and vital on-the-ground climate services 

delivery to users in climate-sensitive sectors and economies. A single climate office, 

rather than the current dispersed structure, will enable NOAA to better address the 

growing need for climate services. NOAA’s FY 2011 request includes $435 million 

in support of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, with $77 million in new 

increases for core climate services and observations (excluding increases for geostationary and polar-orbiting satellites) needed to enable the Nation to more effectively address the impacts of climate change. Climate science encompasses an immense breadth of topics ranging from those that are well understood and documented, such as greenhouse gases, to those on the cutting edge of knowledge, such 

as ocean acidification and melting sea ice. 

For example, the increasing acidity of the world’s oceans has the potential for devastating effects on marine life and ocean ecosystems, but the degree to which various organisms may be capable of adapting to a more acidic environment is uncertain. More investments in ocean acidification are required to reduce this uncertainty 

and consider means to respond and/or adapt. In FY 2011, NOAA requests an increase of $6.1 million, for a total of $11.6 million, to support new technologies and 
38

ecosystem monitoring systems to better assess the physiological and ecosystem level 

effects of ocean acidification on productivity and the distribution of commercial and 

recreational marine fish stocks. 

The impacts of climate change are evident on both a global and local scale. The 

Arctic, in particular, is an emerging area of international concern, as it continues 

to experience profound atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic changes related to climate variability and change. With an increase of $3 million, for a total of $6.3 million requested in FY 2011, NOAA will improve and amplify representation of Arctic 

climate processes in global climate models, strengthen our network of observations, 

and provide user-focused research assessments for the region. 

Scientific assessments are integral for enhancing our understanding of climate—

both to determine how and why climate is changing, but also what the changing 

conditions mean to our lives and livelihoods. NOAA will provide climate assessments on both the regional and national levels to meet society’s increasing demand 

for climate data and information. A requested increase of $10 million will establish 

regional and national assessments that will synthesize, evaluate, and report on climate change research findings, evaluate the effects of climate variability and change 

for different regions, and identify climate risks and vulnerabilities. 

Strong scientific assessments incorporate information provided by NOAA’s climate 

models and carbon observing systems. Climate models are the only means of estimating the effects of increasing greenhouse gases on future global climate. In FY 

2011, NOAA requests an increase of $7.0 million, for a total of $9.6 million, to continue development of Earth system models to address urgent climate issues such as 

sea level rise, feedbacks in the global carbon cycle, and decadal predictability of extreme events. An increase of $8.0 million, for a total of $20.9 million, will allow 

NOAA to continue implementation of the Carbon Tracker Observing and Analysis 

System, which is an observational and analysis network that measures carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This system will serve as the backbone for verifying 

greenhouse gas emission reduction and mitigation efforts in North America.

Improve Satellite Observations and Management 

NOAA’s satellites provide the data and information that are vital to every citizen 

in our Nation—from weather forecasts, to safe air, land, and marine transportation 

and emergency rescue missions, we all use satellite products in our everyday life. 

One of the greatest challenges that NOAA faces today is ensuring continuity of satellite data and operations to provide state-of-the-art, unbroken coverage that supports weather and marine forecasting; climate assessments and change predictions; 

and space weather forecasts. With the FY 2011 budget request, we will invest in 

multiple satellite acquisition programs for the continuity of critical weather, climate, 

and oceanographic data. 

A funding increase of $678.6 million, for a total of $1.1 billion, is requested to support the Administration decision to restructure the NPOESS program and create 

within NOAA the Joint Polar Satellite System. This large increase reflects the Administration’s determination that beginning in FY 2011, NOAA will fully support 

within its own budget the procurement and development of the assets for the afternoon orbit. Restructuring the NPOESS program will allow NOAA to continue the 

development of critical earth observing instruments for the afternoon orbit, which 

are required for improving weather forecasts, climate monitoring, and warning lead 

times of severe storms. The restructured program separates civilian and military 

satellite procurements, but retains sharing of common assets such as the ground 

system and data. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will 

serve as the lead acquisition agent for NOAA, continuing the long and effective partnership on all of our polar-orbiting and geostationary satellite programs to date. 

There is still much work that remains, but NOAA is committed to working with our 

partners to ensure a smooth transition to assure the continuity of Earth observations from space. 

NOAA is requesting an increase of $62.5 million, for a total of $730 million, to 

continue the development of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite–Series R (GOES–R) program. This increase will provide for the continued development of six GOES–R satellite instruments, the spacecraft, and ground systems 

to be prepared for launch near the end of 2015. The acquisition of NOAA’s GOES–

R series, in partnership with NASA, is progressing on track. The new satellites will 

carry improved environmental sensors to enable NOAA’s forecasters to enhance the 

timeliness and accuracy of their severe weather warnings. Also, this next generation 

of GOES satellites will provide advances in NOAA’s observation capabilities, including improvements to coastal ecosystems, space weather, and lightning observations 

through continued funding of instruments such as the Advanced Baseline Imager, 
39

Solar Ultra Violet Imager, Extreme Ultra Violet Sensor/X–Ray Sensor Irradiance 

Sensor, Space Environmental In-Situ, and Geostationary Lightning Mapper. 

Global sea level rise directly threatens coastal communities and ecosystems 

through increased exposure and erosion, more frequent storm-surge and tidal flooding, and loss of natural habitat due to drowned wetlands. NOAA’s budget requests 

an additional $30.0 million for a total of $50 million to continue development of the 

Jason-3 satellite that will provide continuity of sea surface height measurements, 

thus ensuring an uninterrupted climate record of over 20 years. The Jason–3 mission is a joint U.S.-European partnership with U.S. and European funding. NOAA requests a $3.7 million increase to partner with the Taiwan National Space 

Organization for the launch of 12 satellites to replenish and upgrade the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) satellite 

constellation. This program is a cost effective means of obtaining information about 

the temperature and moisture in the atmosphere around the globe that will improve 

forecasting accuracy. Finally, a requested increase of $9.5 million will support, in cooperation with 

NASA, the refurbishment of the existing NASA Deep Space Climate Observatory 

(DSCOVR) satellite, its solar wind sensors, and the development of a Coronal Mass 

Ejection (CME) Imager. The data and information provided by DSCOVR will support the operations of the National Weather Service Space Weather Prediction Center, which generates accurate and timely 1–4 day forecasts and warnings of geomagnetic storms that could adversely affect power grids, telecommunications, the 

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

Transform Fisheries and Recover Protected Species 

Ending overfishing, improving fisheries management and putting fisheries on a 

path to sustainability and profitability are still challenges for NOAA. I would like 

to highlight areas in the FY 2011 budget that support targeted investments to continue fulfilling NOAA’s responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, and that will help to sustain local 

communities while restoring a number of vital fisheries stocks and habitats. 

NOAA recently released a draft catch share policy to encourage the consideration 

and adoption of catch shares wherever appropriate in fishery management and ecosystem plans and amendments, and will support the design, implementation, and 

monitoring of catch share programs. Catch share programs give fishermen a stake 

in the benefits of well-managed fisheries, and therefore greater incentive to ensure 

effective management. To support NOAA’s policy, this budget includes an increase 

of $36.6 million, for a total request of $54 million, to establish a National Catch 

Share Program. This program will provide a national framework to develop, manage, and improve catch share programs in fisheries across the Nation. This increase 

will also continue the transition of the Northeast ground fish (multispecies) fishery 

to sector management as well as support new voluntary catch share programs in 

the Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Coast regions. 

Managing fisheries to their full potential requires additional efforts focused on 

habitat condition and ecosystem functioning, which provide the foundation for species recruitment and survival. The FY 2011 budget request includes investments in 

this area through three vital NOAA programs that are focused on threatened and 

endangered species, but will have a resonating impact across broad goals for enhancing ecosystem integrity and health. First, through the Community Based Restoration Program, NOAA plans to increase fish passage and spawning and rearing 

habitat by implementing larger-scale ecological restoration in targeted areas such 

as wetlands. NOAA is requesting an increase of $10.4 million for a total of $23.8 

million for this effort in FY 2011. Second, we will continue supporting the Species 

Recovery Grants Program in FY 2011 with a requested increase of $9.6 million, for 

a total of $20.8 million. This will allow NOAA to provide grants to conduct priority 

recovery actions for threatened and endangered species, including restoring habitat, 

monitoring population trends, developing conservation plans, and educating the 

public. Third, with a total request of $65 million, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Grants Program will continue to leverage Federal, state, and tribal resources 

in the Pacific Coast region to implement projects that restore and protect salmonid 

populations and their habitats. 

Another highlight of the FY 2011 request includes support for the restoration and 

protection of the Nation’s largest estuary, the Chesapeake 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. We are requesting an increase of $5 million, for a total of $7.1 
40

million, for regional studies in the Bay. This investment will ensure NOAA has 

state-of-the-art field and laboratory equipment in place in FY 2011, which will be 

used to address the mandates of the President’s Executive Order in FY 2011 and 

beyond. 

In addition to expanding scientific understanding in the Chesapeake Bay, NOAA 

scientists are developing integrated ecosystem assessments (IEA), a critical tool for 

understanding the interactions between multiple species and for helping to manage 

and sustain critical stocks and habitats. IEAs allow managers to weigh trade-offs 

between sectoral uses and evaluate the socioeconomic implications of management 

actions. Most importantly, IEAs provide guidance to ensure the most cost-effective 

and informed resource management decisions. In FY 2011, NOAA is requesting an 

increase of $5.4 million, for a total $7.5 million investment, to focus primarily on 

the California Current Ecosystem, but to also engage work on the Gulf of Mexico 

and Northeast Shelf IEAs.

Vibrant Coastal Communities and Economies 

It was estimated that in 2003, approximately 153 million people—or 53 percent 

of the Nation’s population—lived in the 673 U.S. coastal counties, an increase of 33 

million people since 1980. It is estimated that this number will increase by 12 million people by 2015. In addition, over half of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product is 

generated in coastal counties, highlighting their critical importance to the Nation’s 

economy. This population increase is straining the limited land area of coastal counties. Coupled with the important economies of coastal areas and the demands for 

ecosystem services, it is becoming increasingly difficult to manage coastal resources 

in the context of competing uses. NOAA’s FY 2011 budget provides key investments 

to promote sustainable, safe use of coastal areas and to support the economies of 

these coastal areas. 

As stated in the interim report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, current and future uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources 

should be managed and effectively balanced. I would like to highlight areas in our 

request that support this goal and other Administration priorities. 

Human uses of ocean resources are accelerating faster than our ability to manage 

them. Increasing conflicts are unavoidable as demands increase for ocean-based energy, marine aquaculture, commercial and recreational fishery products, shipping 

and navigation services, and other activities. The Administration’s Interagency 

Ocean Policy Task Force released the Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and 

Marine Spatial Planning in December 2009, which is aimed at enhancing and 

streamlining ocean management decisions to ensure the health of vital ocean ecosystems as human uses increase. Current management approaches are ad hoc and 

fragmented at the Federal, state, and local levels. NOAA is a leader in providing 

tools and services that support coastal and marine spatial planning efforts. Our existing programs have established a foundation for coastal and marine spatial planning that could be used government-wide across jurisdictions and sectors. In FY 

2011, NOAA requests an increase of $6.8 million to support coastal and marine spatial planning, which will enhance existing efforts for sustainable fisheries, safe navigation, improved water quality, living marine resources and critical habitat protection. 

NOAA’s request further supports coastal and marine spatial planning efforts with a $2 million increase to support the Gulf of Mexico Coastal and Marine Elevation 

Pilot to a develop robust geospatial framework, including high-resolution topographic and bathymetric datasets. These datasets will provide a better understanding of baseline variables needed to enhance coastal community resilience, wetland loss and erosion, and the potential for degradation of key ecosystem services. 

This pilot will begin in the Gulf of Mexico and be extended to other regions and 

applications over time. 

The Nation’s coastal communities and economies depend on healthy coastal resources, which are threatened by fragmented planning and management of societal 

use of coastal lands and waters. Regional ocean governance mechanisms facilitate 

the effective management of ocean and coastal resources across jurisdictional boundaries by improving communications, aligning priorities, and enhancing resource 

sharing between local, state, and Federal agencies. Our request of a $20 million increase will establish a competitive grants program to advance effective ocean management (including coastal and marine spatial planning) through regional ocean 

governance. The program will help support priority actions, in association with 

states, identified in plans of the existing regional ocean partnerships. Support for 

these partnerships will also encourage development of comprehensive, coastal and 

marine spatial plans, which are consistent with the President’s Ocean Policy Task 

Force Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. 
41

1See the Federal Aviation Administration’s Research, Engineering and Development Advisory 

Committee’s Report of the Weather-ATM Integration Working Group, 3 Oct, 2007; available at 

http://www.jpdo.gov/library/FAA¥REDAC¥Report.pdf

To better protect the public health of our coastal citizens and tourists, NOAA requests an increase of $9.5 million, for a total of $12.5 million, to support research 

into technologies that better detect, identify, characterize, and quantify diseasecausing microbes, toxins, and contaminants in marine waters. These funds will be 

used to target sensor development, which will support ocean and coastal related 

Health Early Warning Systems, identify risks, and promote public health. 

In addition to public health hazards, coastal communities are vulnerable to hardship and costs associated with episodic and chronic natural hazards, such as hurricanes, sea-level rise, and coastal erosion. Our request of a $4 million increase will 

support the development of tools, such as web portals, Geographic Information System (GIS) products, and forecast models, to help coastal communities mitigate the 

impacts of climate and weather hazards.

Ensure Timely Weather Forecasts 

Weather impacts our lives and the economy. The United States experiences a 

broader variety of severe weather than any other Nation on Earth, from hurricanes 

in the south, east, and west, to arctic storms in the north. Each year, NOAA provides 76 billion observations, 1.5 million forecasts, and 50,000 warnings to mitigate 

the impact of weather events and protect life and property. The FY 2011 Budget 

Request proposes important increases in both weather operations and weather research. 

Weather is a factor in over 70 percent of air-traffic delays, costing approximately 

$29 billion annually 1. Two thirds of all weather delays are preventable with more 

accurate and timely weather information. To meet the rising demands of air transportation, NOAA is involved in a collaborative partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration to create the Next Generation Air Transportation System. 

NOAA requests an increase of $15.1 million, for a total of $26.7 million, to modernize our aviation weather forecasts and warnings. This funding will provide much 

needed improvements to processing systems and models, as well as new products 

for pilots. 

NOAA is dedicated to continually upgrading existing weather tools to keep up 

with growing needs and improved technologies, as well as investing in research to 

develop new products. NOAA requests an increase of $3.2 million, for a total of 

$11.1 million, to install additional components to the Nation’s fleet of NEXRAD 

Doppler weather radars to improve their accuracy in determining the quantity and 

type of precipitation. Doppler weather radar is the primary tool used to issue local 

storm warnings for flash floods, tornadoes, and severe thunderstorms. Looking to 

the future, NOAA also requests an additional $6 million, for a total of $10 million, 

to continue developing Multi-Function Phased Array Radar technology, which shows 

great promise as the next major improvement in weather detection. These funds will 

examine the benefits and efficiencies associated with this next-generation radar 

technology. Multi-Function Phased Array Radar’s ability to rapidly scan large areas 

could provide an enormous advantage to radar meteorologists over current capabilities, and in turn enhance weather and climate warnings for the public. 

Water resource and precipitation monitoring and forecasting have become a particular challenge with increases in population, drought, and frequent changes in 

commercial shipping needs. On an annual basis, the majority of federally declared 

disasters are due to flooding. In FY 2011, NOAA requests an increase of $7.7 million 

for a total of $12.9 million, to research, develop, and deliver water forecasting services for river, estuary, and coastal areas that do not currently have these capabilities. 

In addition, the FY 2011 Budget includes $2 million, for a total of $13 million, 

for the national Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC). Millions of precision 

Global Positioning System users, satellite operators, commercial and military space 

and aviation activities, and power grid operations will be vulnerable to a new round 

of solar storms during the predicted upcoming solar maximum. This investment will 

improve information technology systems at the SWPC and enhance space weather 

alerts and warnings to avoid potential disruptions to the Nation’s shared infrastructure on which the public relies. 

Finally, NOAA requests an additional $2.2 million, for a total of $14.5 million, to 

provide a necessary technology refresh and frequency conversion for our network of 

wind profilers. This 20-year-old system provides high-frequency wind data for severe 
42

weather warnings and watches of tornadoes, flash floods, and winter storms, shortterm forecasts, and detection of volcanic ash plumes.

Program Support 

In order to deliver sound science and services, NOAA must continue to invest in 

its information technology (IT) infrastructure, the quality and construction of NOAA 

facilities, and recapitalization. NOAA experiences thousands of cyber attacks every 

month. A requested increase of $8.7 million will enhance security monitoring and 

response capabilities, and consolidate our IT infrastructure into a single enterprise 

network. In addition, NOAA needs to continue to replace key facilities to ensure employee safety and maintain mission continuity. This budget includes an increase of 

$14 million for the Pacific Regional Center which brings together NOAA programs 

on Oahu, Hawaii. While the ARRA funds we received in FY 2009 helped fund basic 

construction of the facility, additional funding is needed in FY 2011 to procure and 

install the information technology infrastructure for the new facility. The budget 

also includes an increase of $5 million to support the replacement of the bulkhead 

at NOAA’s Atlantic Marine Operations Center. 

NOAA’s fleet plays an essential role in accomplishing NOAA’s environmental and 

scientific missions. The FY 2011 budget continues the recapitalization of NOAA’s 

fleet, critical for data collection to meet fisheries management mandates. A $6.2 million increase is requested to address vessel maintenance backlog, and to increase 

preventative maintenance rates for the fleet. An additional $7.4 million is requested 

to accelerate a planned FY 2013 Major Repair Period to address structural, mechanical, and electrical breakdowns of the Miller Freeman. Lack of repair to this valuable ship would result in lost days at sea and impact NOAA research. Finally, we 

request $3 million towards the design of a fishery survey vessel to replace the OREGON II, an aging fishery survey vessel operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Another 

$1.4 million is requested for project management of a new fishery survey vessel that 

is being built using ARRA funding.

CONCLUSION 

Overall, NOAA’s FY 2011 Budget Request reflects the commitment of the President and the Secretary to public safety, a healthy environment, sound science underpinning decision making, and job creation. These resources 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’ve laid out here through the implementation of the FY 2011 

budget. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present NOAA’s FY 2011 Budget Request. I am 

happy to respond to any questions the Committee may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JANE LUBCHENCO

On March 20, 2009, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, a marine ecologist and environmental 

scientist, was sworn in as the ninth and first woman Administrator of NOAA. Her 

scientific expertise includes oceans, climate change, and interactions between the 

environment and human well-being. Raised in Denver, she received a B.A. degree 
43

in biology from Colorado College, a M.S. in zoology from the University of Washington and a Ph.D. in ecology from Harvard University. While teaching at Harvard 

(1975–1977) and Oregon State University (1977–2009), she was actively engaged in 

discovery, synthesis, communication, and application of scientific knowledge. 

Dr. Lubchenco has studied marine ecosystems around the world and championed 

the importance of science and its relevance to policy making and human well-being. 

