NOAA Tradeoff Disadvantage - JDI 2014

NOAA Tradeoff DA

1NC

2015 NOAA budget allots adequate funds for weather and climate satellitesWalker ‘14[Molly, March 19, NOAA satellite spending to nominally increase under budget request, http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/noaa-satellite-spending-nominally-increase-under-budget-request/2014-03-19]

Systems acquisition for major satellite programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would nominally increase under the president's fiscal 2015 budget proposal.¶ Several of the civil satellites, which are focused on collecting the planet's envirionmental data, have garnered attention from Congress and industry as cost and schedule overruns could result in a gap in reporting data because some currently-orbiting satellites are approaching the end of their predicted lifespan.¶ "One of the greatest challenges facing NOAA today is ensuring continuity of satellite operations to provide uninterrupted coverage of weather forecasts and environmental measurements into the future," says the Commerce Department'sbudget proposal (.pdf) for NOAA.¶ The Geostationary Operational Environmental System-R Series satellite acquisition program – a partnership between NOAA and NASA – will launch its first satellite in the second quarter of fiscal 2016, says the proposal. GOES-R satellites will carry improved environmental observation instruments and NOAA budgets $980.838 million for systems acquisition in fiscal 2015. That's nominally more than the $941.89 enacted in fiscal 2014.¶ To continue progress on Jason-3 , a satellite program operated with NOAA's European partners to continue precise measurements of sea surface heights, NOAA requests $25.65 million for acquisition costs in fiscal 2015, or nominally more than the $18.50 million enacted in fiscal 2014.¶ For the Joint Polar Satellite System, which delivers polar satellite weather observations, NOAA also requests a nominal increase for systems acquisition - $916.26 million in fiscal 2015 versus the $820.85 enacted in fiscal 2014.¶ In all, the National Environmental Satellite Service would receive $2.078 billion under the request, a number nominally larger than the current year's estimated funding, and would see no increase in personnel.

Spending trades off with weather satellites – makes forecasting impossible - crushes the economy and destroys military readiness.Conathan ‘11[Michael, Director of Oceans Policy at American Progress., The GOP decides accurate weather forecasting and hurricane tracking are luxuries America can’t afford¶ , ¶ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/18/207538/gop-cuts-noaa-satellite-weather-forecasting-and-hurricane-tracking/]

In fact, NOAA has been making great strides in hurricane tracking. The average margin of error for predicting landfall three days in advance was 125 miles in 2009″”half what it was 10 years prior. This data translates into a higher degree of confidence among the public in NOAA’s forecasts, which means individuals will be more likely to obey an evacuation order. Further, since evacuating each mile of shoreline costs approximately up to $1 million , greater forecasting accuracy translates to substantial savings.¶ The United States needs these satellites if we’re to

continue providing the best weather and climate forecasts in the world. The implications of the loss of these data far exceed the question of whether to pack the kids into snowsuits for the trip to school. The concern here is ensuring ongoing operational efficiency and national security on a global scale. In some cases it can literally become a question of life and death.¶ Consider the following numbers:¶ The $700 billion maritime commerce industry moves more than 90 percent of all global trade , with arrival and departure of quarter-mile long container ships timed to the minute to maximize revenue and efficiency. Shipping companies rely on accurate forecasts to set their manifests and itineraries.¶ Forecasting capabilities are particularly strained at high latitudes and shippers have estimated that the loss of satellite monitoring capabilities could cost them more than half a billion dollars per year in lost cargo and damage to vessels from unanticipated heavy

weather.¶ When a hurricane makes landfall, evacuations cost as much as $1 million per mile.

Over the past decade, NOAA has halved the average margin of error in its three-day forecasts from 250 miles to 125 miles, saving up to $125 million per storm.¶ Commercial fishing is the most dangerous profession in the country with 111.8 deaths per 100,000 workers. A fisherman’s most valuable piece of safety equipment is his weather radio.¶ When disaster strikes at sea, polar-orbiting satellites receive emergency distress beacons and relay positioning data to rescuers. This resulted in 295 lives savedin 2010 alone and the rescue of more than 6,500 fishermen, recreational boaters, and other maritime transportation workers since the program began in 1982.¶ Farmers rely on NOAA’s drought predictions to determine planting cycles. Drought forecasts informed directly by satellite data have been valued at $6 billion to 8 billion annually.¶ NOAA’s volcanic ash forecasting capabilities received international attention last spring during the eruption of the

Icelandic volcano, Eyjafjallaj¶kull. The service saves airlines upwards of $200 million per year.¶ NOAA’s polar-orbiting satellites are America’s only source of weather and climate data for vast areas of the globe, including areas key to overseas military operations. Their data are integral to planning deployments of troops and aircraft””certain high-atmosphere wind conditions, for example, can prohibit mid-air refueling operations.¶ All of these uses will be compromised if the Republicans succeed in defunding NOAA’s satellite program. At least an 18-month gap in coverage will be unavoidable without adequate funding for new polar-orbiting satellites this year. More troubling, taking an acquisition program offline and then restarting the process at a later date would lead to cost increases of as much as three to five times the amount the government would have to spend for the same product today.¶ So here’s the choice: Spend $700 million this year for continuous service or $2 billion to $3.5 billion at some point in the future for the same equipment and a guaranteed service interruption.¶ Environmental satellites are not optional equipment. This is not a debate about whether we should splurge on the sunroof or the premium sound system or the seat warmers for our new car. Today’s environmental satellites are at the end of their projected life cycles. They will fail. When they do, we must have replacements ready or risk billions of dollars in annual losses to major sectors of our economy and weakening our national security.¶ That’s an ugly forecast. Tragically, it’s also 100 percent accurate.

Decline of readiness guarantees China, Russia, and North Korea lash out causing escalation and global warOlsen 14 (Wyatt; Military’s reduced readiness seen as emboldening China, Russia; May 20; www.stripes.com/news/military-s-reduced-readiness-seen-as-emboldening-china-russia-1.283925; kdf)When the U.S. could be making a show of strength toward China and Russia as several Pacific flashpoints heat up, it is instead mired in debates about military readiness, troop reductions and deep budget cuts. The result could be a series of opportunistic “bites-of-an-apple” provocations that fall below the level that would trigger a U.S. military response, eroding confidence in America's commitment to help current and possible allies, analysts say. INTERACTIVE MAP | Flashpoints of conflict in the Pacific Earlier this month, China floated a mobile oil-drilling rig in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, setting off a standoff of flotillas in which Hanoi claims two of its ships were rammed. Violent riots in Vietnam have left dozens of ethnic Chinese injured or dead. Just to the west, China recently began preparations for what the Philippines described as a possible military airstrip on a reef in the Spratly Islands, which both

