Geoscience Policy Monthly Review
april 2018
The Monthly Review is part of a continuing effort to improve communications about the role of geoscience in policy.
Current and archived monthly reviews are available online.Subscribe to receive the Monthly Review directly.
budget
House committees discuss FY 2019 NOAA budget request
April 12, 2018
Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet, Ph.D., the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), testified at two House committee hearings about NOAA’s fiscal year (FY) 2019 budget request. On April 11, Rear Admiral Gallaudet testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, and on April 12, he appeared before the House Committee on Natural Resources along with panelists representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and four power marketing administrations.
In Rear Admiral Gallaudet’s testimony, he stated that NOAA’s FY 2019 budget request of about $4.6 billion – a decrease of $1.3 billion or 23 percent below the FY 2018 omnibus enacted level – prioritizes investment in the core missions at NOAA. He identified the agency’s core government functions as implementing the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act with improved weather and water observations, modeling, and forecasting; launching and operating next generation Earth observing satellites; and providing at-sea data collection capabilities for fisheries management and nautical charting. His testimony highlighted NOAA’s contributions to information and emergency response during the 2017 hurricane season and recent wildfires, which included improved hurricane and flood models, land surveying from NOAA’s King Air aircraft, updated nautical charts after the storms, early sighting of new wildfires from the GOES-16 satellite, and on-site support and weather forecasts to assist with wildfire response efforts. He also emphasized the work NOAA is doing to bridge the forecast gap between the existing two-week predictions and longer term weather outlooks using the North American Multi-Model Ensemble (NMME) seasonal forecast system.
At the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, Representative Robert Aderholt (R-AL-4) asked about the status of NOAA’s Commercial Weather Data Pilot Program. While Rear Admiral Gallaudet’s testimony stated that the Office of Space Commerce budget would increase by 50 percent, he acknowledged that the commercial space industry was not evolving as fast as it should for operational weather observations, but noted that the pilot program will increase funding and seek future commercial technologies and data production beyond its initial requests for radio occultation capabilities. Subcommittee Ranking Member Jose Serrano (D-NY-15) expressed concern about the reduction in funding and 248 full-time employment positions from the National Weather Service (NWS). However, Rear Admiral Gallaudet said that he did not think those reductions would risk lives and property, and that, based on three studies, NWS forecast centers could operate more efficiently, with fewer people and work hours, increased automation, and improved processing.
Democratic members at both hearings questioned the proposed cuts to and elimination of certain ocean, coastal, and climate programs, many of which provide grants to state and local governments. Rear Admiral Gallaudet re-emphasized that these proposed cuts or eliminations reflect the difficult decisions that Secretary of Commerce Wilber Ross had to make in order to help reduce the budget deficit and prioritize resources for core mission functions and services at NOAA.
Sources: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. House of Representatives
White House floats rescission of FY 2018 appropriations
April 19, 2018
After passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 with record funding for science agencies, the White House and some Republican members of Congress are considering pursuing a rescission procedure to roll back some of the fiscal year (FY) 2018 funds that President Donald Trump reluctantly signed into law on March 23. The procedure, established in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, provides an expedited process for the President to propose and Congress to pass a rescission resolution identifying appropriations that the administration does not want to spend.
Title 10 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 specifies that “whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons …, or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message.” The special message must specify: (1) the amount of budget authority proposed to be rescinded, (2) the specific accounts and projects proposed for funding rescission, (3) the reasons for rescission, (4) the fiscal, economic, and budgetary effects of the rescission, and (5) the rescission effects on executing federal programs. Upon receipt of the special message, Congress has 45 legislative days to approve all, part, or none of the president’s request; otherwise, the funds must be made available for obligation – a binding agreement that will result in expenditures. Under this procedure, the Senate would only need a simple majority to pass the resolution for a rescission.
The Office of Management and Budget is reviewing the FY 2018 enacted appropriations and considering initiating a rescission process for tens of billions of dollars within the next few weeks. With only five months left until the end of FY 2018, federal agencies have a limited amount of time to obligate funds for the programs under their management.
Key members of Congress, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), have opposed the Administration’s proposal to rescind any FY 2018 appropriations. Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) warned the President that the Senate may not have the votes to pass such a measure. Regardless of whether the President officially initiates a rescission or Congress ultimately agrees to pass a rescission, some agency spending plans have already been delayed in anticipation.
Sources: Bloomberg, E&E News, U.S. House of Representatives, The Washington Times
Administrator Pruitt answers questions from House lawmakers at EPA FY 2019 budget hearings
April 26, 2018
On April 26, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt fielded an array of questions at back-to-back congressional hearings, which were originally intended to discuss the EPA’s fiscal year (FY) 2019 budget. Administrator Pruitt submitted testimony to the House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce advocating for the EPA’s budget request of $6.15 billion, a $1.9 billion or 24 percent reduction from FY 2018 enacted levels, as supporting the goals and objectives in the FY 2018-FY 2022 EPA Strategic Plan.
The hearings were peppered with questions regarding ethics issues, policy concerns, and parochial projects. While many Republicans voiced support for Administrator Pruitt’s agenda, Democrats focused on recent spending and ethical tumults and major policy decisions by the current Administration. Lawmakers questioned the EPA’s decision to revise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, repeal and replace the Clean Power Plan, delay limits on methane emissions from oil and gas sites, and give states more authority to change rules around the disposal of toxic power-plant coal ash. Many also expressed disapproval of removing climate change from the agency's website and the placement of industry representatives on an independent science advisory panel.
Members also focused on the EPA rulemaking announced earlier in the week, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.” The proposed regulation directs the EPA to ensure that the data underlying regulations are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. When the members of Congress inquired if this new rule would restrict the kinds of scientific studies that it would use in forming policy, Administrator Pruitt responded, “It seems to me that it’s common sense that as we do rule-making, we base it on scientific conclusions that we should be able to see the data and methodology that causes those conclusions. That makes sense to me.”
Sources: E&E News, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, U.S. House of Representatives