A former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science 

(AAAS), the International Council for Science and the Ecological Society of America, 

she served ten years on the National Science Board (Board of Directors for the National Science Foundation). From 1999–2009 she led PISCO, a large four-university, 

interdisciplinary team of scientists investigating the large marine ecosystem along 

the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. She has a special interest in Arctic 

ecosystems, with recent work in Svalbard, Greenland and the Alaskan arctic. 

Dr. Lubchenco has provided scientific input to multiple U.S. Administrations and 

Congress on climate, fisheries, marine ecosystems, and biodiversity. Dr. Lubchenco 

served on the first National Academy of Sciences study on ‘Policy Implications of 

Global Warming’, providing advice to the George H.W. Bush administration and 

Congress. In 1997 she briefed President Clinton and Vice President Gore and Members of Congress on climate change. 

Her scientific contributions are widely recognized. Eight of her publications are 

‘‘Science Citation Classics’’; she is one of the ‘most highly cited’ ecologists in the 

world. Dr. Lubchenco is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, 

the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, 

and four international academies of science: the Royal Society, the Academy of 

Sciences for the Developing World, Europe, and Chile. She has received numerous 

awards including a MacArthur (‘genius’) Fellowship, twelve honorary degrees, the 

2002 Heinz Award in the Environment, the 2005 AAAS Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology and the 2008 Zayed International Prize for the 

Environment. 

Dr. Lubchenco co-founded three organizations that communicate scientific knowledge to the public, policy makers, the media and industry: (1) The Leopold Leadership Program (teaches environmental scientists to be effective communicators), (2) 

COMPASS (the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, communicates 

marine sciences): and (3) Climate Central (a non-advocacy source of understandable 

scientific information about climate science and solutions). She co-chaired the Synthesis for Business and Industry of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, an international scientific evaluation of the consequences of environmental changes to 

human well-being. She also served on the Pew Oceans Commission, the Joint 

Oceans Commission Initiative, the Aspen Institute Arctic Commission and the 

Council of Advisors for Google Ocean.

GREENHOUSE GAS MONITORING AND VERIFICATION

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco. At this point we 

will being the first round of questions. The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

This morning I read that China had sent letters to the IPCC asking to join in the Copenhagen Agreement with their own voluntary 

reductions in carbon. So whether or not it is voluntary, whether it 

is regulatory, or legislative, most countries now in the world recognize that climate change is real and that human activities and carbon is a major function in that. 

So all, you can all have the best goodwill, but there has to be 

some kind of verification, both scientific verification and independent verification. What are the tools that NOAA has in that regard? More particularly, what is NOAA’s role in developing a network for greenhouse gas verification monitoring? What are the current capacities and future needs to support monitoring and 

verification, and how is agency partnering with other Federal agencies and international partners for this area of verification? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, NOAA has a key role in the set 

of observing and monitoring networks that measure greenhouse 
44

gases within the United States and globally. We partner with other 

agencies so that each agency does different but complimentary 

things, and there is an interagency working group that is taking 

stock of the collective assets that we all have. 

What is abundantly clear is that it is important to have monitoring at two different types of platforms. Some of the monitoring 

that NOAA does, for example, is land-based with towers that are 

sampling ambient air, some of what we do are airplane flights that 

sample air from a higher level than you can just from a tower, and 

some of the information that is gained from other agencies is more 

calculating what likely emissions are based on activities. For example, determining how much greenhouse gas a power plant generates, and then scaling that up. 

I think it is commonly agreed that you need both the bottom up 

side, such as what do we think is likely to be released, but also the 

ambient monitoring from the ground, from planes, as well as from 

satellites. You need a combination of complimentary monitoring 

systems to be able to work toward the kind of international 

verification and monitoring that you suggest and I agree will be 

needed. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, with the assets that we have now what 

level of verification, you know, would you say that we have? What 

is our ability now? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We do not have the current—we have good capabilities to do a lot of monitoring. It is probably insufficient to do 

the kind of global monitoring that will be needed if there is some 

kind of international agreement about global reductions of emissions. 

Chairman GORDON. And what additional assets do we need and 

how, if the Chinese, for example, or any country would not allow 

us to have point of source or the towers or anything of that nature 

and you are not able to have any type of a fly-over, what—how can 

we monitor those areas? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. There are various discussions underway about 

what additional capabilities we have that we don’t now have. That 

discussion is underway, and I am not prepared to describe exactly 

what we need because the agencies are in the process of producing 

that. 

Chairman GORDON. What kind of timeframe would you project 

to, again, having those assets in place, whatever they might be? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I don’t know the answer to that, but I will inquire and get back to you. 

Chairman GORDON. My time is about up. I want to—we will have 

a further discussion about the Climate Service another time, but 

now I would like to recognize Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ESTABLISHING THE NATIONAL CLIMATE SERVICE

Ms. Lubchenco, Dr. Lubchenco, maybe you can help me a little 

bit. I want to ask you a question or so, and when I say NOAA, I 

presume a NOAA proposal probably had your agreement or agreement of you and your committee or those who advise you. Is that 

a correct statement? I am trying to decide whether that is your pro-
45

posal or the proposal of a group or office people that studied and 

done some reports back to you. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Is there a specific proposal to which you are referring? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, madam. The proposal to create a Climate Service 

office was presented to Congress a week after the budget has been 

released. That is correct, isn’t it? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That is correct. 

Mr. HALL. And at that time NOAA informed the Committee that 

it had no intention of seeking our approval. We got a good Chairman, we got a good committee here, we have been favorable to you 

and listened and relied on directors and under secretaries of the 

past, and I have no argument with NOAA as I have with EPA. 

But at that time NOAA informed us that they had no intention 

of seeking our approval as the authorizing committee. Instead, you 

planned to go directly to the Appropriations Committee to request 

a reprogramming. 

I guess my question is why are you not seeking our approval of 

the proposal? Do you have some reason to think we wouldn’t grant 

it? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you so much for asking that, Congressman. I really appreciate the opportunity to clarify this. 

This committee has been strongly supportive of the needs for Climate Services across the Federal Government. NOAA is also 

strongly supportive of that and views it as an important interagency effort. 

Our announcement on—in early February was the intent to do 

an internal reorganization to better position ourselves within 

NOAA to be a better partner with the other agencies and to work 

toward the suite of Climate Services that we believe the country 

needs. 

NOAA currently has very significant climate science expertise 

and delivery of services, but they are scattered in multiple places 

throughout the organization, and our proposal was for an internal 

reorganization to pull those pieces together. Because that is a reprogramming, the process to be used for a reprogramming is——

Mr. HALL. Could you just get right to the answer? Why are you 

not seeking our approval of your proposal? Do you have a reason 

to believe we wouldn’t grant it or that we were not capable of 

granting it or that it is not our position to grant it or refuse it? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That is just what I was getting to. 

Mr. HALL. Well, but I have just five minutes, and I have got to 

be somewhere——

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I apologize. 

Mr. HALL. —at 5:00 this afternoon. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I apologize. But the reprogramming entails approval by the Department and by OMB and approval by the Appropriations Committee. That is what a reprogramming entails. We 

greatly look forward to working with this committee and with others who are interested in the Climate Service to think strategically 

about what it should look like, to be informed by the NAPA [National Academy of Public Administration] study that is underway, 

and to think about how it relates to other activities and other agencies. 
46

So it is not at all intended to dismiss the very important role 

that this committee plays or this committee’s interest or responsibilities. 

Mr. HALL. As an authorizing committee it is our responsibility, 

and I think you must know this, to examine and oversee a policy 

shift of this magnitude, and by circumventing this committee’s authority, you have made it very difficult for a lot of us to even support the plan. 

Now, what do you think the appropriate course ought to be for 

Congress to approve of a reorganization of this size? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, we are not proposing a major policy shift, and we absolutely do not intend to ignore the responsibilities of this committee. The proposal that we announced is an internal reorganization of existing assets. We currently do climate 

science and provide climate services, but they are distributed in 

multiple places, and we are simply bringing those together into a 

single new line office. So it is not a major policy shift. 

Mr. HALL. Well, let us see here. The reprogramming authority of 

the Appropriations Committee is intended to allow for a reorganization of agencies, usually in the form of creating new reporting 

alignments. The major reorganization you are proposing, and it is 

referred to as a major reorganization you are proposing, the creation of the Climate Service office I think is more significant and 

more high-profile than most of the reprogramming requests that I 

have seen. Is that a good statement or is that not, just not true? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I don’t have the experience to know that. I certainly defer to your judgment on that. I think I would simply emphasize our willingness and intent and plea to work with this committee so that we can end up in a place that acknowledges the important role that this committee plays and should play as we look 

to the kinds of climate services that will be needed for this country 

in the future. 

Mr. HALL. But by circumventing the Committee’s authority I 

think you made it very difficult for us. Do you understand why you 

have made it difficult for us, and what do you think the appropriate course should be for Congress to approve a reorganization of 

this size? However great or however small, it is important to us to 

know these things to where we can support you because we rely 

on you. 

And I am not arguing with you. I just wonder what your thinking is and why you went out of your way to discard the support 

of this committee. We have always supported NOAA, pretty well. 

I don’t have the problems with you nor with your position that I 

have with the EPA. I am trying to find out why you wouldn’t want 

this committee and to have the source and the strength of this 

committee supporting the moves that you are making, if you are 

proud of those moves and you think they are proper and—I just 

can’t figure why you would bypass us. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, that was not the intent to bypass 

you, and I apologize that that has been the conclusion. It was my 

understanding that the reprogramming that we have proposed goes 

through a series of steps, and that is what we were following. But 

there is absolutely no intention of not seeking guidance from this 

committee. This committee has been very, very supportive of this, 
47

and I greatly appreciate that, and I am sorry that we have gotten 

crosswise on this, because I think we have the same goal in mind, 

and I would very much like to work with you as we consider how 

to do this. 

Mr. HALL. Well, I certainly accept that, but I think when you 

highlight your ignoring this committee, you are going to bring on 

some observation and searching and questions as to those that 

didn’t have the opportunity to be here and hear your explanation. 

I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

I will say the Administrator is also new to her job, and I think 

her feet are now wet and we will have further discussions about 

the—about this agency. I know we may not be unanimous in where 

we wind up, but it needs to be discussed, and I think this committee will have to take action if there is going to be inter—multiple agencies working together, which I think is—will be necessary 

to be effective. 

Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by associating myself with the concerns of Ranking Member from Texas. We 

have chatted about this. This committee, the Subcommittee that I 

chair had hearings. You were present at one. We passed a bill out 

with the intent, at least on the House side, of what the Climate 

Service would look like if it were to be created, and then were 

taken by surprise when we learned that you already had your own 

plans, which is okay, I suppose, although I share Mr. Hall’s concern. I think we have a responsibility as an Article I branch to 

oversee this and to learn that in spite of our efforts to try to support what I thought were desires of NOAA, we were unpleasantly 

surprised. 

And so I will affiliate myself with the remarks of Ranking Member Hall on that. I want to move onto another topic, but I want to 

put that marker down that we take that responsibility very seriously, and we hope you will as well. 

OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

I am pleased to see that there is a significant increase in funding 

for ocean acidification on a more positive note. We—I doubt you are 

aware, watching the prior testimony maybe you were, if you had 

been, there was a rather spirited discussion about the climate 

change issue, and you are unquestionably one of the most respected 

ocean scientists in the world in my judgment, and your resume 

which the Chairman read at the start speaks for itself. 

How serious do you think the issue of ocean acidification is, and 

do you think it is related to human, to anthropogenic CO2? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I believe that ocean acidification 

is one of the most serious issues facing us. It—we know that the 

oceans have increased in level of acidity by 30 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We know that the reason that 

it is increasing in acidity is that carbon dioxide is being absorbed 

by the oceans from the atmosphere, and as carbon dioxide goes into 

water it makes it more acidic very simply. And that, in turn, creates very serious challenges for at least some very important marine life, ranging from microscopic plants to corals to many animals 
48

and plants, anything that has a shell or a skeleton made of calcium 

carbonate. 

We don’t begin to understand the full consequences of this increase in acidity. It underscores the urgency of reducing carbon 

emissions as rapidly as possible because there is a long time lag 

in terms of bringing things back to normal, if you will. The proposed increases in our budget this year will continue to give us information about the extent of the problem, how uniform it is from 

one place to another by establishing good monitoring, and getting 

a much better handle on the consequences of changes in ocean 

chemistry to at least some of the important species. 

I fully acknowledge that it is nowhere near as much as we probably need to be doing, but it builds very strongly on what we have 

begun and will be a very important contribution. 

Mr. BAIRD. I applaud you for that effort, and I just think it is 

a critical, deeply troubling problem. 

Part of that issue of monitoring acidity has to do with how—what 

kind of instruments we are able to put in the water, and I just put 

this out there. I am familiar with the device that is sort of a selfswimming monitoring platform that has actually succeeded in traveling from Hawaii to our coast and back and without any motors, 

without any external energy, just on the wave motion itself. It 

seems to me a pretty remarkable device. I hope NOAA will consider test piloting a mini group of those so we can see if they are 

viable with the instrumentation that we have seen at PNNL [Pacific Northwest National Lab] and other places. 

PERMITTING AND REGULATORY ISSUES

Two other quick questions. One, we have a huge issue of permitting in our region as you know very, very well. Virtually anything 

we do with excel monids and other freshwater species as well. Is 

your budget taking into account the needs for permitting to make 

expeditious permitting decisions in our northwest region, because 

the delay in permitting costs us hundreds of millions of dollars over 

the course of time. 

How does your budget deal with the regulatory side of NOAA’s 

mission? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, are you referring to permits that 

relate to Endangered Species Act——

Mr. BAIRD. Exactly. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —and Mammal Protection Act? 

Mr. BAIRD. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The permits that we issue do inevitably take 

some time. That said, we are behind in issuing them in as timely 

a fashion as we would like, because we don’t have the resources to 

do that, and that is very frankly an impediment. 

Mr. BAIRD. So that is an area where we might want to see a 

budget increase, just the personnel can’t handle the demand. 

Thank you for your frank answer, and thanks for your service. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Broun is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BROUN. Has Dr. Ehlers already——

Chairman GORDON. He will be—he will have his opportunity 

after you. You arrived first. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
49

STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL CLIMATE SERVICE

NOAA’s identified which assets would be moved in order to create the new Climate Service office. These include major parts of the 

Earth Systems Research Lab and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics 

Lab at Princeton. But these labs are conducting major weather-related research activities. In fact, ESRL, the Earth Science Research 

Lab, was—the consolidation of five separate Colorado-based laboratories only five years ago. 

How do you—now you are proposing to split them up again. Why 

is that? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, the existing Climate Science and 

delivery of Climate Services is now scattered in many different 

places within NOAA, a number of different line offices. The ones 

to which you have referred are ones that are currently part of the 

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. 

None of those offices would move physically. None of those people 

would move physically, but like many NOAA programs, the specific 

labs that are appropriate to this NOAA Climate Service would be 

move into that new line office, and it is because they will have—

it is because we believe it is important for the climate sciences and 

service delivery functions to be closely affiliated with each other to 

continue to strengthen the science and to continue to have the 

services reflect the latest science. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, I believe if something ain’t broke, don’t fix it, 

and I think we are fixing something that ain’t broke, but—or 

maybe it is broke but anyway. How much of ESRL’s physical 

sciences division is climate research versus weather research? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I don’t have that breakdown on 

the top of my head, but I would be happy to get it for you. 

Mr. BROUN. It is my understanding 80 percent is weather. How 

much of ESRL’s chemical science division is climate versus weather 

research? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I don’t know that either, sir. 

Mr. BROUN. I understand one-third is weather. How much of 

GFDL [Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory] in Princeton is 

non-climate? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I am not aware of any but——

Mr. BROUN. Well, I think about 20 percent is weather modeling. 

What do you plan on doing with those assets in these divisions that 

are not climate related but are now moved into the Climate Service? So you have got—I just gave you some data about non-weather-related issues. What are you going to do with them? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, there is really a continuum between climate and weather, and this is part of our challenge, and 

we had very long discussions about the appropriate place for these 

entities, and I think your question is really pointing out a very fundamental reality, and that is that regardless of where any particular lab resides in NOAA’s structure, it needs to be able to relate 

effectively and efficiently to other structures. The same is true for 

fisheries, for example, or for——

Mr. BROUN. Well, let me interrupt you just a minute, because I 

am about to run out of time. I don’t think that breaking up ESRL 

is a good idea, particularly when it was consolidated just five years 
50

ago, and you have got—I think your plan is flawed, and I hope you 

will reconsider that. 

RECREATIONAL FISHING

As an individual who got involved in politics, I began my political 

activism because of my conservation ethics and because I am a 

hunter and a fisherman, and the agency Ocean Policy Taskforce is 

apparently talking about instituting policy that would lead to a ban 

of recreational angling in the United States. 

And, in fact, I just got an e-mail today from a friend of mine who 

lives in Louisiana, very concerned about the Department’s policy on 

this. Please give me assurances that recreational angling will certainly be considered, as well as commercial fisheries, because it is 

the lifeblood of a lot of coastal communities, and we can conserve 

our resources. We don’t have to just necessarily protect those, but 

would you please reassure me and the angling public, whether it 

is commercial or recreational, that their issues are going to be 

taken into consideration. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I firmly believe that both commercial and recreational fishing are vitally important to this Nation, and part of my focus at NOAA has been doing a better job 

of working with both recreational and commercial fishermen because they are important, their interests are important, and I think 

as we move ahead with considering all of the activities that are affecting or interacting and competing for space on the water, if you 

will, those interests are absolutely part of NOAA’s responsibility to 

represent. 

And I have told recreational fishermen exactly that. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, they are not convinced at this point and neither am I when you look at the list of organizations that are pushing for this ban that NOAA is listening to evidently very loudly. 

They think it is cruel and unusual treatment of a fish to hook him 

in the mouth with a hook. I guess that is cruel and unusual to take 

them home and eat them, too, which some of these critters are good 

to eat. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, we are not proposing any blanket 

ban on recreational fishing. I would strongly oppose that, and that 

is not in the works. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, like I say, the recreational fishermen of this 

country aren’t convinced of that, and I think you can do a better 

job in convincing them that their recreation, their sport, and some 

of them’s livelihood is not going to be threatened by your department. 

Thank you so much. My time is up, and I yield back. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, could I add one quick note? 

Chairman GORDON. Sure. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, we have convened a summit with 

recreational fishermen for next month, and it is explicitly with the 

intention of talking about these kinds of things and clearing up 

many of the misconceptions, but also working with them to identify 

solutions that will enable recreational fishing to thrive and continue. 

Mr. BROUN. How about commercial fishing, though? Is that—is 

your guidance to ban commercial fishing? 
51

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Not at all, sir. 

Mr. BROUN. Okay. Well——

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It is also vitally important to this Nation. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, madam. 

Chairman GORDON. So, Dr. Broun, your fishing pole is safe. 

And Ms. Edwards is recognized. 

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and since I am a 

fisherperson, too, I am glad to hear that. 

Dr. Lubchenco, thank you very much for being here today and for 

your testimony. I want to just ask you a couple of questions. 

