So with that I would say that I intend to work on a bipartisan basis with you on long-term funding issues. I'm excited about that. But I think that short term, we have to continue this program on the stable basis that we have already set. Thank you, Mr. Brown, for yielding. Mr. BROWN [OF CALIFORNIA). I thank the gentlelady for her statement. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert the remainder of my statement in the record. Chairman WALKER. Without objection. [The prepared statements of Mr. Brown, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Hall, Ms. Johnson, and Ms. Lofgren follow:] OPENING STATEMENT BY GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAMS: DATA COLLECTION AND SCIENTIFIC PRIORITIES MARCH 6, 1996 Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending you on your decision last year to commission a major review of the Earth Observing System program by the National Research Council. This review was sorely needed and there should be little doubt that the results of this exercise have strengthened the EOS program and helped to reduce its cost. However, I must express my profound discomfort with today's hearing. Today's hearing preempts and disrupts the work of the Academy-work you asked them to do. I am concerned that the disruption of the scheduled Academy meeting by today's hearing is only a symptom of a much deeper loss of faith in traditional institutions which provide the Congress with objective advice. It is a symptom of some deep seeded belief that the science community itself lacks integrity and is incapable of making objective judgments. It is no secret that legislation has been in the works to name a politically-appointed Task Force to redo the Academy's recommendations because the advice the Academy has offered so far does not conform to the prejudices of the Chair. We also anticipate that ultra-conservative think tanks skeptical of the entire notion of a Federal role in science will be tapped to write our policy for us. Let me take a moment to put this issue in perspective. One hundred and thirtythree years ago, President Abraham Lincoln established the National Academy of Sciences to provide science advice to our nation. For over a century, the Academy and its operational arm, the National Research Council, have proved the critical link between the policy process and the scientific process. When Congress must grapple with important policy decisions resting upon the best scientific advice, I know of no more rational process than that set in motion by President Lincoln-this is especially true now that the Office of Technology Assessment has been eliminated. We, as Members of the Committee on Science, should feel an especially solemn responsibility to respect that process and tradition. Obviously, after we hear the results of the Academy, we are free to go our own way and to ignore their advice. We do this often. But I believe we should all be wary of replacing the role of the Academy with a managed policy process in which we simply put together some group to tell us what we want to hear to justify our actions. My greatest fear is that today's hearing is simply intended to build an adverse record in anticipation of the next Continuing Resolution for F.Y. 96 and the Budget Resolution for F.Y. 97. If this is the case, if EOS is doomed to a relentless politically-motivated attack, I would suggest that today's hearing is little more than a charade designed to put on a good show for the public. If, as I fear, you are intent on proposing hostile legislation regardless of the Academy's work, regardless of the preponderance of scientific advice, and regardless of what is said here today perhaps we are wasting our time. I will conclude by restating my belief that today's hearing is unfortunate. I have the deepest reservations about a process that appears designed to undercut and marginalize the Academy's advisory role. But I would also like to make clear that I and many other Members on both sides of the aisle remain genuinely interested in the results of the Academy's deliberations and I will look forward to the completion of that work. We on this side of the aisle do not hold the view that the science community has lost its integrity and is incapable of making objective judgments. We hope that, in the end, good sense will prevail. STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN CURT WELDON COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE MARCH 6, 1996 Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on global change research. I welcome our witnesses and look forward to hearing from them today. As you know, there is a great deal of talk about global environmental changesome of it factual, some of it not-and it is useful to distinguish what we know and what we do not know. We know that certain aspects of the earth's environment are changing. We also know that the concentration of important greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane have increased significantly in the atmosphere over the last 150 years from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Unfortunately, the role of the U.S. in dealing with global environmental change is somewhat limited. The current U.S. contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is less than 18 percent of the global total, and this is further reduced by the re-growth of our forests through wise land-sue management. Looking to the year 2002, our role in the carbon dioxide "problem" will be reduced even further. This is simply a reflection of the fact that many countries with expanding populations are also expanding their industrial base and their use of fossil energy. There are certain unavoidable consequences about the growth around the world. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, from the burning of fossil fuels and conversion of forests to agriculture use, will continue to increase and we are somewhat limited as to what we can do to stop it. Even if our country were to meet the proposed target for the year 2000 of holding the U.S. emission of carbon dioxide to the 1990 level, the effect on total atmospheric carbon dioxide will be minimal. As a consequence, the pressures on the earth's environment are not likely to diminish for the next half-century; therefore, we know that we must focus on strategies that allow us to balance a reduction in the pressures on the environment with a realistic effort in mitigating unavoidable changes. Such a realistic strategy will allow us to meet and perhaps even help the world take advantage of some of the changes in the environment and climate. We must learn to live with change, just as we have learned to live with severe storms, the outbreak of life-threatening diseases, and the ups and downs of economic activity. Living with change means that we must understand and anticipate change; therefore, our ability to predict climate and other environmental changes, whether manmade or natural, is critical to maintaining the economic well being of this country over the long term. With accurate information and advanced warning, we can adapt and preserve our economic and social well being. I believe NASA's Mission to Planet Earth plays an important role in helping us to better deal with and understand the earth's changing environment. Again, I welcome the panelists here today and look forward to an open and honest discussion on global change and Mission to Planet Earth. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH M. HALL MARCH 6, 1996 Good morning. I welcome the Chairman's decision to hold this hearing on NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. That program will make an important contribution to a better understanding of the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, and climate. Mission to Planet Earth is one of NASA's major initiatives, along with human spaceflight-the centerpiece of which is the International Space Station, aeronautics, technology, and NASA's other science programs. While much of my personal focus on the Committee has been directed at assuring that the Space Station will be successfully developed and be a productive research facility for the biomedical sciences, I know that NASA is an agency with multiple missions. Mission to Planet Earth is one of them-it is an initiative that has spanned three administrations, starting with President Reagan's. Dr. Sally Ride, a fine American and the Nation's first woman in space, said the following in her 1987 report “Leadership and America's Future in Space": "NASA should embrace Mission to Planet Earth. This initiative is responsive, time-critical, and shows a recognition of our responsibility to our home planet. Do we dare apply our capabilities to explore the mysteries of other worlds, and not also apply those capabilities to explore and understand the mysteries of our own world— mysteries which may have important implications for the future of this planet?" Nevertheless, Congress needs to continue to see that the Mission to Planet Earth Program is being carried out wisely and cost-effectively. It is no secret that NASA has been asked to make significant reductions to its planned budgets over the last few years. The NASA Administrator and all of the good people at the Space Agency have stepped up to that challenge. The overall NASA budget runouts have been cut by more than 30 percent. Mission to Planet Earth in particular has had its budget reduced from $17 billion to 7 billion. These cuts have not been painless. One of the impacts of all of the budgetary instability has been the need to spend a great deal of time restructuring NASA's programs to fit within each revised budget. Inthe last five years alone, the Earth Observing System, a central part of Mission to Planet Earth, has been restructured, rescoped, rebaselined, and reshaped. What are the impacts of all these redesigns and the resulting management turbulence? The Augustine Committee summed it up this way: "At each step, contracts must be renegotiated, people reassigned, designs changed, and schedules revised. Soon, a disproportionate amount of time is spent in pursuit of these change practices instead of producing the end product itself." I think that we should not be pennywise and pound-foolish-we can wind up wasting money in our attempts to save money. NASA has done a great deal to cut its budgets and streamline its operations in Mission to Planet Earth and elsewhere. It is time to hold the line and let NASA get on with its job of exploring space and returning the benefits of its research to all our citizens. Thank you. OPENING STATEMENT THE HONORABLE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON FULL COMMITTEE HEARING U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM 3/6/96 I thank you for recognizing me and for calling this hearing this morning, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, however, I do not believe that the goal of this hearing is a proper one. During this Congress, this Committee has continually attempted to reduce needed funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. While I understand the skepticism of many in the scientific community regarding the existence of what is commonly referred to as global warming, programs such as NASA's Mission to Planet Earth contribute valuable data in our effort to understand our planet. Additionally, these research programs do not presuppose the existence of global warming. NASA's Earth Observing System is a critical part of the Mission to Planet Earth, and many studies have noted the value of the program. In a 1995 study undertaken at the request of the Chairman of this Committee, the National Research Council claimed that the EOS program has been reformed to be more responsive to science, and more open to the introduction of new technology. Further, the study found that more reductions in funding could result in slips in the schedule, as well as the elimination of advanced technology development. Nevertheless, given the statements of the Chairman in the past and the direction in which the Committee seems to be moving, and despite the position of the Administration on this issue, the Global Change Research Program is in danger yet again. I hope today's witnesses can shed some light the positive aspects of the program. OPENING STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN ZOE LOFGREN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HEARING: U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAMS: DATA COLLECTION AND SCIENTIFIC PRIORITIES MARCH 6, 1996 Good morning. I am delighted we are holding this important hearing on global change research. As you know, I offered an amendment to H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Science bill, that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to