countries claim. Meanwhile, Russia has ratcheted up its presence in the Pacific — including long-range air patrols off the coast of California and near the U.S. territory of Guam — to gather intelligence and display its military might. The Japan Air Self Defense Force almost doubled its number of scrambles against Russian aircraft in the 12 months leading up to March compared with the previous year. And North Korea has intensified its rhetoric amid what appear to be preparations for its fourth underground nuclear weapons test. The U.S. still maintains the most formidable force in the Pacific. The Pacific Fleet consists of about 180 ships, which include five aircraft carrier strike groups and almost 2,000 aircraft, according to U.S. Pacific Command. One aircraft carrier and about 65 ships are permanently forward deployed in Japan. By comparison, as of last year China’s navy had only 52 frigates and 23 destroyers, many of them antiquated, according to the Pentagon’s most recent assessment of China’s military. Russia’s Pacific Fleet consists of a missile cruiser, five destroyers and a few dozen submarines, according to recent news reports. “The U.S. certainly retains an ability to project an awful lot of air and sea power for more limited contingencies — and do so very quickly,” said Anthony Cordesman, a defense expert at the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. And even if U.S. forces did become embroiled in Pacific confrontations such as those unfolding in Vietnam and the Philippines, they aren’t the kind of interventions that demand huge follow-up forces, he said. Cordesman cautioned against equating these kinds of skirmishes with a potential outbreak of hostilities on the Korean peninsula because the U.S. is prepared and willing to match escalation there, he said. “You’re not going to go to general war over an [exclusive economic zone] or a reef somewhere in the Pacific,” he said. Still,

Cordesman admitted, irrational behavior and miscalculations by adversaries can quickly lead to escalation and “the need for putting many more follow-on forces in the field over time.” Some experts say that flagging readiness — real or perceived — actually invites escalation by weakening America’s “deterrent effect” as China and Russia continue beefing up their Pacific forces. In congressional testimony, top-ranking military chiefs have already warned that readiness is deteriorating, partly because of cuts from last year’s sequester at a time the military is struggling to refit and retrain after a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, testified before a Senate subcommittee in March that he was concerned about the readiness of “follow-on forces” that would be required should the peninsula enter crisis. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. John Amos told the same committee last fall that budget cuts leave “fewer forces, arriving less-trained, arriving later in the fight.” Reduced readiness cuts two ways, said Todd Harrison, a defense expert with the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. “I think this reduction in readiness that we’re looking at will reduce our confidence in the ability of our military to intervene successfully if called upon,” he said. “That may weaken the deterrent effect on potential adversaries, but it could also create a situation where we self-deter.” Dakota Wood, a defense expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., said that America’s current budget and readiness woes do not go unnoticed by China and Russia. “There’s this deterrent value in being strongly forward, being strongly postured and having the perception that not only are your forces ready for action, but that the government in the U.S. is willing to press that case if it comes to it. “When it comes to China, we are seeing increasing aggressiveness in trying to push forward their territorial claims in the East and South China Seas. “China is likely viewing this as a window of opportunity to aggressively press its claims in these waters, and the U.S. is not well postured to come to the assistance of friends and allies in the region.” Wood described this “pattern of conduct” as “taking small bites of an apple,” which over time will consume it. “So each one of these little actions is below the threshold that would invite a large-scale conventional military response,” he said. “But they’re willing and able to take these small bites because they know the U.S., by this series of incidents, is unwilling to press the case.” Terrence K. Kelly director of the Strategy and Resources Program at the RAND Corporation, said that individual skirmishes such as these might seem insignificant. But over time countries such as China and Russia can achieve their goals by “nibbling away” with “subresponse-level” aggression, Kelly said. “It’s probably calculated to slowly over time achieve an effect that won’t elicit a military response from the U.S. or its allies,” he said. Cordesman said, however, that even a modest U.S. intervention could lead to unintended escalation. “The problem is that the United States responding — even if it solves one small, short-term problem — may lead to the other side responding in ways that again produce a steady pattern of escalation,” Cordesman said. Judging by the testimony of the Chiefs of Staff earlier month during a Senate hearing on the Pentagon's proposal to reduce compensation and benefits for troops, the services aren’t hankering for a greater show of force in the Pacific. If Congress doesn't approve those compensation cuts, the Air Force will consider cutting $8.1 billion from readiness, mondernization and infrastructure accounts over the next five years, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh III told a Senate Committee. “We’ll take significant cuts to flying hours and weapons system sustainment accounts, reduce precision munitions buys and lower funding for training ranges, digging our readiness hole even deeper,” Welsh said.

***UQSquo funding geared toward satellitesLeone 6/12 (Dan, NASA reporter for Space News, “House and Senate Find Common Ground on NOAA Budget”, Space News, Jun. 12, http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40883house-and-senate-find-common-ground-on-noaa-budget)WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on June 5 approved a budget bill that would give the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about $5.4 billion in 2015, including some $2.1 billion for its major weather satellite programs — a small increase over 2014 that is about even with the White House’s 2015 request and what House appropriators included in a competing bill approved in May. Senate and House appropriators now seem to be more or less on the same page when it comes to the weather agency’s 2015 budget, even if they do not agree fully with the White House — or each other — on every detail. The Senate committee broke with the House in directing NASA to take over full development responsibility for the Jason-3 ocean altimetry satellite and the Deep Space Climate Observatory, stripping NOAA management of its role in the development process but keeping the weather agency in charge of on-orbit operations. The House and Senate bills differ on funding levels for these two projects. Senate appropriators included $25.6 million for Jason-3, a little less than the $25.7 million the White House wanted but $10 million more than the House bill includes. The Deep Space Climate Observatory would get $24.8 million under the Senate bill — $4.8 million more than the House approved and $3.5 million more than the White House requested. Senate appropriators, however, fell into step with House appropriators in denying the $15 million the White House requested for the newly proposed Solar Irradiance Data and Rescue effort — NOAA’s latest plan to find rides to space for scientific and search-and-rescue payloads once manifest for flight on a civil-military polar-orbiting satellite weather satellite program canceled in 2010. Likewise, the Senate committee joined the House in recommending $6.8 million for NOAA to upgrade its ground systems to handle forecast-supplementing GPS radio occultation data that will be beamed back by the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate satellites. These satellites, jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force and the government of Taiwan, would launch in two tranches of six: the first in late 2015 and the second around 2018, according to the Boulder, Colorado-based University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the academic consortium leading the project. The Senate committee also wants NOAA to produce a report on GPS radio occultation data, including a roadmap for building and launching the second half of the planned U.S.-Taiwan constellation, and “an analysis for acquiring radio occultation weather data from private sector providers.” PlanetIQ of Bethesda, Maryland, says it can provide GPS radio occultation data with its envisioned fleet of commercially operated satellites. Meanwhile, the Senate committee reiterated its concerns about the potential gap in weather data from the polar orbit that might occur following the end of the Suomi NPP satellite’s five-year primary mission in 2016, and the scheduled launch of its successor, the Joint Polar Satellite System-1 spacecraft, in 2017. The Senate committee directed NOAA to provide a gap mitigation plan in the 2015 operating plan the agency would have to submit to Congress 45 days after the bill is signed. Finally, Senate appropriators scolded NOAA for excluding the Commerce Department’s inspector general from portions of the monthly Program Management Council meetings — internal meetings in which the agency discusses its major weather satellite programs. The Senate’s bill report directs NOAA to ensure that the watchdog’s office is represented at these meetings.