One is about the work that you have been doing in pursuit of the 

President’s Executive Order on the Chesapeake Bay, and if you 

could describe that, and I note in your request that you will see an 

increase from $5 million to $7.1 million for regional studies in the 

bay. What other studies need to be done to carry out what the 

President has ascribed in his Executive Order? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congresswoman, the interagency group that is 

working collectively on the Chesapeake has sort of divvied up responsibilities for different kinds of activities among the different 

relevant agencies. NOAA is one of those. It is not the lead agency. 

Our responsibilities for the Chesapeake involve a significant 

amount of monitoring so that we can have a better handle on water 

quality, of habitat restoration, and a number of other activities that 

are in support of the overall effort. 

I believe that this is a very important collective effort. The situation has simply not gotten better through time, and it is—the 

Chesapeake is too important a system to not be put on a path to 

recovery, if you will. And we are very dedicated to fulfilling our 

part of the interagency responsibilities to move to a much better 

place for the Chesapeake. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Do you see any barriers to being able to complete 

your work, and I speak particularly to the, you know, the challenges of getting the several jurisdictions to do what they need to 

do at the state level in order to proceed? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congresswoman, that really—it really is one of 

the challenges. It is the multiple jurisdictions that are responsible 

for different actions. For example, much of the nitrogen that is 

flowing into the Chesapeake comes from multiple watersheds, and 

there are different practices and policies in those watersheds, and 

having that distributed source of nitrogen addressed is inevitably 

very, very difficult. And that has been one of the longstanding challenges, I think everybody recognizes it. And I am hopeful that this 

push will begin to address it more effectively. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But does that—would that impede any of the work 

that you are anticipating doing in this next fiscal year? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. No, Congresswoman, our work is—that work is 

more work that is being done by other agencies, and our responsibilities are very much on the monitoring, on the habitat restoration, and we have some magnificent habitat restoration projects in 

that area that are restoring coastal vegetation that is very important in helping to absorb nutrients that are coming down the 

streams, for example. 
52

And so our—I am enthusiastic about our part of this program. 

THE NPOESS PROGRAM AND JOINT POLAR SATELLITE

SYSTEM

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. I have another question that is actually related to the NPOESS Program. The budget proposes $806 

million for fiscal year 2011. I can’t say that anymore. But for fiscal 

year 2011 out of that increase roughly $677 million has been requested for restructuring the NPOESS Program and creating the 

Joint Polar Satellite System. That is almost 84 percent of the proposed increase, and I know we had testimony before this committee, there have been challenges around interagency coordination 

and management challenges. 

And so I wonder if you could speak to that history, and give us 

an idea of why you need that level of increase for the Joint Polar 

Satellite System. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you very much for that, Congresswoman, 

because this is a key part of our budget request this year, and I 

am delighted to have a chance to speak to it briefly. 

As this committee knows, because you have called for eight reports from GAO in the last nine years, that this program has been 

one that has suffered very, very significant challenges, and you alluded to one of the primary challenges, and that was the management structure that entailed a tri-agency mechanism for trying to 

do joint procurement when, in fact, the agencies are very different 

in size, in culture, in requirements for this program. 

The Administration’s proposal to restructure NPOESS tees off directly from these GAO reports as well as an independent review 

team that made a series of recommendations, and the restructuring 

entails addressing this management challenge head on by separating the procurement for the instruments and the satellites for 

the morning orbit. That will be done by the Department of Defense, 

because the morning orbit is particularly important for our military 

needs. NOAA and NASA will have responsibility for the afternoon 

orbit, which is more, much more important for our weather predictions and for climate information. 

So each of us will have responsibility for procurement of the assets relevant to our orbit, but we will continue to share the parts 

of the program that were working well, which are the ground systems, and so this new restructuring, creating the Joint Polar Satellite System that NOAA and NASA will be responsible for. I think 

this is a major step forward, and it is an opportunity to put this 

program back on track. Because the program is so vitally important to the national interest, it is important to get it back on track. 

I believe that the restructuring now has much more realistic 

budget estimate, which is part of what is in our request, a stronger 

government technical team, a procurement approach that allows 

early identification and restructuring of problems, and a management structure that can proactively manage. 

And so I think there was broad acknowledgment that the resources in the program were insufficient to accomplish its mission, 

but there was very little appetite in putting more resources into a 

dysfunctional management structure. And now that the manage-
53

ment structure is, I think, in a position to succeed, the resources 

that are in our budget will enable that to happen. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. My time has long expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Sorry. That was a long answer. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, it is an important question. It is one 

that this committee has dealt with, and we shake our head and 

think about how better we could have spent that money, but we 

are where we are. I feel that the Administration, you know, is focused on that, and that is a good place to start. 

Dr. Ehlers is recognized. 

ASIAN CARP IN THE GREAT LAKES

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most of the questions I 

might have asked have been asked, but I raise just two minor 

issues which are not really questions but will certainly lead to 

some. 

We have a major problem in the Great Lakes with the Asian 

carp coming up the Mississippi River, and you have heard the discussion about the private fishermen and the commercial fishermen. 

That is really amplified in the Great Lakes. We have something 

like—just in like Michigan $7 billion a year as a result of that. In 

the Great Lakes system it is close to $18 billion, and that is at 

stake here. 

And I certainly hope that NOAA will be very active in the scientific work that is going on. I know the Army Corps is involved. 

They have moved at a very, very slow pace. I have been talking to 

them about this for over ten years. Finally now they are getting serious action. 

But EPA is involved. I think, I hope that you keep a close eye 

on that, because I think NOAA probably has the most scientific 

credibility in dealing with the problem, at least most aspects of the 

problem. So I urge you to become actively involved, and if you—

if NOAA is not totally involved by the other parties, I hope that 

you will volunteer their services. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you, Congressman, and I—your assessment, I think, is absolutely correct. That fishery is very, very valuable and is at great risk. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. I mean, it has been so frustrating to me. I 

always have had a long time planning horizons. I started working 

on this in 1995. I just could not get people excited about it. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Uh-huh. 

Mr. EHLERS. Now that the fish are almost in the lake everyone 

is excited, and it is—it may be too late. 

A NOAA ORGANIC ACT

The other issue is something that I have also worked on a very 

long time, and that is a NOAA Organic Act. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Uh-huh. 

Mr. EHLERS. It passed the House several years ago, and it was 

too late in the year for the Senate to take it up. I was assured it 

would be the following year, and the politics changed, and it never 

has been. 
54

Part of the problem is that we have multiple—well, you have 

multiple jurisdiction, two different committees. We are interested 

in the portion of NOAA that deals with the responsibilities of this 

committee, but we have not been able to get that bill through the 

other committee that has jurisdiction over many of your activities. 

I would appreciate, and I believe the Chairman agrees with me 

on this, appreciate anything you can do to convince everyone necessary that you really want the NOAA Organic Act that we have 

prepared. It seems to me absurd that we have an agency that was 

created by Executive Order, what is it? Almost 40 years, 35? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. 1970. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. And it just doesn’t make sense, and the National Science Foundation, which is another major research organization, started out with an Organic Act——

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Uh-huh. 

Mr. EHLERS. —and has proved invaluable to them. So this is 

something that should happen. 

Now, if the fish people don’t like our Organic Act, that is fine. 

You know, there is always something fishy somewhere, but I would 

hope that you could do whatever you can to persuade everyone who 

has anything to say on this that at the very least we should pass 

the portion of the Organic Act that we have and recognize fully as 

we do that we are not impeding on the jurisdiction of the other 

committee, and we are not trying to change their activities. 

And then if they wish to write an Organic Act for their activities, 

that is fine, but they have been trying to rewrite or stop our portion, which is a major part of your work. 

So that is a plea for cooperation from everyone involved in the 

Congress and the agencies and may even go up to OMB and the 

President in terms of resolving this. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Yes, Congressman, I greatly appreciate your 

continued interest in this. NOAA would welcome an Organic Act. 

I think you are absolutely correct. It is appropriate. It may be useful for you to know that we have just received a letter from the 

Senate Commerce Committee on this very subject, and I believe 

there is keen interest on their part in seeing something happen as 

well. So we look forward to working with you on this. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, as you probably know, my time is limited. I 

will be out of office at the end of the year, so I hope we can get 

it all done this year. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Ehlers, we want to let that be one more 

tribute to you, and we have had discussions with the Natural Resources Committee. I think there has been a legitimate good faith. 

Tomorrow at 1:00 the majority and minority here will be meeting 

with their staff, and we are going to continue to try to move this 

bill forward. 

So hopefully we can give you a going away present. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, and I appreciate your constant support 

of this difficult issue. It is very important that you have done your 

work, and I very much appreciate that. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Dahlkemper is recognized for five minutes and then followed by——

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask—

I got to hear your answer regarding the issue with the fishing, 
55

sports fishing, commercial fishermen. You talked about a summit. 

Can you tell me where that is going to be and when? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It will be here in Washington, DC. It is early 

April. I could guess at the date, but I might be wrong, so I will look 

it up and——

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Will there be any opportunity for Congressional input into this summit? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I think that is an excellent idea. As far as I 

know that has not been built into the program, but I think it would 

be a useful thing for us to work with you on. 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. I would appreciate that. I reside on Lake Erie, 

and I am the only part of Pennsylvania that has Lake Erie. We 

have the smallest border of any state on the Great Lakes, but it 

is very important to the industry and to our economy. 

And with that I will yield back. That was the only question I 

had. It was already answered. Thank you. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Got the job done there. 

Mr. Wu is recognized. 

SOME GENERAL COMMENTS

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. 

Lubchenco, I want to congratulate you on adjusting to this Washington and congratulate you also on starting some very good work, 

and perhaps given Dr. Broun’s concerns about fish and fishing, perhaps the best way to put those concerns to rest, Dr. Lubchenco, is 

that you and Dr. Broun and I could go home to Oregon and do a 

little fishing. I understand there is a good run of salmon coming 

this year. 

I want to pay particular homage to Mr. Baird who is retiring. I 

note that we have Dr. Ehlers and the Chairman, who are retiring, 

and so we have three right now, three excellent Members. I hope 

that it is not an infectious process, but I want to thank you all for 

tremendous leadership of this committee. 

And Dr. Baird in particular, there has been no stronger advocate 

for the oceans and, in fact, no more passionate concern about ocean 

acidification. Now, it takes a special person to become passionate 

about ocean acidification, but it a very, very serious, very serious 

topic. It is not just the reefs and all the biodiversity that is on 

those reefs which is at threat, but the very basis of the food chain 

in our oceans is at threat because so much of planktonic life has 

a carbon—I mean, sorry, a sulken shell, which—and I am sorry. I 

am getting close enough. Calcium. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Calcium carbonate. 

Mr. WU. Calcium carbonate. It has been a long time since college, and Brian, you have been a good neighbor, a good fellow, 

Member of this Committee, and I think that what you have done 

to put ocean acidification on the issue map is a strong sign to all 

that one person can make a difference, and we will miss you on 

this committee and miss you in this Congress, as we shall miss Dr. 

Ehlers and the Chairman. 

Dr. Lubchenco, I would like to ask——

Mr. EHLERS. Will the gentleman yield? 
56

Mr. WU. Absolutely if the Chairman will make it up to me since 

I have——

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah. This will be very brief. I just want to thank 

you for your comments but also add to your comments about Dr. 

Baird. I have worked with him on a different subcommittee last 

time, and he has been an outstanding person to work with, and 

what I particularly appreciated is with his social science background he brought a unique perspective to this and made the whole 

Committee aware of the importance of the social science as a 

science in dealing with all the issues we deal with. And that I 

think has been a major contribution. 

So from that standpoint this committee loses much more with 

you than with me, because I am just a state physicist. You are 

talking about passion. I am Dutch and physicist. I don’t even know 

what passion is. 

Thank you. 

THE RELOCATION OF NOAA’S PACIFIC OPERATIONS

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers, and I also want to 

add that you were a terrific Chairman of the Subcommittee when 

I was the Ranking, and we worked together well when I was the 

Chairman and you were the Ranking, and I think that is the way 

that committees ought to work, and that is a good form of nonpartisanship. 

Dr. Lubchenco, first of all, I want to applaud you for a notice decision last August to relocate the Pacific fleet to Newport, Oregon. 

This decision I believe reflects NOAA careful and balanced consideration of the relevant facts as well as Newport’s ability to provide 

the most functional location for NOAA’s Pacific operations for the 

lowest cost to taxpayers. 

It is further my understanding that Newport demonstrated the 

strongest capacity among all applicants to meet NOAA’s needs, and 

I would like you to please speak to the process that NOAA undertook in considering potential sites for the NOAA fleet and specifically how bids were solicited, what qualities NOAA was looking for 

when searching for its new home in the Pacific Northwest, and 

what specific factors led NOAA to the conclusion that Newport offered the fleet the most functional location at greatest value to taxpayers. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, thank you. It is nice to see you 

again. The process that NOAA followed follows the guidelines set 

out by GAO and entailed a description of the different requirements for the facility, both in terms of the ability to house up to 

four vessels at one time and the ability to have located adjacent to 

that the people that need to be in close proximity to the vessels. 

We laid out a series of technical requirements, had an open-bid 

process, and reviewed all of those proposals based on their technical merits, the extent to which they met the technical requirements that had been articulated, and then rated them on the value 

proposition, with the intent of finding the best deal for the American taxpayer essentially. And I was not part of the process when 

it was set up. I was not part of the process as it played out. I came 

in sort of at the tail end of this process, and the decision that was 

made reflected the fact that the Newport offer was the highest 
57

technically rated and for the least cost. So that was pretty much 

in a nutshell the basis of the decision. 

Mr. WU. Well, Dr. Lubchenco, you know, I note that you were 

last at Oregon State, but there is no question about geographic origin here, because I note that you taught at Oregon State, the Secretary is—was governor of Washington State, so one assumes that 

there is reasonable balance and that this is a decision on the merits and will remain so. 

Mr. Chairman, will there be another round of questions? 

Chairman GORDON. That is up to Dr. Ehlers. 

So why don’t we—certainly if you have some more questions, 

why don’t we go to the return of Mr. Rohrabacher, and we will 

then—anyone that has anything else, we will—we want to be courteous to Dr. Lubchenco, but then we will move forward. 

SATELLITE AND SPACE TRANSPORTATION CAPACITIES

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. You know, this is an issue that 

actually has been around for awhile, and but it ties directly to 

something the Administration has done in another area of science. 

The Administration seems to be deciding that it is going to permit 

us to be dependent upon private sector space transportation systems in the future, and they just, of course, zeroed out the request 

for the Aries rocket and the Constellation Program. 

I seem to be the only one on this committee that has had a positive reaction to that, but it leads me to ask a question of NOAA. 

Years ago I remember there were similar proposals that the NOAA 

fleet actually, like you would say, the NASA fleet of rockets is not 

necessary because you could actually contract out to the private 

sector at a lower cost. 

Has that been looked at at all as an alternative? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I believe that when NOAA formulated its Fleet Recapitalization plan a number of years ago, well, 

before I was affiliated with NOAA, that there were—that that alternative was taken into account. I think it is the case that we currently do utilize some private, especially fishing vessels——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Uh-huh. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —for a number of important platforms. We do 

a lot of cooperative research with them, but even for other kinds 

of sensing we utilize them. But the ships that we have have very 

unique capabilities or need to be able to deliver—be platforms for 

unique things that cannot be easily done on a commercial fishing 

vessel for example. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Uh-huh. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. On the other hand, for many of the hydrographic surveys we currently do utilize private vessels for a number of those. I don’t have the breakdown. It is a combination. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, you might take a look. If they are trying to make every penny count, which we have to do these days—

otherwise we won’t have enough money to bailout Wall Street and 

give big bankers money after they have given themselves billions 

of dollars of bonuses over the years, so now we have to cut back 

on NOAA or NASA or whatever. 

Well, anyway, that is a whole other issue, not concerning you, 

but if we can save taxpayers some money by contracting out, just 
58

like, for example, in NASA relying on private rocket companies 

rather than having NASA do something at a much greater expense, 

that may make some sense. 

THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Let me get—I have an article here talking about how the cold 

weather is killing huge areas of the coral down in Florida, and let 

me just note that I thought it was global warming that was causing 

all of this trouble with the ocean. Some people tell me that there 

hasn’t been any significant warming for 15 years, and other people 

say, no, no. The manmade global warming, it is still on the way. 

Has there been warming in the last let us say five to 10 years? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, we just completed the warmest 

decade on record. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is odd, because just, I mean—for someone to say that as we have just passed through the coldest time period in California that I can remember, I mean, I don’t, I honestly 

don’t remember a colder time period in California. I think that 

across this country there is very few people that can remember a 

colder time period than these last few years. 

So how is it that we have—we completed the hottest decade, or 

does that mean that we completed a decade in which there was a 

high year and that was the highest year there was in a number 

of years? Or was it a temperature or that the temperatures all 

were up? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, there is a long-term warning 

trend that is underway and for which there is very good evidence. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Uh-huh. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. And there is year-to-year variability in that that 

is short-term climate variation, and this year, for example, if we 

just highlight this year, there are two phenomena that are known 

to vary from year to year. One is El Nino, and one is something 

called the Arctic Oscillation, and those two, again, vary from year 

to year, and are sort of superimposed upon the long-term warming 

of the planet that is underway. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. My time is just up now, but let me just note. 

This debate could go on a long time because I obviously disagree 

with that—with some of your premises there, but let me just note 

there are—and I would submit for the record at this moment the 

names of 100 major prominent scientists, some of them heads of 

major science departments at universities throughout the country, 

who disagree with that assessment about the long-term global 

warming. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:]
59
60
61

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. I actually want to clarify for my good friend from 

California that it is not anthropogenic CO2 that caused the apparent cooling of California. It is Mr. Rohrabacher himself. The reason 

for that is is it would be a cold day in hell when Dana Rohrabacher 

quoted the Russian Academy of Scientists, and hence we have 

ascertained the cause of the apparently cold snap in California. 
62

I want to, on a more serious note, thank my dear friend, Mr. Wu, 

and neighbor to the south for his kind comments and Dr. Ehlers 

as well. The feelings are mutual on both sides. We will have time 

to get even more maudlin as the year goes on, but I am grateful 

for your kind words and for the privilege of serving with you. 

THE NOAA AQUARIUS LAB AND HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS

Two quick things. One, I just want to put a quick marker down. 

As you know, I am—I have been to the Aquarius Lab. I just think 

it is a treasure, and I hope it is well funded in the budget. I haven’t 

seen that line item. Maybe you can address that very, very briefly, 

but I think they do remarkable work there, not only for science 

itself, NOAA’s science mission, but also as a platform for training 

for NASA astronauts, Navy SEALs, and others. And I know they 

have been through a rough spell lately, but I am a big believer in 

Aquarius. 

Finally, we unfortunately failed to pass under suspension yesterday a bill that I authored on the harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, 

and I wonder if you could just briefly talk about as a scientist 

about those issues, you know, in a one-minute summary of why 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia matter. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, the Aquarius Laboratory is an 

important asset, and as you know, we are nearing the end of a review of our entire diving program with the idea of making sure 

that it is as safe as possible for everyone involved, and there will 

be recommendations coming from that. There are not significant increases that are proposed for that program. We are sort of waiting 

to see exactly how the recommendations are going to play out, and 

then we will be implementing them. 