continue its important research into the dynamics of this phenomenon. I also offered an amendment during full committee markup to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reauthorization to increase funding for this important research. Some on the other side of the aisle hold the view that environmental research is not what our country needs. Obviously I disagree with that notion. I believe, and I think many others on both sides of the aisle agree, that we need to have a better understanding of climate change-not only the natural forces which drive the system, but also the impact of human activity on these dynamics. I am excited about the Mission to Planet Earth program. One of the best ways to study Earth as a whole is from space. Using this unique perspective, NASA's satellite program will help us to better understand and predict global climate change by studying how the atmosphere, land, seas, and icecaps interact as a system. Mission to Planet Earth will help us learn how human activity is influencing natural forces. By combining satellites and aircraft, we can look at all parts of the Earth's weather system and compare regional and local environmental changes with the global "big picture." I welcome the panelists today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. Chairman WALKER. Ms. Jackson- Lee? Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I'm not sure how you're proceeding, I'd like maybe a minute, and then to submit this in the record. Chairman WALKER. I'll recognize the gentlelady for one minute. I would prefer to take the rest of opening statements for the record. We have a long list of witnesses. We have two panels with a lot of people today, and I do want to spend our time listening to the people that we've invited, if we can. But the gentlelady is recognized. Ms. JACKSON-LEE. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I will take even less than that and simply thank you for this hearing and emphasize the needed bipartisan approach to this. And also indicate, I know your extreme interest both in terms of legislation and dialogue, with respect to the targeting of NASA's Earth Observation System programs. But I would hope that we would also reflect in the testimony today that our EOS program has certainly evolved from its original structure to one that is more responsive to science, more resilient, and more open to the introduction of new technology. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will ask that my complete statement be submitted for the record. Chairman WALKER. Without objection. [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] OPENING STATEMENT BY CONGRESSWOMAN JACKSON LEE DURING THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAMS First, I'd like to thank the chairman for putting this hearing together. Over the past year, this committee has held numerous hearings on the issue and hopefully we can finally put the issue of our country's global climate change research program, to rest, at least for a while. Considering the extensive debate on the changes our planetary climate may or may not be undergoing as a result of man's polluting tendencies, I should think that any effort to collect substantiative and comprehensive data on the issue would be welcomed by all sides. There have been numerous calls for our country's environmental policies to be better driven by scientific basis and I think the current U.S. Global Change Research Program and more specifically, NASA's Mission to Planet Earth offer excellent opportunities for this to happen. Mr. Chairman, it cannot go unobserved that you have specifically targeted NASA's Earth Observation System many times in the past in both dialog and legislation. I appreciate your skepticism and concern, however this program has undergone numerous scientific and programmatic reviews and it is my belief that the program is on sound footing. I quote from the recent National Research Council 1995 review "...the [EOS] program has evolved from its original plans to a reshaped program that is more responsive to the science, more resilient, and more open to the introduction of new technology." According to the hearing charter, I believe that most of this committee's concerns about EOS should have been eased by this report. In addition, the report states that, "...any further structural changes to the near-term EOS missions cause severe program dislocations. Further budgetary reductions or imposed constraints on technical options could require the elimination of key sensors, slips in schedule, loss of data continuity, and the elimination of advanced technology development that could enhance future research at lower costs." Hence, I believe the time has come for the politicians to step aside and allow the scientists to begin their work in earnest. The environmental questions addressed by this program are important and far-reaching; the results will have a profound effect on many generations after ours. Let us heed history and remember Nero and not allow our environment to be destroyed while we fiddle away. Ms. JACKSON-LEE. And I look forward to hearing the comments of the witnesses. Chairman WALKER. Without objection. And the Chair would say that, without objection at this point, that any opening statements from members would be welcome in the record at this point. With that, let me call our first panel of witnesses to the table, if we could, please. I understand that Dr. Frieman is under some time constraints here. And so I think what we will do is allow him to go ahead and testify first and we will take a round of questions of him and then move to the other witnesses, if that will help with your schedule. Dr. FRIEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I've rearranged my schedule this morning. I realize the importance of the issues you've raised. Berrien Moore will chair the meeting back at the academy, and I will stay through it, if you will permit me to do so. Chairman WALKER. That's wonderful. Okay. Well, what we will do, we will revise this a little bit differently, then. Then we will take the statements of each of the witnesses on the first panel. We would ask you to limit your remarks. Without objection, all prepared remarks will be entered in the record in their full text. And if you would summarize those, then it will give a chance for more dialogue. |