NOAA funding focused on weather satellitesDayton Daily News 3/5 (Dayton Daily News Ohio, “Further Budget Highlights”, March 5)Agriculture: The recently-enacted five-year farm bill made some cutbacks to farm subsidies that the Obama administration has called for annually. But the administration would like that reform to go even further by scaling back crop insurance. Discretionary spending: $22.2 billion. Percentage change from 2014: 7.9 percent decrease. Commerce: The department budget proposes spending $2 billion on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop its next generation weather satellite systems, which helps NOAA forecast storms and issue warnings on significant changes in weather conditions. Discretionary spending: $8.8 billion. Percentage change from 2014: 6 percent increase. Energy: Obama again would increase spending for two priorities: clean energy and national security. The budget proposal calls for $11.7 billion for nuclear security, a 4 percent increase over the current budget. Much of that money, $8.3 billion, would go to maintain a nuclear deterrent in a joint program with the Defense Department. Discretionary spending: $27.9 billon. Percentage change from 2014: 2.6 percent increase Homeland Security: Obama's proposed homeland security budget would provide money to hire 2,000 new Customs and Border Protection officers to work at the country's ports of entry. The budget also proposes another 2,000 officers whose positions would be funded by user fees. Lawmakers and others have repeatedly complained to the Homeland Security Department that long waits at borders and airports hinders both business and tourism and have repeatedly asked for more border officers. Discretionary spending: $38.2 billion. Percentage change from 2014: 2.8 percent decrease NASA: NASA's budget would essentially remain about the same with a tiny decrease. But if the Obama Administration gets its "opportunity" add-on budget, NASA would get an extra $885 million. That would make the space agency's budget rise by 4.5 percent. Discretionary spending: $17.5 billion. Percentage change from 2014: 0.6 percent decrease. Veterans

Affairs: The bulk of the department's discretionary spending - $56 billion - would go toward veterans' medical care. Obama seeks a 2.7 percent increase in medical spending as the number of patients treated at VA hospitals and outpatient clinics continues to rise. VA health care enrollment is projected to reach 9.3 million in 2015. Discretionary spending: $65.3 billion. Percentage change from 2014: 3 percent increase.

House budget set aside funds for the GOES-R SatellitesMorello 13 ( Lauren, reporter @ Climate Central, “House Votes to Increase Weather Satellite Funding”, Climate Central, March 6th,http://www.climatecentral.org/news/house-votes-to-increase-weather-satellite-funding-15694)The House of Representatives approved legislation Wednesday that would ease a budget shortfall that threatens to delay a key weather satellite program. Lawmakers voted 267-151 to pass a spending bill that would keep the federal government operating after the current stopgap funding legislation expires on March 27. Although the bill would keep funding flat at the 2012 level for most federal agencies and departments, it makes an exception for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s geostationary weather satellites. The satellites transmit data that is crucial for weather forecasts. The agency keeps a pair of geostationary probes orbiting at fixed points above Earth. The orbiters beam down data that is crucial for NOAA’s weather forecasts, including the agency’s ability to track developing storms. The new spending bill would set aside $802 million for NOAA’s next generation of geostationary probes, known as GOES-R — $186 million more than the program received in 2012.

That should be welcome news for NOAA, which has warned that budget shortfalls this year could delay the launches of the first two GOES-R satellites, now scheduled for 2015 and 2017. The agency says it needs $802 million in 2013 to begin purchasing and testing the equipment that will launch the two probes into orbit and process the information they collect. But so far during the current spending cycle, which began Oct. 1 and ends Sept. 29, it has not come close to receiving that amount. The stopgap spending measure that took effect in October provided $616 million this year for GOES-R, and that money has been further reduced by across-the-board spending cuts that began Friday. In a Feb. 8 letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), acting Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank said those cuts, known as “sequestration,” could delay the first two GOES-R launches by 2-3 years. “This delay would increase the risk of a gap in satellite coverage and diminish the quality of weather forecasts and warnings,” said Blank, whose department oversees NOAA. The new House legislation should improve that gloomy forecast, but there are a few catches. The legislation must be approved by the Senate before it can become law. And there are indications that Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) intends to take a different approach to funding the federal government once the current continuing budget resolution expires later this month. Mikulski is exploring plans to amend the House bill to include regular yearlong budgets for several agencies and departments, including Commerce, Politico reported yesterday. And even if the funding laid out in the current version of the House bill becomes law, a classic bit of Washington tap-dancing would reduce the amount agencies actually receive. That's because the $1.043 trillion the bill budgets for federal operations is still subject to sequestration. That means funding throughout the bill would be reduced by 5 percent percent before the first dollar is doled out. Under those rules, the $802 million the House bill sets aside for NOAA’s GOES-R satellites shrinks to roughly $762 million. That's less than the amount that NOAA says is necessary to keep GOES-R on track, but it's still more than Congress has approved for the program so far this year.

2014 Omnibus funding meets NOAA’s requests for satellite fundingFerster 1/16 (Warren, Editor in Chief of Space News, “Omnibus Fully Funds Primary NOAA Satellites, Stiffs Free Flyer”, Space News, Jan 16, http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39131omnibus-fully-funds-primary-noaa-satellites-stiffs-free-flyer)Civilian weather satellite programs are fully funded in an omnibus spending measure for 2014 that also requires the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to submit to lawmakers a plan in the coming weeks for ensuring long-term coverage. However, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2014 (H.R. 3547), which passed the House Jan. 15 and the Senate Jan. 16, does not fund an adjunct satellite intended to host instruments that cannot fit on NOAA’s primary polar-orbiting platforms. U.S. President Barack Obama signed the legislation Jan. 17. NOAA operates two primary satellite systems, a geostationary-orbiting system for continental coverage and a polar-orbiting system for global coverage. Budget difficulties and delays have led to concerns about gaps in coverage, primarily from polar orbit, as

age pushes the existing systems into retirement. The omnibus spending bill, which funds the entire federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2014, provides $955 million for the Geostationary-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R system under development by

Lockheed Martin Space Systems and now slated to begin launching in 2016. That sum is level with NOAA’s request. NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System program is allotted $824 million in the bill, also per the

agency’s request. The first satellite in that system, being built by Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp. and slated to launch in early 2017, is nearly identical to the Ball-built Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite launched in late 2011. In a report accompanying the legislation, the House and Senate appropriations committees cited an independent assessment that said NOAA is making progress on the GOES-R and JPSS programs. But that assessment, along with others by the Commerce Department’s inspector general and Government Accountability Office, identified program risks including the possibility of a gap in JPSS coverage. “The Committees expect NOAA to present a strategy with the fiscal year 2015 budget that fully addresses both the short- and long-term challenges associated with the gap and fragility of the program,” the report accompanying the bill said. “Such a strategy shall examine the proposed polar free flyer mission, which the agreement does not fund due to fiscal constraints. NOAA is expected to focus on the weather mission and to better address the weather gap in its fiscal year 2015 budget.” The White House is expected to submit its 2015 budget request in late February. The so-called Free Flyer-1 satellite is an adjunct mission intended to carry instruments that cannot be accommodated on the primary polar-orbit system, including a solar-irradiance sensor and a search and rescue payload. NOAA requested $62 million for the mission, with a launch tentatively scheduled for 2016. The bill gives NOAA explicit permission to spend JPSS funds on procurement of additional instruments and spacecraft as necessary to ensure continuity of coverage from polar-orbit. NOAA, through its partner agency NASA, has begun procuring sensors for a JPSS-2 mission but has yet to select a manufacturer for the satellite platform.