Mr. BAIRD. If I may, but there is no plan, so zero funding out? 

You are at least holding it even I trust? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That is my understanding. 

Mr. BAIRD. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Harmful algal blooms are not unheard of in—

let me start that over. Harmful algal blooms are outbreaks, an explosion in growth of some microscopic plants typically, and they are 

increasing in frequency and severity and duration, and many of 

them result in the production of toxins that can be—that can kill 

fish or produce threats to human health. Many of them also result 

in using up—when the microscopic plants begin to decay, the bacteria that are decomposing then use up all the oxygen in the water, 

and that creates a dead zone as an area of insufficient oxygen for 

most animals. 

And so you can also get fish kills because there is not enough oxygen or because there is a toxin. Both are very, very important. 

Many of them are—many of these harmful algal blooms are increasing because of runoff of nutrients from the land, and they are 

a very serious threat to many fisheries and to tourism, to many 

coastal—to the health of many coastal communities, and our activities, thanks to the interest of you and others, have been increasing 

over the years, but they are not at the scale that they could or 

should be. 

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate that. I just for the record observe that 

some of my colleagues today who have expressed great concern for 
63

hunting and fishing did not support this legislation, and I would 

say from those who care about the health of marine systems, both 

freshwater and salt water, species are greatly endangered by both 

harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and I would hope as is, as you 

mentioned, tourism, especially on the Florida and Gulf Coast and 

my own coast is affected. 

So I appreciate your insights into that, and thank the Chair for 

a second round. 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir, Dr. Baird, and with no objection Mr. 

Rohrabacher’s list will be resubmitted for the record. 

And Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. I just came back to get some things I left. I thought 

you would surely be through by now. This good lady straightened 

me out, and I left. 

And on the algal, harmful algal blooms, the only thing that worries me, it is a good program. I support that program, but the 

amounts kind of startled us a little bit. The last authorization I 

think was 26 million. The last appropriation was 15 million, and 

the President’s budget was 15 million. This one was 41 million. I 

just thought it was too much money, but I will take another look 

at it. 

I am not sure. I don’t know what has been asked. I will yield 

back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Wu, I think you said you wanted to—Mr. 

Wu wanted to have a final word. 

Mr. WU. My father always wanted me to be a doctor, Mr. Chairman, so maybe that will fix things. 

You know, Mr. Baird is always a pleasant surprise. I mean, I am 

finally catching up to him on ocean acidification and now he has 

moved onto hypoxia and eutrophication. So it is a constantly moving target. 

MORE ON THE NPOESS PROGRAM

Dr. Lubchenco, I spent some time focusing on NPOESS first 

when I was the Ranking Member with Dr. Ehlers as Chair and 

then later when I was Chair of the Subcommittee which then had 

jurisdiction over NOAA and the NPOESS Program, and I would 

have to say that it has been a long and somewhat tortured program. And I understand that after much consideration there is a 

decision to split the program into a DOD and a NOAA component. 

And the original program came because two Administrations ago 

the decision was made that there were gains to be made by joining 

the DOD and NOAA Programs, the Civilian and Military Programs, and now that many of the very difficult instruments have 

actually been developed and a bus has been developed, now we 

have a split of the program after $5.6 billion has been spent on it. 

And Dr. Lubchenco, this is my concern. I understand that, you 

know, these decisions are made somewhere else in the Executive 

Branch, but I got to say that I am deeply concerned that the decision to split looks great right now, but, you know, satellite programs don’t come in on cost, and we have these instruments that 

are developed, a bus that has been developed. In essence, a lot of 

the risk is behind us and now we have at least one nascent pro-
64

gram over at DOD, and I understand that the NOAA Satellite Program is like a rounding error on the DOD Satellite Program. 

I am deeply concerned that three years from now, four years 

from now, five years from now just as I expressed to Administrator 

Bolden about what his Privatization Program would do to costs on 

the NASA side, I am deeply concerned that the DOD Program, 

which is not under this committee’s jurisdiction, will balloon in 

cost, and we will repeat the NPOESS experience, except now we 

will have two programs. I assume that the NOAA Program will 

continue in roughly its form, and a lot of the risk is behind us, but 

as an Administration matter I am concerned that some other committee has—Armed Services will have to deal with those cost overruns on the NPOESS Program. And it seems irresponsible to me 

to go down that path and throw away a significant part of the $5.6 

billion which has already been invested. 

And I would like you to—I would invite you to address that concern. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WU. Is every satellite program to run over budget? Is it the 

nature of pushing the frontiers, is it the nature of pushing technology? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I believe that the Administration’s decision to restructure the NPOESS Program reflects many 

of the recommendations that have been made by the GAO reports 

over the last nine years, as well as the Independent Review Team’s 

assessment, all of which noted that since its inception in 1994, the 

NPOESS Program increased in cost 87 percent, while delaying——

Mr. WU. Is that in line——

Dr. LUBCHENCO. —a launch——

Mr. WU. —with other satellite programs? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It is—no, not in NOAA’s experience. In NOAA’s 

experience——

Mr. WU. What about in DOD’s experience? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I can’t speak to that but——

Mr. WU. Can you get that information? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I can certainly get that information. 

Mr. WU. Thank you. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. One thing that I think bears pointing out is that 

NOAA and NASA have jointly operated a number of satellite systems, and those, in fact, have been very successful, and they have 

overseen the procurement, the development, the procurement, the 

launch, and the operation of those systems. And so we do have 

good experience in doing just that. 

The satellite system, the NPOESS Satellite System, the proposal 

of the Administration is to separate the procurement parts of the 

responsibilities but to continue to share the parts of the program 

that are working well, which is the ground-based systems. And so 

recognizing that the Department of Defense’s primary interest is in 

the morning orbit, they would have responsibility for that morning 

orbit. The instruments and the satellite system, and NOAA’s responsibility with NASA in assistance would be for the afternoon 

orbit, which is appropriate for our weather and satellite information. 
65

And so the fundamental management problem that was driving 

much of the cost overruns and repeated delays and loss of capacity 

was the challenge of making joint procurement decisions with 

agencies that have widely-differing budgets, sizes, cultures, decision-making processes, and completely different requirements. And 

so I believe that the Administration decision has taken heed of all 

the problems and has identified a path to success for this program. 

I am very enthusiastic about where we are now and believe that 

this will put us back on track. I think the program was an embarrassment, and I think that we now have a mechanism to be able 

to ensure the continuity of climate and weather data from space 

that is so vital to the Nation. 

Mr. WU. Well, a concern is that the program had become some- what embarrassing at $13 billion, but I think the question is 

whether we will be further embarrassed at two programs, whether 

they will cost more than $13 billion combined, and I think that this 

committee will observe with great interest NOAA’s part of that expense, and as Members of Congress we will generally observe with 

great interest how DOD does with the other part, with the morning 

orbit satellite. 

FISHING CATCH SHARES

Mr. Chairman, if there are not other questioners, I would like to 

ask one more question about catch shares. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, Ms. or Dr. Lubchenco has been very 

generous with her time today, but, yes, if you have another quick 

one we can go forward. 

Mr. WU. You bet. You bet. Dr. Lubchenco, I think that good 

science makes for good decision making, and especially in the contentious area like fisheries. Good science and good data are truly, 

truly important, and important data for things like stock assessments is absolutely crucial and fishery-dependent data like catch 

accounting. And it is my belief that catch shares properly implemented can actually improve science because they allow folks to get 

better fisheries-dependent information, and it is in that spirit, Dr. 

Lubchenco, that I want to ask you, what plans does NOAA have 

to ensure the best scientific management of the Pacific Groundfish 

Fishery? And how do you plan on working with the fishing industry 

to ensure that fishing opportunities are maximized while also allowing depleted fish stocks to recover in appropriate ways? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, as you know, the Groundfish 

Fishery is being considered by the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council for our Catch Share Program, and there are very active 

discussions underway about the appropriate design for that program, and a design that is both durable as well as attendant to the 

various needs of different types of fishermen in that fishery. The 

design is being done based on good scientific information, and I 

think you are absolutely correct that the observer programs and 

monitoring that are affiliated with that program will continue to 

give us better and better information about the state of the fishery. 

It is a fishery that was significantly depleted, and this proposal 

I think is a very encouraging one, and NOAA looks forward to receiving from the council the proposals that—we look forward to 

working with them on that. 
66

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Dr. Lubchenco, for that response, 

and I just want to, again, invite Dr. Broun, who is concerned about 

the future of fishing, to look at what you all are doing in the catch 

shares. It wouldn’t make sense to do catch shares unless we were 

going to continue to fish in one way or another. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for granting us this 

additional opportunity to ask questions. 

CLOSING

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Lubchenco, thank you for your time and 

patience today. We have a lot of common interests, and I am sure 

we will continue to work together in good harmony. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from members and for answers to any follow-up questions 

the Committee may ask of the witnesses. The witness is excused, 

and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(67)

Appendix: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
68

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 Bart Gordon

Q1. Under the overall Science and Technology Programs, the Climate Protection Pro- gram has a nearly $3 million decrease in the FY 11 budget. A sizeable amount 

of this decrease pertains to S&T activities for ENERGY STAR. However, there 

is a budget increase for the Climate Protection Program under the Environmental Programs and Management Office. There seems to be a shift in the Climate Protection Program priorities.

a. What is the justification for not seeking additional funds for the Climate Protection Program under Science and Technology activities, especially if its intended goal is to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in vehicles? Is research in 

this program still a priority?

A1a. Climate Protection Program activities are an important component of what the 

agency is doing to meet our goal of addressing global climate change. The reduction 

in the Science and Technology (S&T) Account consists of a $1 million reduction to 

the ENERGY STAR program. This program is primarily funded through the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) appropriation; in FY 2010, we requested a reprogramming to allow S&T funds to be used to support the ENERGY 

STAR MOU with DOE. In FY 2011, that work will be funded from the EPM appropriation with the rest of the ENERGY STAR program. The remaining reduction will 

affect National Vehicle and Fuels Emissions Laboratory’s technology demonstration 

projects with the California South Coast Air Quality Management District, the California Air Resources Board, and the California Energy Commission.

b. While funding decreased for ENERGY STAR S&T activities, ENERGY STAR 

funding levels grew in Environmental Programs and Management. Will the 

expansion of ENERGY STAR within EPM be sufficiently supported by complementary research components?

A1b. Increased funding is requested for the ENERGY STAR program to support the 

ENERGY STAR program across the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. 

Key investments in EPA’s energy efficiency programs will expand their reach and 

make an important contribution to advancing the Administration’s climate change 

objectives. 

Some technical support for the ENERGY STAR program comes from the Department of Energy (DOE), which works with EPA to develop testing standards for evaluating the energy efficiency of product categories covered by the program. Separately, the Global Change Research program, run by the Office of Research and Development, does not directly support the ENERGY STAR program. EPA’s Global 

Change research program is focused on understanding and assessing the effects of 

global change—particularly climate variability and change—on air quality, water 

quality, aquatic ecosystems, human health and social well being in the United 

States and supports the Administrator’s priorities for taking action on climate 

change, improving air quality and protecting America’s waters.

c. What science and technology research has been or will be done that will underpin the goals of the ENERGY STAR program?

A1c. As noted above, technical support for the ENERGY STAR program occurs at 

both EPA and DOE. DOE,works with EPA to develop product testing and 

verification procedures for evaluating the energy efficiency of products that earn the 

ENERGY STAR. EPA oversees all ENERGY STAR requirements and manages the 

ENERGY STAR brand (including product verification and enforcement against logo 

violations). EPA’s climate protection partnership programs promote successful strategies and practical solutions to help Americans reduce energy use, save money and 

protect the environment. These programs have produced sizeable benefits since 1992 

throughout the commercial, industrial and residential sectors due to the efforts of 

thousands of committed partners.

Questions submitted by Representative Marcia L. Fudge

Q1. I am pleased to see that the Office of Research and Development request for endocrine disrupting chemicals research is at $17 million, showing a 54 percent 

increase. This is especially important to my district, which borders Lake Erie. 
69

Fish in the Great Lakes are known to be contaminated with polychlorinated 

biphenyls, or PCBs, as well as other man-made chemicals. This contamination 

has caused fish to experience numerous reproductive problems, as well as abnormal swelling of the thyroid glands. It is also know that during embryonic development, all vertebrates are fundamentally similar and it is safe to assume that 

humans also experience reproductive and developmental problems from this contamination.

a. What will the Office of Research and Development do to leverage the funding 

provided for endocrine disrupting chemicals research to improve the water 

quality in the Great Lakes?

b. More specifically, how we will transition from not just researching the problem, but fixing the problem?

A1. The increased resources for EDC research will enable EPA to apply the latest 

state-of-the-art technologies and innovations to advance the assessment and management of chemicals with potential endocrine disrupting effects and other emerging 

contaminants of concern to better protect human health and wildlife. Of particular 

relevance to the Great Lakes (GL), methods have been developed to assess the effect 

of chemicals on the estrogen, androgen, and thyroid pathways using fish and amphibian species. ORD scientists have been in discussions with Great Lakes National 

Program Office (GLNPO) staff regarding these chemicals of concern to EPA. In general, these chemicals are predicted to be or known to be present in the Great Lakes 

environment, but whose toxicological properties are insufficiently understood to 

allow for scientifically sound risk assessment. EPA recognizes that the tools developed by ORD could be used to address some of the uncertainties associated with 

chemical contaminants in the Great Lakes. For example, EPA’s Office of Water is 

applying results of ORD’s research to evaluate the impacts of emerging contaminants and develop mitigation measures to impacted waterbodies such as the Great 

Lakes. 

For example, ORD has developed assays for the Agency’s Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP) as mandated in the Food Quality Protection Act. Of particular relevance to the Great Lakes (GL), methods have been developed to assess 

the effect of chemicals on the estrogen, androgen, and thyroid pathways using fish 

and amphibian species. Although these methods were originally developed to meet 

the needs of the EDSP, they are also amenable to being used to evaluate environmental samples. 

In addition, as a direct result of the above activities is a new collaboration with 

USFWS which utilizes ORD’s expertise in EDCs to augment field studies that 

USFWS is undertaking with Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funding. 

Specifically, ORD will employ a small fish model developed under the EDRP to 

evaluate effects of chemicals in the GL on estrogen and androgen pathways in fish. 

In addition, a partnership between EPA Region V GLNPO and ORD, under the 

GLRI, is planned to enhance and exploit ORD’s ability to apply their expertise to 

further assess the estrogen, androgen, and thyroid pathway effects of chemicals in 

the GL environment. 

Furthermore, ORD pursues solutions to the problems of PCBs and other anthropogenic contaminants in sediments under both the EDRP and the Land Research Program’s Contaminated Sediments Research Program. Through the latter program, 

three aspects of risk management have been emphasized: predicting the effectiveness of dredging, understanding mechanisms affecting monitored natural recovery, 

and evaluating active cleanup options. The dredging research focuses on the concern 

that post-dredging residual volumes and contaminant concentrations are still high 

enough to harm ecological receptors directly and humans indirectly via fish ingestion. Locations for this field research include: Ashtabula River, Ashtabula, Ohio, and 

Ottawa River, Toledo, Ohio. Research on monitored natural recovery (MNR) is directed at understanding the mechanisms (principally natural capping) and rates of 

reducing contaminant exposures. Field research on MNR occurred at Lake Hartwell, 

South Carolina. Active cleanup options focus on innovative capping technologies and 

improved methods for management of PCBs and other priority pollutants. This research considers chemical concentrations, biological effects, and contaminant flux 

when appropriate. Where possible, this research has partnered with other groups 

such as the GLNPO, academics, and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. On May 21st, 2009, the Administrator issued a memo outlining the new process 

for setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Her memo outlined five major elements of the process: Planning, Integrated Science Assess-
70

ment, Risk and Exposure Assessment, Policy Assessment, and Rulemaking. This 

is a heavily involved process and takes a period of years. The current criteria 

pollutants affect many areas of the country, while their impacts at the regional 

and local levels. EPA chose not to follow a similar comprehensive process when 

making a determination on carbon dioxide, a pollutant it claims has global public health and welfare consequences. Why was a similar rigorous process not instituted for the endangerment finding even if not delineated by any statute?

A1. In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, EPA has 

been examining the scientific and technical basis for the Endangerment and Cause 

or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air 

Act (herein referred to as the Findings) since 2007. EPA followed a rigorous, methodical, and transparent process to develop the Technical Support Document (TSD) 

accompanying the Findings, which summarizes the soundest available science reflecting the peer-reviewed and fully vetted scientific literature on greenhouse gases, 

climate change, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts. Beginning in 2007 when EPA 

initiated work on the TSD and twice in 2009, the TSD underwent three rounds of 

technical review by 12 Federal experts from USGS, NOAA, DOE, USDA, NASA, 

HHS/CDC, EPA, and OSTP. It also went through three rounds of internal EPA review, and two rounds of public comment. Thus, while the process followed for 

issuing the endangerment finding was different than the NAAQS process (some specific elements of which are required by statute); it was a robust and transparent 

process that met the Agency’s standards of rigorous scientific review.

Q2. There have been several suggestions that the decision on the endangerment 

fording was predetermined. In fact, during his campaign, President Obama 

pledged to classify carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant that can be regulated if he won the election. This statement seems to imply that regardless of 

what the scientific evidence held, President Obama had already made up his 

mind and claimed his Administration would proceed on this track. How does 

this position adhere to the President’s stated intent to make policy decisions 

based on sound science through transparent processes and upholding the basic 

tenets of scientific integrity? How does this position adhere to your stated intent 

during the hearing that any kind of political interference with science is antithetical to scientific integrity?

A2. The process of developing the Findings began in 2007 under the previous Administration as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. 

The Administrator’s determinations relied solely on a careful consideration of the 

full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of hundreds of thousands 

of public comments. To the extent some people believe the May 2009 announcement 

regarding motor vehicles was evidence that the endangerment finding was preordained, they are mistaken. The final Findings discuss the fact that the Administrator’s decision was not preordained, explaining that the endangerment provisions 

would have to be satisfied in order for EPA to finalize emission standards for motor 

vehicles under 202(a). (see Federal Register Notice Volume 74 No. 239 pg 66502). 

This explanation is consistent with statements made in the EPA and Department 

of Transportation’s Notice of Upcoming Joint Rulemaking to Establish Vehicle GHG 

Emissions and CAFE Standards (May, 2009) and EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas 

emissions standards for light duty motor vehicles (September, 2009). Nothing was 

preordained and EPA made it very clear that the full process for endangerment and 

cause or contribute would have to be completed before finalizing emission standards 

under 202(a) of the CAA. The Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings 

upheld the highest level of scientific integrity and transparency.

Q3. The Technical Support Document for the endangerment finding uses data for 

U.S. and global greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations based on reporting 

requirement procedures set out by the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the last few months, DOE, NASA and NOAA 

put together an interagency group to establish a Greenhouse Gas Information 

System. According to this interagency group, anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are approximately 5% of natural surface source/sink fluxes. They estimate 

that current source-sink uncertainties are 50 to 80 times larger than required 

for treaty verification, such as those set out by the UNFCCC. This substantial 

margin of error suggests that we know less about our actual emissions and sinks 

than has been previously suggested.

a. How would you compare the use of data that have substantial uncertainties 

with the requirement of high quality data for other air emissions in setting 

standards?
71

1http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

2PART 98—MANDATORY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING. http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/emissions/downloads09/GHG-MRR-FinalRule.pdf

A3a. First, to be clear, the observed increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, such as methane, is primarily driven by 

anthropogenic emissions of these gases. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane now appear to be at their highest levels compared to, at least, the 

past 650,000 years. While there are significant uncertainties related to our understanding of the carbon cycle in its entirety, the bulk of this uncertainty is related 

to the nonanthropogenic component (e.g., ocean-atmosphere exchange). Both the 

endangerment finding and the UNFCCC address anthropogenic sources and sinks, 

which can be quantified according to well-established inventory methodologies. For 

fossil-fuel combustion, which is the largest source of anthropogenic emissions in 

many countries, tracking anthropogenic emissions is a straight-forward process involving energy consumption data and the intrinsic and well-characterized properties 

of different fuels. The quality of greenhouse gas emissions data is comparable to the 

quality of data on other air emissions.

b. Will the setting of standards for greenhouse gas emissions not require the 

same quality of data as is required for criteria pollutants?

A3b. Setting standards for greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. requires high quality data. At the national level, the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks provides a high quality peer reviewed data set for the contributions of various 

source categories and economic sectors to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.1

At the facility level, EPA already receives high quality carbon dioxide emissions 

data measured hourly from facilities in the Acid Rain Program, which in total represent over one-third of annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, as part of the recently finalized Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR) for greenhouse gases, EPA will receive high quality facility-level data from other stationary 

sources across the economy.2 The MRR covers approximately 10,000 facilities across 

the country emitting over 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent or approximately 80–85% of national greenhouse gas emissions. The first facility-level 

emission reports are due March 31, 2011. 

c. If they do not, does this mean that EPA does not consider greenhouse gas 

emissions to be as much of an endangerment to the public health and welfare 

as the criteria pollutants?

A3c. Within the Administrator’s Findings there was no formal or quantitative comparison between the extent to which the six greenhouse gases endanger public 

health and welfare and the extent to which criteria air pollutants endanger public 

health and welfare. Such a comparison is not part of the Administrator’s 

endangerment test for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Act.

d. If EPA does consider greenhouse gas emissions to be at least as much of a 

danger to public health and welfare as the criteria pollutants, why did EPA 

not apply the same rigorous requirements for this determination as is used 

to revise standards for criteria pollutants?

A3d. Please see our response to Question 1 and Question 3C.

Q4. In a March 8th speech at the National Press Club, Administrator Jackson commented that: ‘‘This is what smart environmental protection does. It creates a 

need—in other words, a market for clean technology—and then drives innovation and invention—in other words, new products for that market.’’

a. If the government is the one to establish the market and make decisions about 

which products meet this criteria, doesn’t this result in the Federal Government picking winners and losers based on its own ever-changing agenda?

b. If the regulations are put in place by an agency, rather than by Congress, 

couldn’t they be overturned easily by the next Administration?

c. How can companies rely on such regulations?

A4. Question (a) asks whether the government should be the entity that establishes 

markets for clean technology. Public health and welfare are harmed by pollution. 

For example, our nation’s air is a common property resource used by all and which 

the government is responsible to protect. When the government limits pollution 

under environmental laws, those policies create markets for cleaner technologies; 

however, creating the demand for pollution reduction does not require the government to pick which particular technologies are needed to comply with such regula-
72

tions. In fact, some of the most important and innovative approaches to regulation 

intentionally avoid having the government pick winners and losers. 

The hypothetical alternative would be for the government not to address harmful 

emissions, which is inconsistent with the laws passed. In that case, pollution could 

be emitted freely—even though those emissions damage public health, natural resources, and ecosystems. These costs of uncontrolled emissions would not be reflected in the market price of goods and services produced by the emitting company. 

Economists cite this as a classic example of a ‘‘market failure,’’ and this is the justification for environmental policy-making by government. 

Air programs have used a variety of approaches to reduce pollution and create demand for cleaner technologies, without mandating a particular technology. For example, rules can set an overall emissions budget and allow facilities to comply either by reducing emissions, by buying emissions allowances, or a combination of the 

two. Examples of this include the Acid Rain Program, the NOx Budget Trading Program to reduce interstate ozone pollution, and the market-based system for phasing 

out certain ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol. Another option 

is performance standards that set numerical emission limits which allow any existing or new technology that performs cleanly enough to be used for compliance. Additional compliance flexibility for companies can be provided by coupling a performance standard with the opportunity to average, bank or trade emissions credits 

among different pieces of equipment or among vehicles. Performance standards with 

averaging, trading and banking have been routinely used in EPA’s motor vehicle 

regulations for more than 20 years. In a non-regulatory context, EPA’s ENERGY 

STAR programs has used voluntary performance requirements and labels since 1992 

to advance the adoption of energy efficiency by providing homeowners, consumers, 

and businesses with trusted, unbiased information on reliable, cost-effective, efficient products, services, and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while 

saving money. 

The nation has seen remarkable progress in the development of cleaner technologies to meet our nation’s environmental policy requirements. There are numerous examples of low-emission technologies developed and/or commercialized over the 

past 15 or 20 years, such as:

• Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and ultra-low-NOx burners to reduce NOx

• Scrubbers which achieve 95% and even greater SO2 control on boilers

• Sophisticated new valve seals and leak detection equipment for refineries and 

chemical plans

• Low- or zero-VOC paints, consumer products and cleaning processes

• Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) free air conditioners, refrigerators, and solvents

• Water and powder-based coatings to replace petroleum-based formulations

• Vehicles far cleaner than believed possible in the late 1980s due to improvements in evaporative controls, catalyst design and fuel control systems for 

light-duty vehicles; and treatment devices and retrofit technologies for heavyduty engines

• Idle-reduction technologies for engines, including truck stop electrification

• Clean fuels

These technologies were not commercially available two decades ago; some were 

not even in existence. Yet today, all of these technologies are on the market, and 

many are widely employed. Studies have found that the costs of some EPA air pollution programs and regulations have been lower than originally estimated, and this 

may have been due, in part, to our inadequate ability to predict and account for future technological innovation and our use of flexible regulatory structures that utilize market-based incentives. (For example, see Harrington, W., R.D. Morgenstern, 

and P. Nelson. 2000. ‘‘On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates.’’ Journal of 

Policy Analysis and Management 19(2):297–322. Additional studies are cited by Harrington. Note that this study also identified that benefits of programs and regulations have also been lower than originally estimated.) 

Question (b) implies that there is a choice: Either issue regulations under current 

law or wait for Congress to pass a new climate law (which itself would require implementing regulations by the executive branch). In reality, executive branch agencies such as EPA have a legal duty to make determinations and issue regulations 

that are mandated by current law. The Clean Air Act Amendments were overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 1990, and 

the Supreme Court in 2007 decided that greenhouse gases are air pollutants as defined by the Clean Air Act. The executive branch must faithfully execute the laws 

enacted by Congress as interpreted by the courts. Administrator Jackson has testi-
73

fied that implementing current law and supporting legislation are not mutually exclusive; she strongly supports new energy and climate legislation and also is making 

decisions as required by current law. 

Regarding questions (b) and (c), Administrator Jackson has stated that in carrying out the law consistent with the Supreme Court decision, EPA will address 

greenhouse gases to protect public health and welfare in ways that are sensible and 

effective, focus on the largest emitters, encourage clean technologies and strengthen 

the economy.

Q5. In the March 8th speech at the National Press Club, Administrator Jackson 

stated that, ‘‘many still claim that regulation is too costly, and believe that scaling back is the best thing for growth. We’ve also already seen that in action. The 

theory that less regulation ought to be good for the economy was put to the test 

in the last administration.’’ The obvious reverse sentiment to this statement is 

that more regulation is not bad for the economy. However, many of the economic 

crises that occurred during the Carter Administration were a result of over regulation. Do you think this reverse sentiment is true, that more regulation will not 

harm the economy?

A5. First and foremost, environmental regulations have improved and will continue 

to improve the health and welfare of the American people, prolonging life and greatly reducing the adverse impacts of environmental degradation. From 1970 to 2007, 

air regulations reduced emissions of the six principal criteria pollutants while U.S. 

gross domestic product increased by over 200 percent. The most recent regulations 

(since 2000), including diesel regulations controlling emissions from heavy duty 

trucks and other engines that came into effect in 2007, by themselves are expected 

to result in thousands of premature deaths avoided annually at full implementation 

and billions in annual monetized benefits from health and environmental improvements. Recent regulations such as the diesel standards have benefits far in excess 

of costs—for example the non-road diesel rule is estimated to have benefits that are 

40 times the costs of the rule. Not only can we achieve these benefits without harming the economy, we know that a healthy population, with fewer demands on health 

care and less absenteeism at work and school, are key to promoting a competitive, 

flourishing economy. Smart environmental regulation can improve the economy in 

a number of ways.

1) We are healthier and smarter as a result of environmental regulations. Our 

enhanced health makes us miss less work, less school, and lowers our demand for health care. With lower rates of birth defects, childhood illnesses 

and disabilities, and the economy should spend less on health care. 

2) Regulations improve our nation’s water, air and land, which in turn support 

large recreational and commercial industries. Cleaning our air, water, and 

land, can be viewed as investments in critical infrastructure. Clean water 

supports fishing, boating, and other recreational industries. For example, 

recreational boating alone has an economic impact on the economy of roughly 

$40 billion per year. Commercial fishing, also supported by clean water, is 

responsible for over $100 billion a year in economic impact on the economy. 

Cleaning up waste sites, returns valuable land to the economy to be put back 

to productive use, creating jobs and economic growth. 

3) Regulations can result in innovations and new industries as emitters look for 

cheaper ways to meet regulatory requirements. Many of our leading industrial firms have publicly acknowledged the role that regulations have played 

in rethinking production and business practices. These innovations have created new products that can be sold here and abroad. (Some specific examples 

are).

• Working to comply with relatively new regulations in effect in 1975 (placing scrubbers on smokestacks, treating effluents before releasing wastewater, and segregating some solid waste for incineration) led 3M to work 

on pollution prevention to eliminate rather than having to treat as much 

pollution as possible.

• Toxic Release Inventory reporting helped DuPont realize in the 1980s 

that it was one of the world’s biggest polluters despite spending $1 billion 

annually on waste treatment and pollution controls. This prompted management to work on cutting both emissions and costs, and resulted in reducing expenditures to $400 million annually, according to DuPont.

• British Petroleum committed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in 

the late 1990s and within three years found numerous ways to cut emissions, improve efficiency, and reduce costs.
74

3PART 98—MANDATORY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING. http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/emissions/downloads09/GHG-MRR-FinalRule.pdf

Q6. In the past few months, there has been a burgeoning interagency effort between 

DOE, NASA and NOAA to create a Greenhouse Gas Information System. This 

system would be used to assess emissions, offsets and baselines that many have 

stated would be necessary for any new international obligations, since right now, 

emission uncertainties of the top 5 global emitters of greenhouse gases match or 

exceed total emissions of the rest of the world.

a. First of all, why is EPA not a part of this effort if a baseline would be required for your agency to establish any regulations dealing with carbon dioxide? Who collected the information for the baseline that was the foundation 

of the Acid Rain Program?

A6a. EPA has participated in discussions about a potential GHGIS, including attendance by EPA greenhouse gas monitoring experts at the May 20–22, 2009 

scoping meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and numerous follow-up discussions 

with technical staff from other agencies. EPA, DOE, NASA, and NOAA have found 

these discussions to be helpful in further clarifying greenhouse gas data needs for 

policies and programs (i.e., beyond current research needs). EPA also made a presentation to the National Research Council panel compiling the report on ‘‘Verifying 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Methods to Support International Climate Agreements’’. 

The emissions baseline for the Acid Rain Program was calculated on the basis of 

two data sources: (i) facility-level emissions rates from the 1985 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, and (ii) heat input data for the same facilities for 

1985, 1986, and 1987 from the Energy Information Administration. The National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) collected baseline data on actual wet sulfate and nitrate deposition, and was supplemented with data on dry sulfate deposition in the late 1980s through the Clean Air Status and Trends Network 

(CASTNET).

b. Shouldn’t a system like this be in place before we would be able to even enter 

into international negotiations? How many treaties are negotiated when nations are not aware of their own starting points?

A6b. For the purposes of establishing baselines for potential greenhouse gas programs in the U.S., EPA will have significantly better facility-level emissions data 

than were available for the start of the Acid Rain Program because of the Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR) for greenhouse gases.3 The MRR will provide EPA with 

monitored greenhouse gas emissions data from approximately 10,000 facilities 

across the country emitting over 25,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, representing approximately 80–85% of national greenhouse gas emissions. The 

first facility-level emission reports are due March 31, 2011. 

Data needs to support an international treaty depend on the requirements of the 

treaty. The foundation for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change (UNFCCC) is the national greenhouse gas inventory rather than facilitylevel data. Parties to the UNFCCC have submitted national reports on greenhouse 

gas emissions, which provide a starting point for current and future negotiations. 

The recently published National Academies report titled ‘‘Verifying Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: Methods to Support International Climate Agreements’’ stated that 

‘‘UNFCCC procedures have been, and will likely continue to be, the primary means 

for monitoring and verifying greenhouse gas emissions and reductions under a new 

international climate treaty.’’ The report also concluded that ‘‘each country could estimate fossil-fuel CO2 emissions accurately enough to support monitoring of a climate treaty.’’ EPA, USAID and the State Department are working with developing 

countries to improve their greenhouse gas inventories, particularly in the area of 

landuse, land-use change and forestry.

Q7. During the hearing, I questioned you if you had any knowledge of EPA scientists 

who question the IPCC data and the heavy reliance of that data in EPA’s 

endangerment finding. You stated you had no knowledge of them since there 

were so many scientists at EPA.

a. Since that time, what have you done to determine whether or not scientists 

at EPA question the veracity of the IPCC data or have concerns about EPA’s 

use of the data as a substantial justification for the endangerment finding?

b. If you have not taken any steps to determine this, do you plan to and how 

will you go about doing it?
75

A7. As I stated in my answers at the hearing, EPA, and myself personally, have 

a commitment to scientific integrity. To quote Albert Einstein, ‘‘the right to search 

for the truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has 

recognized to be the truth.’’ That means that it would be unnecessary for me to seek 

out scientists with a particular opinion. Any scientist has the opportunity to provide 

scientific evidence relating to this or any other science issue to me. Therefore, I have 

no plans to poll EPA scientists on this issue.

Q8. During the hearing, I asked you if you thought that EPA should go back and 

review the scientific basis for its findings given the many questions that have 

arisen about , the quality of the data used by the IPCC. Since this time, the 

InterAcademy Council has been requested by the UN to conduct an independent 

review of the IPCC processes and procedures. This request illustrates the grave 

concerns of the international community of the quality of data and conclusions 

presented in the 4th Assessment Report.

a. How does this demonstration of lack of trust in IPCC results affect EPA’s scientific assessment used for the endangerment finding?

A8a. We do not agree that the U.N.’s request for an InterAcademy Council review 

demonstrates a lack of trust in the IPCC or calls into question the current understanding of climate change science and the causal linkage between human-caused 

greenhouse gas emissions and warming of the climate system. We note that the 

IPCC reports were one of several broad assessment reports that the Agency drew 

upon in developing the Findings, along with the wealth of information submitted 

through public comment to inform the decision. The Findings do not rely on a single 

line of evidence, a single study, or a single assessment report. Other assessment reports, in particular those of the U.S. Global Change Research Program and National 

Research Council have also examined the information, taken a fresh look at the literature and existing assessments, and reached similar compelling conclusions regarding the threat of climate change, in many case reinforcing the key findings of 

the IPCC.

b. If this review reveals that data that counters the conclusions of the report 

were purposely excluded, would EPA be inclined to review the scientific assessment?

A8b. The InterAcademy Council review will help guide the processes and procedures of the IPCC’s current and future assessments of climate science. We look forward to seeing the results of this review and believe they can only serve to improve 

an already sound and transparent process.
76

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Atmospheric and Oceanic 

Administration

Questions submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon

NOAA Climate Service 

In the FY11 budget proposal, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) received a $15.8 million increase. This line office is the primary research arm 

of NOAA and according to the Agency’s most recent announcement to establish a new 

Climate Service, a majority of OAR programs and activities will be moved to the new 

Climate Service Office.

Q1. How does the agency plan to protect and strengthen the current robust research 

in OAR while attempting to align the research with the new Climate Service?

A1. Science is an essential component of all NOAA responsibilities, and underpins 

our ability to provide quality services. This re-organization does not take away or 

diminish any of NOAA’s current capabilities. Rather, it re-organizes them to better 

complement and support each other. In NOAA and the Department of Commerce’s 

current plan, not all research will be moved into this new line office, and OAR has 

not been replaced by the Climate Service. It is also NOAA’s intention that OAR will 

retain many of its core research functions and continue to serve an important role 

at the core of a dedicated science and research enterprise that advances NOAA’s 

mission and strategic priorities. 

OAR has served as the incubator for much of the science and discovery that 

opened the eyes of the world to the risks of greenhouse gas emissions, climate 

change, and ocean acidification. It is critical to constantly improve all NOAA services, as well as to ensure that NOAA remains on the cutting edge of oceanic and 

atmospheric scientific discovery, helping to discover and respond to the next major 

challenge. Strategically focusing OAR’s expertise and capabilities toward the next 

generation of science challenges for NOAA and the Nation, as well as strengthening 

science across the agency, remain top priorities for NOAA. 

We are taking a number of steps to strengthen science across the agency, including re-instating the position of NOAA Chief Scientist, and making it a vital part 

of the NOAA headquarters leadership team. This position will be on a par with the 

two Assistant Secretary positions. The Assistant Administrator for OAR will serve 

as the principal advisor to NOAA’s Chief Scientist on research matters, and in this 

capacity is charged with strengthening science and coordinating and integrating research across NOAA’s Line Offices and with external partners. 

We also have developed a plan to actively involve scientists and science leaders 

across the agency, as well as external academic partners, in the development of our 

research strategy for the future, and to use our NOAA Research Council to strengthen formal mechanisms for evaluating our research activities. OAR has a significant 

leadership role within NOAA in driving the agency forward as our research strategy 

is developed. As part of this process, Dr. Paul Sandifer, the Senior Science Advisor, 

acting on behalf of the Office of the NOAA Chief Scientist, is working with the current OAR leadership and the NOAA Research Council to develop corporate guidance 

for establishing consistent, agency-wide peer review and monitoring processes for all 

NOAA scientific activities, including an annual State of NOAA Research Report. Per 

Dr. Lubchenco’s direction, active researchers from across the agency are playing 

major roles in this visioning and planning effort. 

The future of NOAA’s science and research enterprise relies heavily on OAR’s core 

atmospheric and oceanic science expertise and capabilities to be the research innovation, integration, and incubation hub for the agency. NOAA’s vision for reorganization ensures that OAR is well-positioned to provide the leadership and cutting 

edge research necessary to spur innovation, resulting in new technologies and improved for services for the Nation, while support the priority scientific and research 

areas critical to advancing NOAA’s mission. NOAA is committed to strengthening 

science and maintaining a strong research portfolio that serves the Nation’s needs.