Congress prioritizes weather in the status quosBall 4/1 (Jessica, GSA Science Policy Fellow, “House Passes Bill to Restore and Prioritize NOAA Weather”, The Geological Society of America, April 1, 2014, http://www.geosociety.org/geopolicy/news/2014/04-prioritizeNOAA.htm)On Tuesday, 1 April, a much-revamped version of the “Weather Forecasting Improvement Act of 2014” (HR. 2413) passed the House. The bill is intended to prioritize the forecasting and timely prediction of “high impact weather events,” such as tornadoes and hurricanes, and authorizes US$383 million for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather research & development over the next four years. In a document accompanying the bill, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee notes that NOAA has tracked a rise in weather events costing more than US$1 billion and that about US$500 billion of the GDP is generated by weather-sensitive parts of the economy. The Weather Forecasting Improvement Act requires NOAA to develop an R&D plan to “restore and maintain United States leadership in numerical weather prediction and forecasting,” with emphasis on high-powered computing that will enhance U.S. forecast modeling. Recently, the National Weather Service’s Global Forecast System model has fallen behind European models in accuracy (for example, on the storm track of Hurricane Sandy). In the bill, NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is directed to create an advisory committee to direct these efforts internally, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is required to create an Interagency Committee for Advancing Weather Services to improve coordination of weather research and forecasting activities

across the government. Overall, the bill would dedicate nearly US$400 million of NOAA’s budget to this goal over the next four years, although it does not increase the overall authorization for NOAA or OAR. For 2014, the bill authorizes US$65 million for weather labs and cooperative institutes, US$18 million for weather and air chemistry research programs, and US$14 million for technology transfer requirements (US$83 million total, with a provision that would increase it to US$96 million if sequestration caps are lifted). For each fiscal year from 2015–2017, the bill authorizes US$100 million (US$80 million for labs and US$20 million for tech transfer). Originally, the bill contained language that would have made weather forecasting and prediction the most important priorities of NOAA R&D. However, the language was amended in committee, and the bipartisan version that passed only deals with NOAA’s weather prediction functions and doesn’t restrict other oceanic or atmospheric research. In a surprising move for a committee that is normally hostile to funding social science in R&D investments, the bill contains specific provisions to incorporate more social science into weather forecasting with the goal of “improving the

understanding of how the public receives, interprets, and responds to warnings and forecasts.” Much of NOAA’s funding currently focuses on two satellite platforms related to weather forecasting (JPSS and GOES-R). However, this bill also encourages collaboration and support from the non-federal weather research community, including private groups and NGOs, and stipulates that not less than 30% of funds authorized for R&D should be made available through competitive grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for the this purpose. It also contains plans for purchasing privately generated weather data and conducting cost-benefit analysis on current satellite/observing systems and before approving new ones, perhaps a response to the fact that the current satellite programs are behind schedule and might face reduced funding in the future. The bill will now be sent to the Senate for consideration.

***Link

Plan Trades off with Satellites

The NOAA budget is tighter than ever – funding for fisheries has been reduced - new spending forces tradeoffsPekow ‘14[Charles, May 17, House committee offers tight NOAA budget for 2015, http://www.examiner.com/article/house-committee-offers-tight-noaa-budget-for-2015]

Federal help for fishermen may get reduced next year. The House Appropriations Committee approved a Commerce, Justice, Science & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 4660) that would slightly increase the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) discretionary funds budget. But the bill would keep it below what

the Obama Administration had requested. And it would cut the budget for fishing and related programs.¶ The Republican-dominated committee reported a bill that would give NOAA 's discretionary accounts $5.32512 billion, an increase of only $10.514 million, not enough to keep up with inflation. The administration had requested an increase of $163.615 million.¶ The committee report became available online on the congressional website on Saturday, May 17, 2014. The bill has been placed on the House Union Calendar so the House can vote on it after it returns from recess. The Senate has not yet written a corresponding appropriations bill.¶ Of the NOAA budget, $3.22048 billion would go toward its coastal, fisheries, marine, weather, satellite and related programs. The amount includes funding transferred from other funds and amounts to $148.513 million less than what the administration asked for. The National Marine Fisheries Service would get $790.2 million.

Adequate satellite funding is only possible through reductions in other NOAA missions – the plan jacks the JPSS program. Showstack ‘12[Randy, March 6, Transactions American Geophysical Union, NOAA Budget Would Boost Satellite Funding but Cut Some Key Areas, vol. 93, no. 10, Wiley]

The White House’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), announced on 13 February, looks favorable at first glance. The administration’s request calls for $5.1 billion, an increase of $153 million (3.1%) above the FY 2012 estimated budget. However, the increase for NOAA satellites is $163 million,

which means that other areas within the agency would be slated for decreased funding, including programs within the National Ocean Service (NOS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National

Weather Service (NWS), and some NOAA education programs.¶ The proposed overall budget for the agency “reflects the overarching importance of weather satellites to public safety, to national security,

and to the economy,” NOAA director Jane Lubchenco said at a 16 February briefing, noting that difficult choices were

made regarding the budget . “Due to significant resources required for our weather satellites and the economic conditions in the country, other parts of our budget have been reduced, in some cases quite significantly,” she said. She added that the imperative to fund both the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS)

and geostationary satellites in FY 2013 “imposes serious constraints on the rest of NOAA’s budget.”¶ The budget for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) would increase 8.7% to $2.041 billion. This includes full funding for the JPSS ($916.4 million, down from $924 million). In addition, funding for the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite–R Series (GOES-R) would increase to $802 million, up from $615.6 million. Environmental satellite observing systems would receive $123.2 million, up from $112.5 million. However, NOAA’s Climate Database Modernization Program to preserve and enhance the availability of climate and environmental data would be terminated.¶ Cuts Proposed for NOAA’s “Wet” Side¶ The NOS budget of $478.1 million (down 2.4% from FY 2012) would include $149.6 million for

navigation services (trimmed from $148 million), $166.1 million for ocean resources conservation and assessment (down from $163.3 million), and $142.8 mil - lion for ocean and coastal management