Q2. In your testimony you also highlighted NOAA’s FY11 request of $435 million in 

support of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). How does 

NOAA envision their proposed Climate Service to interface with the USGCRP?

A2. NOAA understands that no single agency can or should provide all climate 

services for all people. NOAA routinely engages with its federal partners and will 

continue to utilize the framework developed by the U.S. Global Change Research 
77

Program (USGCRP) to ensure that our climate service efforts are coordinated across 

Federal agencies. In addition, we are actively supporting, in partnership with our 

sister agencies, the development of the next National Assessment. Information produced from across the agencies are critical to the development of this report. The 

National Assessment will also be an opportunity for the agencies to further discuss 

how we can effectively collaborate in strengthening climate science, and the delivery 

of information and science based decision support tools. NOAA’s proposed Climate 

Service and its interface with USGCRP are under development. 

In addition, bilateral discussions are in progress with a variety of agencies to understand how NOAA climate services can complement their missions, and how other 

agencies’ information and expertise can benefit NOAA climate services. NOAA understands that the relative roles and responsibilities of individual agencies will differ depending on the climate impact issue being addressed (e.g., water resource 

management, disaster risk reduction, community planning, public health) and that 

an effective response to the changing climate conditions will require an integrated, 

flexible, and responsive government-wide approach. 

NOAA is committed to working with our federal partners to provide the best and 

most relevant climate services and information to decision makers across all sectors. 

NOAA already participates fully in a number of inter-agency efforts including cochairing the Federal Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Working Group with 

the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, serving as Chair of and leading many assessments for the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, and collaborating with the White House Office of Energy and 

Climate Change.

Data Centers and Information Services 

The budget request contains a $14 million decrease for the Data Centers and the 

Information Centers. This is a concern because substantial investments in several 

satellite systems will create an influx of data and information to the Data Centers.

Q3. How does the Agency plan to process and distribute these data with the proposed 

FY11 level funding?

A3. The $14 million decrease represents funds associated with Congressionally-directed projects contained in the FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill for climate 

database modernization and for regional climate centers and programs that are not 

included in the President’s FY 2011 budget request. 

The President’s FY 2011 budget request for NOAA’s Data and Information Services does include a $13 million increase over the FY 2010 enacted amounts in the 

Archive, Access, and Assessment line, as well as an additional $600,000 increase to 

pay for inflationary adjustments and salary increases to support Data Center base 

operations. These increases directly support the ability of NOAA’s Data Centers to 

archive and provide access to the anticipated 3,000 percent increase in data volume 

expected over the next several years, and are critical to NOAA’s ability to develop 

the datasets that are required to meet customer needs. 

Of the $13 million increase, $2 million would support integration of Comprehensive Large-data Array Stewardship System (CLASS) components into the NOAA 

Data Center operations at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC; the 

National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, CO; and the National Oceanographic 

Data Center in Silver Spring, MD. This funding would provide NOAA the operational capability to allow users to search for and acquire the increased amount of 

archived data. The proposed increase would provide the Data Centers with the information technology infrastructure to accommodate the increased data volume and 

ensure environmental observations remain useful and available to the widest range 

of current and future users. Users will be able to search for and acquire archived 

CLASS data through the NOAA Data Center archive management system. This proposed budget increase also meets emerging requirements associated with implementing NOAA’s climate services, including the long-term preservation of the Nation’s climate record. 

The remaining increase of $11 million would support continued work on the 

NOAA Climate Data Records program, which transforms raw satellite data into unified and coherent long-term environmental observations and products that are critical to climate modelers and decision makers concerned with advancing climate 

change understanding, prediction, mitigation and adaptation strategies, policies, 

and science.
78

NOAA Education Program 

As the Committee prepares to reauthorize the COMPETES Act, it is important for 

agencies like NOAA to demonstrate the importance of investing in the education of 

our future scientists and engineers.

Q4. Within the proposed FY11 budget for NOAA’s Education Program, how does the 

Agency plan to develop a future workforce in disciplines related to NOAA 

sciences?

A4. NOAA’s Office of Education supports a broad spectrum of Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) activities through formal and informal mechanisms to support the development of a future workforce. NOAA’s education activities are conducted through competitive grants to academic institutions and direct 

scholarships to students. NOAA supports STEM programs at academic institutions 

that train and graduate students in STEM disciplines at the K–12 and post-secondary levels. Cumulative student data collected by NOAA’s Office of Education 

demonstrates that from 2001 through 2009 approximately 2,400 students were 

training in STEM fields that directly support NOAA’s mission. This number includes graduate and undergraduate level students supported exclusively by the Office of Education through graduate and undergraduate scholarship programs. One 

of NOAA’s primary goals is to provide opportunities for students to engage in handson research activities under the guidance of NOAA scientists and managers. These 

experiences engage and retain students in STEM fields and encourage students to 

seek employment in STEM disciplines related to NOAA sciences. 

Also since 2001, NOAA has hired 61 former recipients of student training and 

scholarship opportunities, offered through the Office of Education, in STEM disciplines.

Q5. What resources does NOAA need to contribute to the development of such a 

workforce?

A5. The President’s FY 2011 Budget Request includes $20.8 million for NOAA’s Office of Education to support both formal and informal education activities in STEM 

fields as well as devoting one-tenth of one percent of NOAA’s entire appropriation 

to Hollings Scholarships. NOAA has been successful in providing training and scholarship opportunities to students in STEM disciplines that support the agency’s mission and that serve as a potential pool of candidates from which it can select its 

future workforce. NOAA will continue to utilize its extensive workforce with expertise in STEM disciplines to serve as mentors and provide technical guidance to students pursuing degrees and careers in STEM fields that support NOAA’s mission.

QuikScat 

The QuikSCAT satellite provided ocean vector wind data and marine wind forecast 

data, which were useful in the early stages of predicting hurricane tracks. 

QuikSCAT’s operational life ended last November, and the FY11 budget request does 

not seem to demonstrate an investment in resources to replace QuickSCAT’s capacity. 

It should be noted that the National Research Council’s Earth Sciences Decadal Survey recommended that NOAA proceed with the Extended Ocean Vector Wind Mission.

Q6. What is the status of NOAA’s decision to proceed with the Extended Ocean Vector Wind mission?

A6. As directed in FY 2009 and FY 2010 omnibus appropriations bills, NOAA and 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) continue to assess the 

best ways to replace space-based scatterometry data that had been provided by the 

NASA QuikSCAT satellite until November 2009. 

As part of this assessment, NOAA and NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory are 

studying the suitability of developing a scatterometer and are exploring with the 

Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency the possibility of a joint mission.

Q7. What are NOAA’s plans to recover the invaluable QuickSCAT data, which 

helped improve weather forecasts and identify the location, size and strength of 

hurricanes and other storms?

A7. The NASA QuikSCAT mission demonstrated utility to NOAA in meeting its 

mission for open ocean measurements beyond the reach of ‘‘hurricane hunter’’ aircraft and land-based radars. However, please note that NOAA’s ability to warn the 

public about hurricanes making landfall in the continental U.S. is not significantly 

diminished in the absence of QuikSCAT. In most cases, due to availability of other 

data sources close to the coast QuikSCAT, ocean surface vector wind data has little 

or no impact on these forecasts. 
79

As a result of the NASA QuikSCAT failure, NOAA continues to pursue both shortterm and long-term mitigation strategies for ocean surface vector wind (OSVW) 

measurements. Short-term mitigation options include improving the use of satellite 

data from partners, such as the Advanced SCATterometer (ASCAT) instrument 

from the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites 

(EUMETSAT). While ASCAT has differing OSVW capabilities than NASA 

QuikSCAT, it does provide partial mitigation of the NASA QuikSCAT failure. 

In addition, India launched the research satellite Oceansat-2 in September 2009, 

which has a NASA QuikSCAT-type instrument. NOAA is working on an agreement 

to gain timely access to data provided by the satellite. The quality of the data and 

instrument has not yet been demonstrated, and India does not yet have the capability to deliver data in a timely enough fashion to be useful for operational forecasting. China is planning to launch HY–2A, a QuikSCAT-type instrument, in late 

2010. NOAA continues to attempt to engage China in discussions about acquiring 

access to their data. 

NOAA and NASA are continuing studies to develop an OSVW instrument and are 

exploring opportunities to have the instrument placed on-board the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency’s Global Change Observation Mission-Water mission.

Geoengineering

Q8. What science and research is needed to be able to better understand the impacts 

of potential climate geo-engineering projects? What research capabilities, both internal to the agency and through external partnerships, could NOAA lend to better understanding these impacts?

A8. Geo-engineering proposes to deliberately manipulate the Earth’s climate to 

counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. To be fully 

successful, however, a large scale geo-engineering effort would require full scientific 

understanding of the underlying physical and chemical processes, the inclusion of 

these processes in Earth system models, and verification of the geo-engineering 

approach’s viability with model projections by experts. Recent literature and workshops have emphasized the difficulties of identifying unforeseen and unintended 

consequences that a geo-engineering effort would possibly generate. Thus it is believed that geo-engineering must be approached with great deliberation and caution. 

At least two areas of geo-engineering need extensive research. One is the need 

to investigate the physical, chemical, and biological processes of geo-engineering approaches. For example, the addition of elements such as iron to the open ocean to 

draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has been tested in some small scale studies; however, results so far are inconclusive, and at least one study suggests the addition of iron would have the opposite effect. Far more directed research is needed 

to fully understand all of the ramifications of a large geo-engineering effort. Similarly, ideas for release of chemicals into the stratosphere to increase reflection of 

incoming solar radiation would need further study of both natural and manmade 

efforts to calculate the effects of such a release. 

A second area is research on the effects of a geo-engineering scheme on global economic sectors. For example, a project that decreases solar radiation (e.g. by shading 

from satellites, or stratospheric aerosols) could also decrease precipitation selectively, which could have detrimental impacts on agricultural efforts in the effected 

region. Similarly, geo-engineering that decreased sunlight for an extended period of 

time and then terminated could provide a shock to the geophysical system. Such 

large-scale changes to the amount of heat and light that the Earth receives from 

the sun can introduce large and potentially dangerous adjustments in Earth’s climate. 

The complexity of geo-engineering suggests that significant progress in global observing, research understanding, and modeling would be required before the potential for geo-engineering could seriously be considered. Current work in these areas 

is done by NOAA, other parts of the federal government, university and industry 

partners, and the international community. The uncertainties associated with geoengineering will require enhanced communication and expanded efforts among all 

of these partners.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. Dr Lubchenco, in some of your budget briefings around the country, we have 

noted that you have used the terms ‘‘incubation’’ and ‘‘innovation’’ in stressing 

the priority of NOAA’s science mission and in advocating for enhancement of the 

NOAA research enterprise. We agree. With the Office of Oceanic and Atmos-
80

pheric Research, or OAR, the whole really is greater than the sum of its parts. 

There are so many synergistic, interdisciplinary science efforts that contribute to 

maximizing the return on NOAA’s research investment for innovation; innovation both for fundamental scientific discovery and the creation of new knowledge 

and technology to advance NOAA’s service and stewardship missions. Coordination and collaboration is the key to an innovation culture which must bring in 

the social sciences to enhance the value and use of the physical, biological and 

chemical R&D.

a. How will this innovation culture be enhanced in a smaller, divided OAR?

A1a. Strengthening science and fostering a culture of innovation remains a critical 

priority element of NOAA’s efforts. The research enterprise at NOAA consists of 

much more than research on climate. NOAA and the Department of Commerce’s 

plans to submit a proposal to create a Climate Service Line Office in NOAA are part 

of an overall effort to strengthen the critical science and services NOAA provides 

the Nation. OAR’s science programs and laboratories that do not transfer to the Climate Service will continue to serve NOAA broadly in many important ways, including:

• Serving as the nexus for integration of research across NOAA;

• Advancing science and technology innovation efforts that support the purposes of the America COMPETES Act;

• Improving observing, modeling, and understanding of how ocean, Great 

Lakes, and coastal ecosystems function, including climate impacts;

• Building capacity for social, behavioral, and economic science within NOAA;

• Continuing to advance NOAA’s core research and development capabilities in 

weather radar, forecast systems, air quality, hurricane forecasts;

• Driving innovation in technology and advancing knowledge as we explore the 

ocean; and

• Positioning NOAA to anticipate the scientific challenges of the coming decades.

As we move forward, NOAA believes that a renewed focus on the capabilities with 

for innovation and transformational research will support fundamental scientific 

discovery and the creation of new knowledge and technology to advance NOAA’s 

service and stewardship missions. For example, a key area for a strategic long-term 

focus would be ocean and Great Lakes ecosystem science that integrates the chemical, physical, geological and human components at the ecosystem scale. It is our 

intent that OAR’s programs will support all of NOAA by identifying, adapting, developing, assessing and promoting innovation and transformational, state of the art 

research, and will coordinate, integrate, and support these efforts throughout the 

agency. The research leadership provided by OAR supports the agency’s mission—

and the broader U.S. environmental, social, and economic sectors—through increased knowledge and novel advances in technologies. 

We are also taking a number of steps to strengthen science across the agency, and 

OAR is central to these efforts. Among these actions is the reinstatement of the position of NOAA Chief Scientist, and making it a vital part of the NOAA headquarters leadership team. This position will be on a par with the two Assistant Secretary positions. Another such action is the expanded role of the OAR Assistant Administrator who will serve as the principal advisor to NOAA’s Chief Scientist on research matters, and in this capacity is charged with strengthening science and coordinating and integrating research across NOAA’s Line Offices and with external 

partners. 

It is our intent that OAR’s programs will support all of NOAA by identifying, 

adapting, developing, assessing and promoting innovation and transformational, 

state of the art research, and will coordinate, integrate, and incubate these efforts 

throughout the agency. The research leadership provided by OAR supports the 

agency’s mission—and the broader U.S. environmental, social, and economic sectors—through increased knowledge and novel advances in technologies.

b. How will a diminished OAR provide for better weather understanding and 

safety, ocean planning and use, ecosystem protection, arctic science and exploration, new energy resources support, as well as an open and evolving climate 

service effort given that these are so inter-related and inter-dependent?

A1b. In planning for a Climate Service Line Office in NOAA, great care was taken 

not to diminish the foundation of research in those programs that would not be 

transferred. As NOAA and the Department of Commerce work to develop a request 

to establish a climate service, we are focused on the role of the Office of Oceanic 
81

and Atmospheric Research to incubate research and development that leads to new 

knowledge as well as many valuable products and services, many of which are 

transferred to the private sector and commercialized. NOAA anticipates that OAR 

will continue to function as a central research unit that works across line offices 

to integrate, incubate, and innovate research and development in a number of key 

mission areas. OAR has been responsible for many significant contributions that 

opened the world’s eyes to the risks of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change 

and ocean acidification. It is the scientific advances and discoveries that have come 

from OAR’s research laboratories and programs that have brought us to this point 

now where we see a demonstrable need for NOAA’s climate services. The plans, 

while still under development, to create a Climate Service in NOAA will not diminish the research that OAR contributes to help identify the Nation’s next major challenges and ensure NOAA is equipped to help face them. Support for strengthened 

research efforts within OAR and strengthening of science throughout the NOAA enterprise remain top priorities for NOAA. 

The FY 2011 Budget Request for NOAA demonstrates how science will be 

strengthened within OAR. The President’s Budget requests $5.6 billion for NOAA 

and includes investments to: strengthen NOAA’s science, promote economic development, strengthen energy and security, sustain oceans and coasts, and protect lives 

and livelihoods. The FY 2011 Budget also highlights the role that NOAA’s innovations in science and technology have played in ensuring that a strong economy and 

a healthy environment go hand in hand. NOAA is a leading sponsor of oceanic and 

atmospheric research and is one of the key sponsors of climate science capabilities 

in the federal government. NOAA’s request for research and development in FY 

2011 is $949.1 million, 17 percent of the $5.6 billion total NOAA request. Highlights 

of the FY 2011 budget include:

• Climate: Increased funding for climate assessment services, the completion of 

a regional carbon observation and analysis system, increased Arctic climate 

observations and research, and transitioning key climate sensors on to NOAA 

operational platforms (Joint Polar Satellite System).

• Weather and Air Quality: Increased funding for improved extreme precipitation forecasts and demonstrations of cutting edge radar technology to replace 

aging operational weather and aircraft-tracking radars.

• Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes: Increased funding for ocean acidification research and monitoring, aquaculture research, climate-related coastal hazards 

research, and Integrated Ecosystem Assessments for fishery ecosystems in the 

Gulf of Mexico, California Current, and the Northeast Shelf.

Q2. Dr Lubchenco, are you familiar with a report titled, ‘‘Review of the Organization 

and Management of Research in NOAA’’? This report was done by a Research 

Review Team for NOAA’s Science Advisory Board and submitted in August of 

2004. Several passages of this report appear to contradict the purpose and structure of the current NOAA proposal on a Climate Service. For instance, the report 

says:

• ‘‘Regarding the issue of migrating NOAA research to the line offices, this is 

not a wise course of action . . . The major challenge for NOAA is connecting 

the pieces of its research program and ensuring research is linked to the 

broader science needs of the agency . . . . This is best done by strengthening 

organizational processes, clarifying shared responsibilities regarding transition of research, and establishing a higher level of corporate oversight . . . 

The dissolution of OAR and distribution of its resources and talent to the 

other line offices would splinter rather than more tightly connect the science 

and research enterprise. There is undoubtedly a need to improve the linkage 

of research to operations and change the culture of OAR to value and support this linkage. However, breaking OAR apart and distributing the parts 

to other line offices would be a mistake.’’ Pg. 29.

• ‘‘The near-term pressure inherent in the operational line offices raises serious questions about their viability as appropriate homes for developing the 

operational products of the future . . . There are observations and research 

products that are produced routinely (e.g., measurements of greenhouse gas 

concentrations for climate studies) but are not routine—namely the quality 

of the observations and the sensitivity required to monitor and constantly 

upgrade them requires a research environment.’’ Pg. 33.

Why does the current proposal to create a climate service depart so dramatically 

from the recommendations of NOAA’s own advisory board?
82

A2. The 2004 NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Research Review Team’s scope 

was intended to look at NOAA’s overall research enterprise, not at the creation of 

a new science and service organization. Consistent with that report, NOAA is actively working to strengthen science and preserve a dedicated science and research 

enterprise within the agency. Any re-organization will be carefully constructed so 

as not to take away any of NOAA’s current capabilities. Rather, it re-organizes them 

to better complement and support each other. 

In addition, subsequent reports from NOAA’s Science Advisory Board, and from 

other major advisory panels such as the National Research Council, state the need 

for close association and integration of climate research, science and services. Our 

announced intention to create a Climate Service follows the recommendations of 

these reports. 

Examples of these reports include:

• A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward the Future (2001)—‘‘If a climate service function is to improve and succeed, it should be supported by 

active research.’’