(a dip from $148.2 million). Lubchenco said the budget would maintain core mission functions, including funding for navigation services and marine sanctuary and coastal zone management programs. She highlighted the $24.3-million request for response and restoration capabilities, $29.5 million for the Integrated Ocean Observing System, and $11 million for NOAA competitive research. However, she said targeted losses would include the termination of navigation response

teams and the coastal and estuarine land conservation pro - gram and a funding cut for mapping and charting.¶ Compared to FY 2012, NMFS funding would drop to $880.3 million (down 1.6%). Some areas would receive boosts, including funding for fisheries research and management ($430.1 million, up $4 million) and for improving enforcement and observer programs ($110.3 million, up $4.9 million). However, programs on the short end would include Habitat Conservation and Restoration ($36 million, down $11.3 million) and NOAA’s regional councils and fisheries com - missions ($27.3 million, down $5.1 million). Lubchenco said it is unclear what the reduction will mean for the councils. The bud - get also calls for closing the James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory at Sandy Hook, N. J., a move strongly opposed by several members of the state’s congressional delegation.¶ The budget “is troubling due to the continued underfunding of NOAA and its ocean program,” said Jeff Watters, senior manager of government relations for the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy. “Adding to the burden of overall budget reductions, NOAA is tasked with paying for new, multibillion- dollar weather satellites, as well as managing our coasts and fisheries. As costs of the weather- related program continue to rise, there are fewer resources for NOAA’s core ocean programs. Americans shouldn’t have to choose between forecasting the weather and protecting our ocean. We need both.”¶ Matt Tinning, executive director of the nonprofit Marine Fish Conservation Network, applauded targeted fisheries investments in NOAA’s FY 2013 budget proposal, including additional funding for fisheries science, surveys, stock assessments, and monitoring. However, he said, “For NOAA to be forced to reallocate funds from core ocean and science programs to avoid crippling gaps in our nation’s satellite capacity is unsustainable, and we urge Congress and the White House to urgently seek a new approach to satellite funding.”

Increased funding for weather satellites now but they are still on the chopping block – the plan trades offGerken ‘13[James, March 12, NOAA Budget For Weather Satellites Increased In Senate Spending Proposal, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/noaa-budget-weather-satellites_n_2863861.html]

Key weather and climate satellites would get a boost under a new Senate spending proposal.¶ The $984 billion measure, which Senate Appropriations Committee leadersintroduced late Monday, would fund the federal government from March 27 until Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year.¶ The bill would increase the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) budget for satellite procurement to $1.814 billion, $ 117 million more

than the agency received last year. NOAA’s overall budget would rise to $5.1 billion, up from $4.9 billion last

year.¶ The Senate, which will begin debating the measure Tuesday, is expected to approve it.¶ The bill’s swift passage could help allay fears that the pervasive pressure to reduce federal spending will hamper NOAA’s efforts to develop its next generation of weather and climate satellites. In February, the agency warned that automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that took effect this month could delay the launches of two geostationary weather satellites by 2-3 years, diminishing the quality of NOAA’s weather forecasts and warnings.¶ The House has already responded to such arguments. It passed its own spending billlast week that includes increased funding for NOAA’s geostationary satellite program,

known as GOES-R, in line with the more general increase for agency satellites included in the Senate package.¶ But that

doesn’t mean that lawmakers are happy about handing over the cash.¶ Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), a longtime NOAA champion on Capitol Hill, has also been one of the harshest critics of the agency’s management of its satellite programs. Last year, as chairwoman of the Senate spending subcommittee that oversees NOAA, she proposed moving the

agency’s satellite division to NASA, citing “fussbudgeting and mis-budgeting” — and a fear that NOAA’s growing satellite bill would put the squeeze on the agency’s other weather, fisheries and climate programs.¶ Those concerns linger, judging by the sometimes harsh language in the new Senate spending

package Mikulski authored with the Senate Appropriations Committee’s ranking Republican, Richard Shelby of Alabama.¶ “The value of NOAA’s weather satellite programs cannot be overstated in terms of the data collected that is used to develop daily weather forecasts and provide citizens with ample warning about severe weather,” the Senate plan says .

“Unfortunately, certain NOAA satellite acquisition programs, particularly the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), remain mired in cost overruns, missed deadlines, dysfunctional oversight, and lack of transparency in

budgeting and planning.”¶ The Mikulski-Shelby proposal would require the agency to submit reports to Congress outlining its plans to limit cost increases and schedule delays for JPSS and NOAA’s next generation of geostationary weather satellites, known as GOES-R, “to ensure that these costs do not erode other important NOAA missions.”

NOAA funding key to weather satellites – forecasting is impossible with budget cutsMorello ‘13[Lauren, NOAA Head: Weather Forecasts at Risk Over Budget Cuts, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/noaa-head-weather-forecasts-at-risk-over-budget-cuts-15621]

“The way it is structured, [sequestration] applies to every single line item” in NOAA’s budget,

said Lubchenco, who will leave her post at NOAA next month. “We don’t have a lot of discretion to say this is more important than that. Everything gets whacked.”¶ And that could further delay the launch of the nation’s next polar-orbiting environmental satellite, adding to the likelihood of a gap between probes collecting data that powers the nation’s weather forecasts.¶ NOAA has warned for several years of a near-certain gap in data collected by the nation’s current polar-orbiting satellite, Suomi NPP, and its replacement, JPSS-1.¶ That’s because Suomi, which launched in late 2011, was designed to operate for at least five years. But JPSS-1, won’t reach orbit until early 2017 — or later.¶ And that is setting up a potential gap in key weather data that could last anywhere from 17 to 53 months, the Government Accountability Office warned this week in its annual analysis of federal programs at “high risk” for waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement, or those “needing broad-based transformation.”¶ It sounds wonky. But without that polar-orbiting satellite data, NOAA’s weather forecasts would become less reliable. The agency has calculated that it would have underestimated the amount of snow that fell during the “Snowmageddon” blizzard that hit the East Coast in 2010 by 10 inches. And its forecasts would have placed the center of the storm 200 to 300 miles away from its actual epicenter.¶ And forecasters at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, who use data from U.S. polar-orbiting satellites, said that without that information, their weather model would not have accurately projected the path of Hurricane Sandy.¶ With that in mind, Lubchenco said she’s concerned that the looming budget cuts could add to the gap in satellite data that NOAA is already struggling with. Budget shortfalls in 2011 helped create that gap, she said.¶ NOAA is “doing everything possible to not have further delays, which means in large part having really good

management and adequate funding,” Lubchenco said. “And the adequate funding is a very big challenge in today’s fiscal climate.”