• Final Report of the Review of the NOAA National Climate Services Strategy

(2008)—NOAA Science Advisory Board report. A guiding principle of a climate service: ‘‘Ensure that climate services are integrated with active research with feedbacks that will directly impact the generation of new climate 

service capabilities and climate services, and in turn, will directly influence 

research directions.’’ (Pg. 4)

• Options for Developing a National Climate Service (2009)—‘‘A key attribute: 

The Service will achieve its mission by promoting active interaction among 

users, researchers, and information providers.’’ (Pg. 5)

• Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate 

Change (2009)—Top priorities are ‘‘Reorganize the program [USGCRP] 

around integrated scientific-societal issues to facilitate crosscutting research 

focused on understanding the interactions among the climate, human, and environmental systems and on supporting societal responses to climate change’’ 

(Pg. 4) and ‘‘Coordinate federal efforts to provide climate services (scientific 

information, tools, and forecasts) routinely to decision makers . . . Regardless 

of where the service is established, the restructured climate change research 

program would have to be involved in the research and development of experimental products (e.g., regional predictions), tools (e.g., models), and outreach 

services needed to support stakeholders. The climate service could then use 

the tools to create products operationally. Maintaining strong links to the research program would also help the climate service take advantage of new capabilities.’’ (Pg. 8)

• Informing Decisions In a Changing Climate (2009)—‘‘Recommendation 9: The 

federal government should undertake a national initiative for climate-related 

decision support under the mandate of the U.S. Global Change Research Act 

(USGCRA) and other existing legal authority. This initiative should include 

a service element to support and catalyze processes to inform climate-related 

decisions and a research element to develop the science of climate response 

to inform climate-related decisions and to promote systematic improvement of 

decision support processes and products in all relevant sectors of U.S. society 

and, indeed, around the world.’’ (pg. 5)

• Climate Working Group (CWG) of NOAA’s Science Advisory Board Meeting 

Report for Fall 2009 (2009)—‘‘The CWG believes strongly that research needs 

to be an integral part of moving forward on climate services.’’ (Pg. 2)

References:

Barron, E. J, (Chair), et al., 2001: A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward 

the Future. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Research 

Council, Washington, DC.

Barron, E. J, (Chair), et al., 2009: Options for Developing a National Climate Service. Report to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board. 83 pages. http://

www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/2009/NCS¥Report¥FinaltoNOAA¥6¥5¥09-1.pdf

Busalacchi, A. (Chair of Climate Working Group), Barron, E. J, (Chair of Review 

Team), et al., 2008: Final Report of the Review of the NOAA National Climate 

Services Strategy. Report to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board. 7 pages. http://

www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/2008/NOAA¥SAB¥CWG¥NCS¥Review¥Sep08

¥FINALtoNOAA.pdf
83

Busalacchi, A. (Chair of Climate Working Group), et al., 2009: Climate Working 

Group (CWG) of NOAA’s Science Advisory Board Meeting Report for Fall 2009. 

Report to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board. 5 pages.

Corell, R. W., (Chair), et al., 2009: Informing Decisions In a Changing Climate. 

Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and 

Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. 198 pages

Ramanathan, V. (Chair), et al., 2009: Restructuring Federal Climate Research to 

Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Committee on Strategic Advice on the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program; National Research Council. 178 pages

Q3. Last November, NOAA’s Science Advisory Board produced a report titled, 

‘‘NOAA Science Advisory Board Climate Information Products and Applications 

Program Review’’? This report is based on a Climate Working Group Review 

Panel Meeting held last July.

a. The panel recommended that NOAA develop a strategic plan and strategic 

framework for its climate information products, applications and related services. Specifically, the plan should, ‘‘Differentiate between work that is essentially research or experimentation aimed at product development and definition and work that is operational, or service oriented, and provide for the appropriate balance between the two.’’ (Pg. 9). How do you plan to keep research 

and operational missions separate once you pull them into the same line office?

A3a. A foundational principle for integrating science and services within a Climate 

Service proposal is that excellent climate services and products are inextricably 

linked to a robust scientific basis. However, that brings about the challenge of: how 

can NOAA guide the development of a mutually-supportive Climate Service which 

both strengthens climate science and develops better climate service? 

The answer lies in the development and adoption of an organizational structure, 

service development and delivery models, and business practices that recognize and 

incorporate the foundational importance of current and sustained future investments in scientific research and, at the same time, provide for the development of 

operational services that are responsive to user needs. These practices will identify 

and address existing barriers for collaborative research and service partnerships especially in the transition of research to operations both within NOAA’s Climate 

Service and the interactions outside of the Climate Service. Clear business practices, 

and a governance model to maintain balance of operations and research, will have 

to be adhered to that safeguard resources for, and prevent the erosion of, climate 

research in providing the best available science for the services, while enhancing the 

availability of resources for new operational services. A cross-NOAA team of scientists and service experts are currently working to develop the strategic plan and 

framework called for by the working group.

b. There were nine different programs identified in the report that have already 

been engaged at the regional level, have built relationships with the user communities and provide high-quality climate services. These include:

i. The International Research Institute for Climate and Society

ii. Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA)

iii. Regional Climate Centers and State Climatologists (RCC)

iv. National Weather Service Climate Service Program Managers and Focal 

Points

v. National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS)

vi. Sea Grant, and Sea Grant Extension

vii. Coastal Services Center

viii. National Estuarine Research Reserves

ix. NOAA regional Collaboration

However, only the RISA, RCC and NIDIS programs have been identified as slated to be moved into your new Climate Service line office. What is the rationale 

for leaving the rest outside of the Climate Service? Why move some but not others?

A3b. NOAA has an extensive regional enterprise consisting of assets from across 

Line Offices that serves a variety of NOAA’s mission areas. Many of these assets 

contribute to NOAA’s climate service development and delivery, while also providing 

strategic support to other agency priorities. When evaluating which regional entities 
84

would be appropriate for inclusion in a Climate Service, the level of investment in 

climate services relative to other issue areas was examined. From the above list, the 

RISA, RCC, NIDIS, and the International Research Institute for Climate and Society programs have been identified as candidates to be moved into NOAA’s Climate 

Service Line Office because their focus is primarily climate oriented. The other programs listed do not have a climate-related mission as a primary focus; they mainly 

have an ecosystem focus. The NOAA Regional Collaboration is a set of teams of 

NOAA line office leaders who serve to look across NOAA’s broad suite of regional 

activities and coordinate and communicate those activities to regional stakeholders. 

Through business practices and cross-NOAA agreements; however, it is envisioned 

that the Climate Service will work closely with these other programs and the NOAA 

Regional Collaboration teams. 

The Climate Service would incorporate a number of NOAA’s climate science, research and observation centers, as well as some of its data and service delivery infrastructure. This arrangement would provide a strong climate research to service 

enterprise under a central management authority to further the goal of having a 

single, authoritative source of climate information. The overarching goals behind the 

reorganization are to not only establish a climate service, but to strengthen NOAA 

science and to implement the Administration’s priorities. The criteria for the proposed design include: establishing climate leadership, enhancing climate program 

coordination, and promoting user engagement on climate.

c. The report recommends conducting an initial comprehensive national assessment of existing climate services and unmet service needs to guide strategic 

planning. Have you undertaken any such assessment?

A3c. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is in the 

process of reviewing these activities across the federal government. Additionally, 

there is work being done to establish an OSTP-led interagency process—a federal 

climate services roundtable—to assess and coordinate climate services across the 

relevant agencies. 

The Global Climate Change Impacts report identifies some of the unmet needs for 

climate research and information at the national and regional scales. Additional information regarding unmet needs will be gathered through sustained stakeholder 

engagement coordinated through NOAA’s six new regional climate service directors, 

as well as other NOAA programs and offices with expertise in needs assessment, 

such as the Coastal Services Center and Sea Grant. Guidance solicited from other 

user and climate service provider groups also will be considered during NOAA’s 

strategic planning, such as the Regional Integrated Science and Assessments, Regional Climate Centers, and National Weather Service climate focal points. NOAA 

plans to continue improving our climate sciences and services based on a sustained 

two-way dialogue with users and stakeholders. 

NOAA has much to contribute to addressing the Nation’s need for improved climate science and services. NOAA’s announcement, outlining plans to better align 

NOAA assets into a functional climate service, is a major step forward for this Administration in strengthening its capability to understand and adapt to climate 

change. NOAA is well-positioned, and ready and willing to lead as the federal government strives to best equip the Nation to face the challenges of a changing climate.

d. The report recommends developing and maintaining a database of climate 

service activities across all NOAA programs. Where are you in the development of this database? Can such a database be built before undertaking a national assessment of existing services?

A3d. Within NOAA, the National Climatic Data Center and other NOAA entities 

have produced products and services catalogs that include inventories of their climate-related products, services, and activities. NOAA’s business practices include an 

ongoing evaluation of annual activities and implementation plans through its annual operating plans, which would be applied to climate services activities. NOAA 

will continue to refine its systems for tracking these activities before undertaking 

a national assessment of existing services. 

NOAA also recently released the NOAA Climate Portal (http://www.climate.gov), 

which is intended to provide one stop access to all of NOAA’s climate information, 

products and services. The portal is a dynamic, innovative access point that is continuously updated with the most recent useful information about the state of the 

climate, scientific understanding, and available products and services. While currently in its early stages, NOAA is beginning to dialogue with other agencies about 

linking their climate data and information to the portal, in addition to building out 

the full NOAA component of the portal.
85

e. The report recommends clearly outlining the roles and responsibilities of each 

of the nine programs. Has this been done yet? If not, when will it be completed?

A3e. Over the past two years, NOAA has been actively engaged in evaluating climate service activities within the agency, as well as the contributions and needs of 

our partners and the greater user community. These efforts are culminating in a 

proposal to reorganize that will be submitted to Congress for approval. 

As part of NOAA’s request, the roles and responsibilities of NOAA programs directly affected by the organizational change will be evaluated and defined. We are 

looking forward to this being completed in the fall, with input from the National 

Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) study recently completed. NOAA’s proposal has benefited greatly from the NAPA study process, and there is a great deal 

of alignment with the NAPA Panel’s recommendations. Additionally, NOAA is working closely with the Climate Working Group of the Science Advisory Board to gain 

advice, input, and guidance.

Q4. The Climate Research and Modeling Program Review conducted by the Climate 

Working Group in March of 2008 detailed many findings, concerns and recommendations. The group did not recommend moving half of OAR into a Climate Service line office. Specifically, they found that:

• ‘‘Reorganization is not an adequate response to achieve more effective integration of NOAA.’’

• Strategic planning and management is required for the line offices to work 

more collaboratively.

• ‘‘This panel notes that presentations suggested new directions for NOAA in 

the development of Climate Services. Two examples were the development of 

an attribution capability and the use of model predictions to inform policy. 

The Panel is concerned by this apparent expansion of mission when the resources to support the core mission are spread thin, and that several core 

activities appear to be fragile in places. Furthermore, the real customer and 

the understanding of how the customer uses climate information are not 

well defined and understood. This is an example of expanding to perceived 

mission without consideration of the end-to-end resources and impacts on 

the existing, important capabilities.’’ Pg. 33.

Given these findings, how does your proposal for a new Climate Service line office reconcile these concerns of NOAA’s propensity for mission-creep? How does 

your proposal reconcile the findings that reorganization is not needed, but instead strategic planning and better management would be the appropriate way 

to pursue NOAA’s efforts to provide better climate services?

A4. Prior and subsequent reports to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board, and reports 

from other major advisory panels such as the National Research Council, state the 

need for close association and integration of climate research, science and services. 

NOAA’s historical mission to provide both climate science and service dates to the 

National Climate Program Act of 1975 and the U.S. Global Change Research Act 

(USGCRA) of 1990. Any proposal to establish a Climate Service in NOAA will be 

consistent with and advance the purposes of these legislative drivers. 

NOAA has made significant progress in improving matrix management and strategic planning with respect to its climate enterprise. However in order to meet the 

current and future level of demand for climate services, the need for integrated execution of climate-related activities within a single line office has become apparent. 

An organizational change to enhance effectiveness across the agency is the purpose 

of our intent to organize a Climate Service Line Office in NOAA. NOAA has also 

completed a National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) study to examine 

organizational options for a Climate Service within NOAA, as directed by the FY10 

appropriations bill. The Panel, comprised of experts in government management 

and organizational change, also concluded that a new Line Office is the right organizational choice for a Climate Service in NOAA. NAPA’s assessment of NOAA’s matrix management is summarized in the following conclusion from the NAPA report:

‘‘The introduction of matrix management and the creation of the Climate Goal 

Team were thoughtful and significant investments to respond to demand by improving performance across NOAA’s distributed network of climate activities. 

Matrix management has helped improve alignment across a range of activities 

and organizational stovepipes. But based on its own assessments, and upon reviews from various outside bodies, NOAA and Department of Commerce leadership rightly concluded that the Climate Goal Team provided an incremental im-
86

provement, but that matrix management is not sufficient to meet current 

needs.’’

In order to ensure NOAA uses its resources effectively as it responds to its legislative drivers, NOAA is currently developing a Vision and Strategic Framework document that recently completed a round of public comment. This document takes steps 

to define the short and long term scope of NOAA’s climate services. NOAA is actively engaging NOAA’s Science Advisory Board and the Climate Working Group on 

this plan to get input and feedback on the strategy and scope of the Climate Services. 

NOAA’s intent to create a Climate Service is consistent with the recommendations 

of the reports listed below.

Barron, E. J, (Chair), et al., 2001: A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward 

the Future. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Research 

Council, Washington, DC.

Barron, E. J, (Chair), et al., 2009: Options for Developing a National Climate Service. Report to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board. 83 pages. http://

www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/2009/NCS¥Report¥FinaltoNOAA¥6¥5¥09-1.pdf

Busalacchi, A. (Chair of Climate Working Group), Barron, E. J, (Chair of Review 

Team), et al., 2008: Final Report of the Review of the NOAA National Climate 

Services Strategy. Report to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board. 7 pages. http://

www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/2008/NOAA¥SAB¥CWG¥NCS¥Review¥Sep08

¥FINALtoNOAA.pdf

Busalacchi, A. (Chair of Climate Working Group), et al., 2009: Climate Working 

Group (CWG) of NOAA’s Science Advisory Board Meeting Report for Fall 2009. 

Report to NOAA’s Science Advisory Board. 5 pages.

Corell, R. W., (Chair), et al., 2009: Informing Decisions In a Changing Climate. 

Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and 

Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. 198 pages

Miles E. L., A. K. Snover, L. C. Whitely Binder, E. S. Sarachik, P. W. Mote, and 

N. Mantua, 2006: An Approach to Designing a National Climate Service. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(25), 19616–19623. http://

www.pnas.org′′cgi′′doi′′10.1073′′pnas.0609090103

Ramanathan, V. (Chair), et al., 2009: Restructuring Federal Climate Research to 

Meet the Challenges of Climate Change. Committee on Strategic Advice on the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program; National Research Council. 178 pages

Q5. Dr. Lubchenco, a number of reports completed in the last several years that suggest that an attempt to create a NOAA Climate Service line office is premature. 

There are still many outstanding questions about NOAA’s readiness to move forward with this agenda. Specifically, this knowledge base lacks sufficient information regarding who the customer is, how they use products, what products are 

available, who provides them, etc. Given this substantial ‘‘data gap’’ on the current state of climate services, what is the justification for moving forward?

A5. [Note: It is unclear to NOAA which specific report or reports are referenced in 

this question] 

Until now, individuals, communities, governments and industry have relied on 

what we know about the climate in the past to make important decisions about our 

systems and infrastructure—from agriculture to energy to transportation. In order 

to be successful and competitive in a changing climate, people need information and 

data about expected future conditions so they can make smart choices for their families and businesses. NOAA is responding to the growing demand from all sectors 

for more relevant, reliable information about the future state of the climate to allow 

better planning. The increased demand clearly demonstrates the need for coordinated, more accessible, user-driven climate information and services. 

Numerous external studies, by NOAA’s Science Advisory Board, the National 

Academy of Sciences and others, have reiterated the need for easy-to-find, reliable 

and understandable information and products about climate change. In addition, the 

National Academy of Public Administration Panel strongly emphasized that there 

is a strong business case, user demand, and level of preparedness within NOAA to 

act now in establishing NOAA’s Climate Service. 

NOAA, through its current climate and weather enterprises has significant experience working with users and providers of environmental information to understand their needs and capabilities with respect to products, data, and services. In 
87

addition, NOAA strongly believes that a two-way communication with users and 

service developers (including researchers) is a critical part of any Climate Service. 

NOAA uses multiple ways of tracking information regarding who the customer is, 

how they use products, what products are available, and who provides them. For 

example, through the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC; www.ncdc.noaa.gov), 

information on types of customers, how they use products and services, and the 

number of web hits for each product is tracked. Additionally, information on the economic and social benefits of NOAA data and products are available. NOAA-sponsored Regional Climate Centers (RCC) provide a number of regional-based climate 

products and services which are described on their web-site (e.g. http://

www.wrcc.dri.edu). The NOAA sponsored Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program works with regional users and stakeholders in a research capacity to understand climate-related needs and develop prototype climate information, products and services (http://www.climate.noaa.gov/cpo¥pa/risa/). The 

NOAA sponsored International Research Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia University uses a science-based approach to enhance society’s ability to understand, anticipate and manage climate risk in order to improve human welfare 

(www.iri.columbia.edu). 

A Climate Service in NOAA would increase NOAA’s ability to anticipate, understand and provide the information users need to address the challenge of climate 

change. Creating one office would create a stronger position for climate leadership 

within NOAA to more deliberately guide all climate research, monitoring and assessment work in a coordinated fashion.

Q6. In response to several questions about this new Climate Service, the NOAA 

website has posted a number of answers. It states, ‘‘The FY 2011 increases for 

climate included in NOAA’s budget will contribute to the development and 

growth of the new NOAA Climate Service. These increases were chosen by 

NOAA, the Department of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget 

with an eye towards enhancing NOAA’s climate science and service capabilities, 

most of which would be housed in the NOAA Climate Service. FY 2011 climate 

increases total $130M, which includes $47M that would support activities in the 

NOAA Climate Service.’’

What happens to this funding if NOAA does not receive the Congressional approval that is necessary to move forward with this proposal?

A6. In FY 2011, NOAA requested approximately $47 million (not counting requests 

for remote sensing assets) that would support NOAA climate science and service activities. These increases include:

• $10 million for Assessment Services to establish a new sustained capability 

within NOAA to provide climate assessments to decision-makers at national 

and regional scales;

• $1.5 million for NOAA’s Climate Portal to establish one-stop public access to 

all of NOAA’s climate data, information, and services online;

• $15.8 million to support critical climate observing infrastructure;

• $6.98 million for ‘Earth System Modeling: Urgent Climate Issues’ will improve model resolutions and address critical areas of model uncertainty, including sea-level rise, Arctic, and terrestrial carbon cycle and biogeochemical 

feedbacks, and decadal predictions/abrupt change;

• $11 million to expand the development of climate quality data records from 

satellite observations;

• $2 million to enhance data center operations to provide users with consistent 

and reliable access to the Nation’s environmental data and information via 

the Comprehensive Large Array-data Stewardship System.