Budget cuts tradeoff with new satellite developmentMorello ‘13[Lauren, NOAA Head: Weather Forecasts at Risk Over Budget Cuts, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/noaa-head-weather-forecasts-at-risk-over-budget-cuts-15621]

Automatic budget cuts set to take effect March 1 could add to the woes of the federal government’s troubled weather satellite programs, jeopardizing future forecasts, a top official said Friday.¶ “It’s not going to be pretty,” outgoing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco said of the package of

across-the-board spending cuts known as “sequestration.”¶ “The sequester has the potential to wreak havoc with so many different things, and satellites loom large within that,” she told reporters at the annual meeting of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science. “There’s just so much uncertainty. Nobody knows how long it might last, and it’s very difficult to plan for that.”¶ The sequestration cuts, which will take effect unless Congress can overcome political gridlock

and approve a new spending deal, would chop 8.2 percent from the operating budgets of most federal agencies, including NOAA, the White House Office of Management and Budget estimates.

There is a direct tradeoff between the affirmative and satellite funding.Conathan and Polefka 3/6 (Michael, Director of Ocean Policy @ American Progress, Shiva, Research associate, "The Top 5 Challenges Facing the New NOAA Administrator", Center for American Progress, March 6 2014, americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/03/06/80920/the-top-5-challenges-facing-the-new-noaa-administrator/)It’s no surprise to anyone that federal agencies have felt the budget pinch in recent years. NOAA is no exception, though its financial circumstance may not be as dire as some other agencies’—at least on the surface. For 2013, NOAA’s topline spending level held relatively steady from fiscal year 2012 at about $4.9 billion. But the distribution of its funding has created difficult circumstances for many of its traditional programs. In FY 2010, the last year Congress passed an appropriations bill other than a continuing resolution, NOAA’s spending was set at about $4.7 billion, with $3.4 billion going to its core functions of operations, research, and facility maintenance and $1.3 billion supporting procurement and acquisition (in layman’s terms, this means “buying stuff”). More than 90 percent of that acquisition budget—$1.2 billion—was spent on upgrading NOAA’s aging weather satellite systems. Fast forward to the 2013 spend plan, and the operations budget has declined to $3.1 billion, while the acquisitions budget has actually increased to $1.8 billion—$1.7 billion of which funded the purchase and construction of new satellite systems. While there’s no question that the government desperately needs to upgrade

its weather satellite systems, we can’t continue to take this funding away from core missions such as fishery and marine protected species management, ocean observation and monitoring, and pollution response. Modernizing the National Weather Service

CMSP “link”

NOAA budget is tight – the plan forces a tradeoff with satellite developmentAdams ‘14 [March 25, Alexandra, Oceans Advocate at National Resource Defense Council, A Blue Budget Beyond Sequester: Taking care of our oceans, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aadams/a_blue_budget_beyond_sequester.html]

This past year was a tough year - from deep sequester cuts to a government shutdown. Our oceans definitely felt the budget crunch. After much excruciating negotiation, Congress finally passed a budget and now we are on the road to what we hope will be a saner way to govern and plan.¶ The President has just released his

budget for Fiscal Year 2015. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget can mean the difference between thriving oceans and coastal communities, or the decline in this invaluable public resource. This year’s budget signals that we will invest in protecting that resource, but by no means provides all that will be needed for the big job ahead. With half of Americans living in coastal areas, NOAA’s work means protecting our citizens and our natural resources. Moreover, with a national ocean economy that is larger than the entire U.S. farm sector in terms of jobs and economic output, keeping this economic powerhouse functioning matters to us all.¶ For fiscal year 2015, NOAA has proposed a budget of approximately $5.5 billion, an increase of 3.2% above the 2014 enacted funding levels, which took steps to mitigate the worst effects of sequestration but did not fund programs at the levels to which they ultimately need to be supported. This is a very modest increase, given the enormity of the agency’s task. Based on this request, there is every reason why Congress should fund the President’s Budget. Even the small increases this year recognize the agency’s critical role in feeding our nation, protecting our coastal economies and preserving our precious ocean

resources.¶ NOAA has dual responsiblilities ranging from mapping the ocean floor to maintaining orbiting satellites for weather forecasting. And if we want to see investments in protecting coastal economies and ocean health, in addition to accurate weather data, we need to ensure that NOAA’s budget is able to support both its “wet”, ocean side, as well as the “dry” weather forecasting activities. This means funding both effective ocean, coastal, and fisheries programs, in addition to weather forecasts, warnings and satellites. The National Ocean Service (NOS), which helps us understand and protect our oceans and coasts, will need investments to continue its work. In FY 2015, NOAA requests a small increase of $20.6 million for NOS over the 2014 enacted levels.¶ With renewed commitment from both the Administration and communities around our nation to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate, NOAA’s budget includes programs to help our nation adapt to these changes. Some of our nation’s fishermen are on the front lines of climate impacts, as they watch more acidic waters decimate oyster harvests while fish populations shift away from their classic geographic range. Because ocean acidification is changing the very chemistry of our waters and threatening productive coastal economies, the President’s Budget has committed $15 million in funding for ocean acidification research and monitoring. Just ask any shellfish farmer and you will hear that this investment is long overdue and will help make the difference between abundant harvests and seasons without oysters to sell.¶ NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is tasked with managing our ocean’s fisheries. In years past we have seen our fish stocks crash, but thanks to Congressional action in 1996 and 2006 on the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act, stocks around the nation are now rebounding. Implementing this highly successful Act requires funding to gather accurate data on the status of our fish stocks and fishery managers to help implement programs. Funding these programs will help ensure our nations fisheries can continue to support coastal economies while filling our dinner plates for years to come. This year, NOAA is requesting nearly flat funding for NMFS compared to the FY14 enacted levels, as those provided funds for fisheries disaster assistance which are not reoccurring. ¶ Unfortunately, some critical programs won’t get what they need this year. This year’s budget cuts funding for Ocean Exploration and Research by $7 million. This funding has supported exploration by the research vessel Okeanos of deep sea corals and other marine life in the submarine canyons and seamounts off the Mid-Atlantic and New England coasts that fisheries managers and ocean conservation groups, including NRDC, are working to protect. Even though funds are stretched, shortchanging exploration and research will lead to weaker protections for species and resources that are already under stress.¶ While we often think about all of the cutting edge science and data NOAA provides us, we often forget that it takes experts and assets to bring us those benefits. To address this, the budget includes an increase for NOAA’s corporate functions and agency management. From forecasting the days’ weather, to protecting our nation’s fish stocks and helping vulnerable areas prepare for climate change, NOAA can only provide us these services if it has the capacity and support it needs to fulfill its vital missions.

NOAA funds are tightening now – new spending trades offJensen ‘12[Andrew, April 27, Congress takes another ax to NOAA budget, http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/2012-04-27/congress-takes-another-ax-to-noaa-budget]

Frustrated senators from coastal states are wielding the power of the purse to rein in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and refocus the agency's priorities on its core missions.¶

During recent appropriations subcommittee hearings April 17, Sen. Lisa Murkowski ensured no funds would be provided in fiscal year 2013 for coastal marine spatial planning, a key component of President Barack Obama's National Ocean Policy.¶ Murkowski also pushed for an additional $3 million for regional fishery management councils and secured $15 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty that was in line to be cut by NOAA's proposed budget (for $65 million total).¶ On April 24, the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Commerce Department budget with language inserted by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, into NOAA's budget that would transfer $119 million currently unrestricted funds and require they be used for stock assessments, surveys and monitoring, cooperative research and fisheries grants.¶ The $119 million is derived from Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, which are levies collected on seafood imports by the Department of

Agriculture. Thirty percent of the import levies are transferred to NOAA annually, and without Kerry's language there are no restrictions on how NOAA may use the funds.¶ In a Congress defined by fierce partisanship, no federal agency has drawn as much fire from both parties as NOAA and its Administrator Jane Lubchenco.¶ Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., has repeatedly demanded accountability for NOAA Office of Law Enforcement abuses uncovered by the Commerce Department Inspector General that included the use of fishermen's fines to purchase a luxury boat that was only used for joyriding around Puget Sound.¶ There is currently another Inspector General investigation under way into the regional fishery management council rulemaking process that was requested last August by Massachusetts Reps. John Tierney and Barney Frank, both Democrats.¶ In July 2010, both Frank and Tierney called for Lubchenco to step down, a remarkable statement for members of Obama's party to make about one of his top appointments.¶ Frank introduced companion legislation to Kerry's in the House earlier this year, where it should sail through in a body that has repeatedly stripped out tens of millions in budget requests for catch share programs. Catch share programs are Lubchenco's favored policy for fisheries management and have been widely panned after implementation in New England in 2010 resulted in massive consolidation of the groundfish catch onto the largest fishing vessels.¶ Another New England crisis this year with Gulf of Maine cod also drove Kerry's action after a two-year old stock assessment was revised sharply downward and threatened to close down the fishery. Unlike many fisheries in Alaska such as pollock, crab and halibut, there are not annual stock assessment surveys around the country.¶ Without a new stock assessment for Gulf of Maine cod, the 2013 season will be in jeopardy.¶ "I applaud Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue and for making sure that this funding is used for its intended purpose - to help the fishing industry, not to cover NOAA's administrative overhead," Frank said in a statement. "We are at a critical juncture at which we absolutely must provide more funding for cooperative fisheries science so we can base management policies on sound data, and we should make good use of the world-class institutions in the Bay State which have special expertise in this area."¶ Alaska's Sen. Mark Begich and Murkowski, as well as Rep. Don Young have also denounced the National Ocean Policy as particularly misguided, not only for diverting core funding in a time of tightening budgets but for creating a massive new bureaucracy that threatens to overlap existing authorities for the regional fishery management councils and local governments.¶ The first 92 pages of the draft policy released Jan. 12 call for more than 50 actions, nine priorities, a new National Ocean Council, nine Regional Planning Bodies tasked with creating Coastal Marine Spatial Plans, several interagency committees and taskforces, pilot projects, training in ecosystem-based management for federal employees, new water quality standards and the incorporation of the policy into regulatory and permitting decisions.

Link Booster - Aquaculture

NOAA already spending on aquaculture – the plan would absorb costs the private industry is currently absorbing – makes the process far more expensive.Dawn ‘8[Ralph, May, Managing director of GAO, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08594.pdf]

While stakeholders generally identified these areas as priorities, a few stakeholders also emphasized that federal funding should focus on research that helps regulate the aquaculture industry or mitigate environmental impacts. Research into how escaped aquaculture-raised fish might impact wild fish populations is an example of this type of research. Other stakeholders, as well as the U.S. Ocean Commission study, suggested that federal research should also assist aquaculture industry development. For instance, one stakeholder suggested that the top issue for government funding should be determining which species will be commercially viable for offshore aquaculture. Similarly, the stakeholder noted that developing a species for aquaculture is difficult for the private sector to do because it is very expensive and would take 10 to 30 years. ¶ NOAA and USDA currently support research on marine aquaculture through, for example, competitive grants. NOAA’s major competitive grant program for marine aquaculture is the National Marine Aquaculture Initiative, which funded approximately $4.6 million in projects related to marine species during the 2006 grant cycle. NOAA also manages funding for a number of offshore aquaculture-related projects, such as the open- ocean aquaculture demonstration project off the coast of New Hampshire. Similarly, USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service funds external aquaculture research through such vehicles as competitive grant programs, land grant institutions, and regional aquaculture centers. In addition, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service conducts research at its federal science centers and laboratories.¶ Several researchers, including some whom we interviewed during our site visits, identified potential limitations of the current federal aquaculture research programs. Specifically, they said that many of the available competitive grants are funded over time periods that are too short and at funding levels too low to accommodate certain types of research. For example, researchers in Hawaii said that the development of healthy breeding fish to supply offshore aquaculture operations can require years of intensive breeding efforts, but that it is difficult to obtain consistent research funding over this longer time period.¶ Both USDA and NOAA officials acknowledged that demonstration projects and other lengthy research projects may be difficult to complete within current competitive grant time frames. However, they noted that appropriations for their programs dictate the current length of these grants. USDA officials identified some programs that could be used for long-term research, including competitive grants from the agency’s regional aquaculture centers or the agency’s Agricultural Research Service internal research projects. The regional aquaculture centers set their own priorities and funding allocations, which allows centers to focus on long- term offshore aquaculture research if they so choose. For instance, the regional center in Hawaii has supported research that applies to offshore aquaculture, but none of the other centers currently support research specifically related to offshore aquaculture. A USDA official also suggested that the Agricultural Research Service could support long-term projects if such projects are identified as priorities in future 5-year plans for aquaculture research. The Agricultural Research Service uses feedback from aquaculturists and regulatory agencies, among others, to identify priorities and develop 5-year plans for aquaculture research. Agricultural Research Service officials indicated that the current 5-year plan directs¶ about one-third of the agency’s aquaculture funding to research related to marine species.¶ An effective federal regulatory framework for U.S. offshore aquaculture will be critical to facilitating the development of an

economically sustainable industry, while at the same time protecting the health of marine ecosystems. As the Congress considers providing a cohesive legislative framework for regulating an offshore aquaculture industry, we believe it will need to consider a number of important issues. A key first step in developing a U.S. regulatory framework could be designating a lead federal agency that has the appropriate expertise and can effectively collaborate and coordinate with other federal agencies. In addition, setting up clear legislative and regulatory guidance on where offshore aquaculture facilities can be located and how they can be operated could help ensure that these facilities have the least amount of impact on the ocean environment. Moreover, a regulatory framework could also include a process for reviewing the potential environmental impacts of proposed offshore aquaculture facilities, monitoring the environmental impacts of these facilities once they are operational, and quickly identifying and mitigating environmental problems when they occur. Inclusion of an adaptive management approach by which the monitoring process can be modified over time could be useful not only to ensure that the most effective approaches are being used to protect the environment but also to help reduce costs to the

industry. In addition, a transparent regulatory process that gives states and the public opportunities to comment on specific offshore aquaculture projects could help allay some of the concerns about the potential environmental impacts of offshore aquaculture. Finally, because the offshore aquaculture industry is in its infancy much remains unknown, and many technical challenges remain, such as the best species to raise offshore and the most effective offshore aquaculture practices. In this context, there may be a role for the federal government in funding the research needed to help answer these questions and facilitate the development of an ecologically-sound offshore aquaculture industry.