The plans to establish NOAA’s Climate Service would create a stronger position 

for climate leadership within NOAA to more deliberately guide all climate research, 

monitoring, and assessment work in an integrated fashion and to better coordinate 

efforts with its partners to ensure reliable delivery of climate services and information. If Congressional approval is not received for Climate Service Line Office, the 

requested increases will remain but will be executed within the respective line offices from which they were requested. These increases will continue to support 

NOAA’s mandate to monitor and provide access to climate data and information, as 

well as address national priorities for climate identified by the U.S. Global Climate 

Change Research Program.
88

Q7. On February 1st, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced 

a radical shift in our nation’s weather satellite program by dissolving the triagency NPOESS program between NOAA, NASA, and DOD.

a. Was this decision made by the three agencies? Or was it made by OSTP?

A7a. The decision to restructure the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Program was made by the Executive Office of 

the President after several months of discussion and deliberation and after receiving 

input from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management 

and Budget, and the National Security Council; and representatives from Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department 

of Defense, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

b. There was very little information accompanying the announcement on the dissolution of the NPOESS tri-agency program. It is assumed that the decision 

was made to lower the risk of the program and to be cost effective.

b(i)(a). Was there a comparison of what it would cost to keep the program together, but move the whole thing (procurement, management, etc.) to either DOD or NASA?

A7b(i)(a). Yes. The decision to restructure the NPOESS program was based on an 

analysis of various alternatives. A comparison was conducted and presented to the 

Executive Office of the President for consideration. Both DOD and NOAA/NASA 

provided their estimates for taking on the NPOESS program in its entirety under 

a single acquisition authority. However, this option did not address or mitigate the 

underlying factors contributing to schedule risk and cost growth that the NPOESS 

program was experiencing. In the end, restructuring the acquisition responsibilities 

by placing agencies in charge of specific orbits was the option that best positioned 

the program for success, including allowing improved agency management of technical, schedule, and cost risks.

b(i)(b). Was this comparison judged against the decision that was ultimately 

made?

A7b(i)(b). Yes. Restructuring the acquisition responsibilities by placing agencies in 

charge of specific orbits was the option that best addressed the management challenges that were contributing to the technical and schedule risk, and cost growth 

that the the NPOESS program faced.

b(i)(c). Please provide the Committee with the costs estimates of these options 

and reasons for taking the path you chose versus the others.

A7b(i)(c). The Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program budget is being planned 

at a high confidence level. The JPSS program is assessing, tracking and mitigating, 

as practical, residual risks associated with program components already in development. Decisions on JPSS spacecraft and payload are focused on assuring continuity 

of data to meet critical national requirements to support weather forecasting, environmental monitoring and climate assessment. The JPSS program will be subject 

to independent review of mission concepts, organizational structure, acquisition 

strategies, and budget prior to program baseline. 

The primary options that were reviewed were:

• Status quo (Tri-agency NPOESS program, as it was structured)

• Single agency (DoD or NOAA responsible for the entire NPOESS program)

• Divided responsibility (i.e., the February 1, 2010 decision)

Data continuity was the primary driver for the decision to restructure the program and each option was evaluated against how well it addressed cost, schedule, 

and technical risk. Underlying the assessment were the basic management tenants 

of:

• Aligning the development with an acquisition center

• Developing budgets at the 80 percent cost confidence

• Clear authority, responsibility, and accountability

The divided responsibility (i.e., the February 1, 2010 decision) provided the best 

solution.

b(ii). How is the tri-agency program going to be dissolved?

A7b(ii). A transition team has been formed to manage the activities of 

transitioning the NPOESS Program to the JPSS Program. This team includes representatives from NOAA, NASA and DOD. DOD issued Acquisition Decision Memo-
89

randa on March 27, May 10, June 22, and August 13, 2010, directing the NPOESS 

Program Executive Officer to transition the NPOESS activities to NOAA’s JPSS and 

DOD’s Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS); these activities are underway. 

Additionally, NOAA and NASA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to 

begin transition activities. The Executive Office of the President submitted a JPSS 

Implementation Plan to the Congress pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010. On June 28, 2010, the President issued the National Space Policy 

for the United States of America, in which it charges the Secretary of Commerce, 

through the NOAA Administrator, the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary 

of the Air Force, and the NASA Administrator to work together and with their 

international partners to ensure uninterrupted, operational polar-orbiting environmental satellite observations. It further states that the Secretary of Defense shall 

be responsible for the morning orbit, and the Secretary of Commerce shall be responsible for the afternoon orbit. The departments shall continue to partner in developing and fielding a shared ground system, with the coordinated programs operated by NOAA. Further, the departments shall ensure the continued full sharing 

of data from all systems. The Administration has determined that this policy supersedes the 1994 Presidential Decision Directive that established the NPOESS program. Finally, NOAA’s FY 2011 Budget request of $1.060 billion for JPSS would implement the NOAA portion of the restructured program to address the risk of a 

break in satellite data continuity in the afternoon orbit.

b(iii). DOD has enough legacy satellites to get them to 2020, possibly even to 

2025. Do you think they will continue to use the NPOESS platform as the 

basis of any new satellite program or will they develop a new system?

A7b(iii). DOD is conducting a study to evaluate their requirements and will follow 

that with an Analysis of Alternatives that will inform the decision on the followon platform which could include using the NPOESS platform or developing a new 

platform. 

DoD’s global mission is dependent on having access to polar-orbiting data from 

all three orbits: early morning, mid-morning, and afternoon. The decision to restructure the NPOESS program places DoD in charge of providing data in the early 

morning orbit. EUMETSAT’s MetOp and NOAA’s Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite currently provide data to DoD from their current and future 

mid-morning and afternoon orbits, respectively. The restructured NPOESS directive 

would reciprocate NOAA access to DoD data in the early morning orbit.

b(iv). How does splitting the program reduce the risk? What is the current risk 

of project failure?

A7b(iv). Based on the review conducted by an Executive Office of the President 

Task Force and informed by recommendations from the NPOESS Independent Review Team and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Administration 

recognized the critical effect that would have resulted if the NPOESS program 

would have continued under the current management structure, and, consistent 

with the conclusions of independent reviewers, determined that if the NPOESS program was not restructured NOAA’s ability to provide weather and climate data for 

the Nation was at significant risk. 

The improved management structure of the JPSS program will enable the program to move forward consistent with NOAA’s objectives in a more effective and efficient manner in the long term. Specifically, the restructured program will place 

NOAA and the Department of Defense (DOD) in charge of separate orbits. NOAA 

will be in charge of the afternoon orbit and will use the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) as its acquisition agent, on a reimbursable basis. 

DOD will be in charge of the morning orbit and will develop its own acquisition 

processes. This change will allow NOAA to exert more control over setting the pace 

of work that is required to develop the instruments and space and ground segments 

for the afternoon orbit. The restructured program also provides clear accountability, 

responsibility, and authority for each orbit, simplifying the decision-making processes that have caused significant delays in the NPOESS program. The restructure 

also provides infrastructure from acquisition centers that will support each acquisition with a strong team of technical and program personnel and rigorous, documented processes. In addition, the ability to utilize different sized spacecraft if necessary and to utilize international and commercial platforms will provide more flexibility to achieve improved continuity of observation. 

NOAA faces a number of challenges that could contribute to risk of project failure, 

including the use of the FY 2011 funds to continue development of the instruments 

and ground system, and initiate JPSS transition activities. NOAA requires full 

funding of the President’s FY 2011 budget to complete transition and fully imple-
90

ment JPSS in time to meet the 2014 launch readiness date to mitigate the possibility of a data gap in the afternoon orbit.

Q8. It is my understanding the DOD and NOAA will still utilize the new joint 

ground system and that information from the two different satellites will still 

be processed together.

a. How useful will this be if DOD maintains legacy instruments?

A8a. NOAA uses data from DOD legacy instruments in a variety of ways to support 

NOAA operations. NOAA anticipates continuing to use data from DOD instruments 

in the early morning orbit, whether they are legacy or advanced sensors. The JPSS 

ground system is currently scoped to accommodate data from the planned NPOESS 

development sensors, and accommodating legacy instruments is also well within the 

ground system capabilities. While operational legacy sensors fall short of NPOESS/

JPSS sensor capabilities, even legacy observations from the early morning orbit 

would be a positive contribution to NOAA’s operations. Having access to data from 

legacy and JPSS systems at the same time will allow for calibration and validation 

activities of the new data to occur in a measured and deliberate manner to support 

enhancement of numerical weather prediction models and climate models.

b. Doesn’t this mean that we will only really be able to utilize legacy-level information from the new NOAA satellite since it has to be integrated with the 

DOD legacy information?

A8b. No. In fact, the JPSS ground system offers the agencies the opportunity to 

make operations more efficient by transitioning to a single enterprise solution for 

multiple satellites. NOAA has been studying this effort over the past year. The 

NPOESS designed ground system is well suited to incorporate legacy systems, if 

this is desired by the DOD in the future. NOAA will continue to support development of the new sensors and the information and products they will provide. 

NOAA’s ground system network will support both legacy systems and JPSS satellites, as well as future DOD satellites. Additionally, NOAA is developing a high 

performance computing architecture and algorithms that can incorporate both legacy and JPSS data. This means that all sources of data will be utilized. Data from 

JPSS will be processed to achieve the planned (i.e., higher resolution than current 

operational data) sensor and environmental data products within the new joint 

JPSS ground system. The JPSS program will provide these data products to the 

DOD users for further exploitation in their operations. Both NOAA and DOD users 

have been planning for these data products from NPOESS, and should be well 

poised to reap the full benefits of the new NOAA satellite within their own operations. Toward that end, it is well worth noting that DOD technical experts are continuing to develop the infrastructure to integrate JPSS data into its product development. As the DOD’s plans to implement its responsibilities under the restructured 

NPOESS program solidifies, NOAA intends to work with DOD in the same integrated manner for exploiting data from the DOD early morning orbit.

c. Wouldn’t this make the entire upgrade a waste of money?

A8c. As noted above, NOAA’s ground system network will support both legacy systems and JPSS satellites, and all sources of data will be utilized. The advanced observational capabilities planned for the JPSS satellites will provide significantly improved data that will benefit all users. More accurate data will support improved 

weather forecasts and alerts, and will further our understanding of climate to enable informed decisions to mitigate or adapt to climate change. There will be a period of time when NOAA will operate legacy satellites that are ending their useful 

life at the same time it will be operating the JPSS satellites Having access to data 

from legacy and JPSS systems at the same time will allow for calibration and validation activities of the new data to occur in a measured and deliberate manner to 

support enhancement of numerical weather prediction models and climate models. 

The JPSS ground system allows us to implement an enterprise solution rather than 

the current stovepiped ground systems.

Q9. DOD is currently responsible for 50% of the cost of the tri-agency program.

a. Now that NOAA is going its own way, is it taking full responsibility for the 

cost of the ground system for which DOD would then pay NOAA to operate 

their half?

A9a. NOAA currently operates DOD’s Defense Meteorological Satellite Program 

(DMSP) spacecraft on a reimbursable basis from the NOAA Satellite Operations Facility. NOAA will continue this arrangement for the DMSP satellites for the rest of 
91

the program’s life. If needed, NOAA will operate the satellites that form DOD’s response to the restructured NPOESS program on a reimbursable basis.

b. Doesn’t this put a greater burden on NOAA’s budget if they are now responsible for all of the installed costs of the ground system, where before they were 

only be responsible for half?

A9b. No, the decision to place NOAA in charge of the JPSS ground system does not 

place a greater burden on NOAA. The President’s FY2011 budget for JPSS provides 

adequate resources to support NOAA’s efforts for complete development of the 

ground system which will be used by DOD and NOAA for both the morning and 

afternoon orbits. NOAA believes the challenges that remain to field and deploy the 

ground system are manageable. 

Under JPSS, NOAA would need to have a ground system in place to support 

JPSS–1 and JPSS–2. Given the 2014 launch of JPSS–1, it is more cost-effective for 

NOAA to take the lead to continue development of the NPOESS ground system for 

its JPSS program. In fact, significant progress has occurred at the NOAA Satellite 

Operations Facility (NSOF) where command and control of the JPSS satellites will 

occur, and where NOAA currently operates DOD Defense Meteorological Satellite 

Program (DMSP) spacecraft on a reimbursable basis. Similarly, the network of 

SafetyNet sites that would support the acquisition of data from JPSS satellites has 

been identified and NOAA would gain more from leveraging that work instead of 

starting from scratch. With respect to providing data to DOD from the JPSS ground 

system, the technological adapters that would be required to do so would be relatively inexpensive to undertake.

Q10. Will the contract with Northrup Grumman be dissolved? How much will it cost 

the taxpayers for the termination of the contract?

A10. Termination and settlement costs are highly dependent on the decisions made 

by the transition teams, and it is premature to discuss changes to the contract until 

the transition team has completed its assessment of next steps. DoD is leading the 

Government’s contract negotiations with the NPOESS prime contractor. Until the 

negotiations are complete, NOAA must retain funds to cover potential associated 

costs. 

NOAA structured its FY 2011 budget request for JPSS to ensure that it could simultaneously address any contractual obligations that remain from the NPOESS 

program while implementing the decision to develop the JPSS program.

Q11. Do you have a plan in place to fix the many problems in the program in the 

event that Congress rejects the recommendation that this project be split up and 

chooses instead to fund it in the same manner as it has in the past?

A11. The review of the NPOESS program, led by the Executive Office of the President, evaluated many options, including modifying the tri-agency governance model. 

However, it was quickly recognized that the impediments to the NPOESS program’s 

success were far more complex than the management structure issue alone. 

NOAA’s assessment of the challenges faced by the NPOESS program included:

• Challenges in harmonizing budget and costing methodologies across agencies 

upon which program life cycle costs and funding reserves were based.

• Differences in agency opinions for developing options to reduce and manage 

risk.

• Difficulties in aligning agency priorities and requirements to ensure program 

success.

• Cumbersome and ineffective overall program oversight and governance, and 

acquisition control, including the function of the NPOESS Executive Committee.

The Administration recommended restructuring the NPOESS program’s acquisition satellite capabilities with the Nation’s civil and military mission requirements 

and to continue the development of critical Earth observing instruments required 

for improving weather forecasts, climate monitoring, and warning lead times of severe storms. Informed by recommendations from the NPOESS Independent Review 

Team and the Government Accountability Office, the Administration recognized the 

critical effect that would have resulted if the NPOESS program would have continued under the current management structure, and, consistent with the conclusions 

of independent reviewers, determined that if the NPOESS program was not restructured NOAA’s ability to provide weather and climate data for the Nation would be 

at risk. 
92

The improved management structure of the JPSS program will enable the program to move forward consistent with NOAA’s objectives in a more effective and efficient manner in the long term. Specifically, the restructured program will place 

NOAA and DOD in charge of separate orbits. NOAA will be in charge of the afternoon orbit and will use NASA as its acquisition agent, on a reimbursable basis. 

DOD will be in charge of the morning orbit and will develop its own acquisition 

processes. This change will allow NOAA to exert more control over the pace of work 

that is required to develop the instruments and space and ground segments for the 

afternoon orbit. The restructure provides clear accountability, responsibility, and authority for each orbit, simplifying the decision-making processes that have caused 

significant delays in the NPOESS program. The restructure also provides infrastructure from acquisition centers that will support each acquisition with a strong team 

of technical and program personnel and rigorous, documented processes. In addition, 

the ability to utilize different sized spacecraft if necessary and to utilize international and commercial platforms will provide more flexibility to achieve improved 

continuity of observation. In order to minimize the potential of a gap in the afternoon orbit, NOAA requires full funding of the President’s FY 2011 budget request 

of $1.06 billion.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. I have long been concerned about the equity of NOAA’s spending in the Great 

Lakes, when compared across NOAA’s regions. If NOAA were to distribute regional funds equitably among NOAA’s eight regions, the Great Lakes regions 

would receive about 13% of those funds. However, the Great Lakes region has 

only received two to three percent of those funds in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Is 

NOAA concerned by this lack of regional equity, and if so, please provide an explanation of how NOAA will address this regional inequity.

A1. NOAA considers the Great Lakes region to be equally important to other regions, and as such, NOAA supports critical activities in the Great Lakes, including 

local weather forecasts and warnings, research with local applications through the 

Sea Grant College Programs, monitoring contaminants as part of the National Status and Trends Mussel Watch Program, managing the Great Lakes coastal zone 

through the Coastal Zone Management Program, and developing ecological forecasting capabilities for the Great Lakes ecosystem through the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab. 

In FY 2011, NOAA expects a level of about $78 million to continue activities in 

the Great Lakes region. This includes a request of $65 million to sustain a base 

level of investment, plus we estimate approximately $13 million in additional funds 

will be applied to projects in the Great Lakes region through multiple competitive 

grant programs. This amount does not include funding, approximately $30 million, 

provided by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative.

Q2. NOAA manages several competitive grant programs. While I support the competitive process, the process itself can sometimes direct the outcome in different 

directions. NOAA chooses well-qualified experts to participate in the peer review 

process. However, NOAA’s ocean focus means that many times, requests for proposals themselves either do not embrace Great Lakes issues and/or review panels have little or no Great Lakes representation. Is there a way for NOAA to consider a separate competition for Great Lakes and freshwater issues or at least 

populate the review panels equitably with Great Lakes and freshwater experts?

A2. Several NOAA programs currently fund competitive grants that address Great 

Lakes issues, including Sea Grant, the Climate Program Office, the Integrated 

Ocean Observing System program, the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research, and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program. Three large FY 

2010 budget initiatives—the Invasive Species Regional Strategic Investment, Aquaculture Extension, and Aquaculture Research—will be soliciting grant proposals 

which will explicitly mention the Great Lakes region in the announcement language. For all NOAA competitive grant programs, when proposals are submitted 

from the Great Lakes, appropriate experts are included for both review panels. 

In addition to NOAA funds, in FY 2010, NOAA is receiving approximately $29.7 

million of Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funding which will fund habitat restoration, invasive species, nearshore 

health, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation efforts in the Great Lakes. NOAA 

plans to participate in the multi-agency Great Lakes Multi-Year Restoration Action 

Plan. The EPA is requesting an additional $300 million for GLRI in FY 2011 for 
93

continued efforts. NOAA is committed to continuing the work of the GLRI. There 

are now many specific opportunities for federal research dollars to reach the Great 

Lakes region through this large interagency effort and the associated competitive 

programs. 

In addition to program grants and GLRI funding, NOAA recently awarded a 

multi-year competitive grant for the Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research (CILER), co-located at the University of Michigan and NOAA’s 

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. CILER leverages both NOAA and 

University of Michigan personnel in Great Lakes research. 

In FY 2011, NOAA expects a level of about $78 million to continue activities in 

the Great Lakes region: $65 million to sustain a base level of investment and approximately $13 million in additional funds through multiple competitive grant programs. This amount does not include funding provided by the EPA for the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative. 

NOAA appreciates the concerns raised and will continue to work to emphasize 

Great Lakes issues in national level competitions, as well as to ensure that competitive review panels include Great Lakes experts when appropriate. NOAA is working 

internally and externally through the NOAA Great Lakes Regional Collaboration 

Team to develop strategies to incorporate specific references to NOAA’s freshwater, 

interior coasts and navigation, regional climate, and resource management missions 

in future grant solicitations.

Æ