Offshore aquaculture is comparatively more expensive than other optionsNaylor ‘6[Rosamond, Spring, Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy at Stanford, Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture, http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/]

Open-ocean aquaculture encompasses a variety of species and infrastructure designs; in the United States, submersible cages are the model used for offshore finfish production. These cages are anchored to the ocean floor but can be moved within the water column; they are tethered to buoys that contain an equipment room and feeding mechanism; and they can be large enough to hold hundreds of thousands of fish in a single cage. Robotics are often used for cage maintenance, inspection, cleaning, and monitoring. Submersible cages have the advantage of avoiding rough water at the surface

and reducing interference with navigation. A major disadvantage of offshore operations is that they tend to be expensive to install and operate. They require sturdier infrastructure than near-shore systems, they are more difficult to access, and the labor costs are typically higher than for coastal systems.¶ The economic requirements of open-ocean aquaculture suggest that firms are likely to target lucrative species for large-scale development or niche markets. In the United States, moi is produced commercially far from shore in Hawaii state waters, and experiments are being conducted with halibut, haddock, cod, flounder, amberjack, red drum, snapper, pompano, and cobia in other parts of the country. Tuna is another likely candidate for offshore development. Altogether, about 500 tons of fish are currently produced each year in submersible cages in the United States, primarily within a few miles of shore.

The technology appears to have real promise, even though it is not yet economically viable for commercial use in

most locations, and it is not yet deployed widely in federal waters far from shore.

High energy costs drive up the research and production costs of offshore aquaculture.FAO ‘7[Food and Agriculture Organization, April, Medium-term challenges and constraints for aquaculture, http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/260/mediumterm-challenges-and-constraints-for-aquaculture#sthash.Xwb2qlNs.dpuf]

Even before the current global energy crisis, energy costs represented an important share of the production costs in many commercial aquaculture operations. With further intensification and the use of more sophisticated technologies, it is likely that more energy will be needed, thereby exacerbating the energy cost problem. As for land and water, aquaculture must compete with other activities for energy. To alleviate this problem, researchers around the world are seeking low-cost energy sources. More efficient pumps have been suggested as one of the options. Another is the use of recirculating systems. While recirculation requires energy, it does not need water pumped from lower levels

and so is energy-efficient. Wind-powered pumps are being used on a limited scale in freshwater aquaculture in many countries, but their capital cost is high. The inability to design a low-cost high-volume pump for saltwater shrimp farming has also restricted their use. Solar-powered pumps present the same difficulties. In addition to seeking alternative sources, farmers are developing strategies and practices to reduce energy requirements. In certain culture practices, energy costs for pumping could be minimized with the combined use of bioremediation and lowdischarge, or even zero-discharge, techniques. However, more research on these techniques is required.

Zero-Sum

Federal budget allocations are zero-sum. Spending on one program directly trades off with another.English ‘13[Chad, March 25, Director of Science Policy Outreach at COMPASS where he helps scientists find the policy relevance in their work, and helps the policy crowd the find the science they need¶

Budget Trade-offs: A Zero-Sum Game¶ , http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/03/25/what-to-do-when-the-budget-becomes-a-zero-sum-game/]

Each Appropriations subcommittee works with their slice of the budget, called (opaquely) their 302(b)

sub-allocation. But here’s the important part: Once those sub-allocations are set, it’s a zero-sum game within that subcommittee; a dollar to one program must mean a dollar less for other programs. For scientists, the Commerce, Science, Justice and Related Agencies subcommittee is one of the big ones to

watch. It determines the budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But it also sets the budget for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Commission on Civil Rights, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshal Service, and others. Once that’s set, any additional dollar that goes to NSF must come out of one of these other agency’s budgets. (The Washington Post reported todaythat the continuing resolution process to keep the

government running the rest of this year is facing the same situation.)¶ This is how we get to the scenario David alluded to. Asking a member of Congress to support funding for science is implicitly asking them to trade away something else for that money, and those are neither simple nor easy decisions. Each thing that you might trade away has a constituency that cares deeply or even depends upon it… and that member of Congress? It’s their job to represent that constituency, too. While the budget is the focus of discussion now, these concepts apply to any issue that a policymaker faces.¶ When you talk to a member of Congress, make your case, give them the

context they need to make their decision, and respect – even acknowledge – the tradeoffs they face. You’ll be more credible, you’ll be giving them more of what they need, and you’ll be on your way to becoming a trusted source of input.

AT “Already Allocated”

NOAA funds are tight and new initiatives will require diversion of current funds – there is no allocated money.Jensen ‘12[Andrew, April 27, Congress takes another ax to NOAA budget, http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/2012-04-27/congress-takes-another-ax-to-noaa-budget]

Congress refused to fund some $27 million in budget requests for NOAA in fiscal year 2012 to implement the National Ocean Policy, but the administration released its draft implementation policy in January

anyway.¶ Begich told the Journal when the draft implementation plan was released that fund diversion was a "main

concern ." ¶ "At a time Congress is reining in spending, I think the administration needs to prioritize funding for existing services especially those which support jobs such as fishery stock assessments and the

like, and not new and contentious initiatives," he said.¶ Murkowski called the administration's implementation plan

"clear as mud" at an Appropriations Committee hearing April 19.¶ "It's expensive; there are no dedicated funds for agencies to follow through with the commitments that have been identified in the draft

implementation plan," she said. "I have been told that the national ocean policy initiative is going to be absorbed by these existing programs, but yet the agencies haven't been able to provide me with any indication as to what work is actually going to be set aside as part of that trade-off, so it is as clear as mud to me where the administration is really intending to take this."

***Impact

Turns Case

NOAA funding for infrastructure trades off with ocean managementEilperin 6/17 (Juliet, reporter @ The Washington Post, " Obama Will Propose Expanding Pacific Ocean Marine Sanctuary", The Tico Times, June 17, http://www.ticotimes.net/2014/06/17/obama-will-propose-expanding-pacific-ocean-marine-sanctuary)The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s chief, Kathryn Sullivan, said her agency has focused on increasing the ability of coastal communities to cope with climate change and on monitoring how the marine ecosystem is being transformed. “Data are critical to all of it,” she said. George Cooper, a lobbyist for the recreational fishing industry, said NOAA has made strides but still overstates the economic impact of the commercial fish industry by comparing the combined imported and domestic seafood trade to U.S. sport fishing. Budget constraints and congressional opposition also remain obstacles for the administration.

During a panel last week for Capitol Hill Ocean Week, Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif., said NOAA might have to consider “changing its name to NAA” because of cuts to its “wet side.” William Ruckelshaus, a co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, who served as the Environmental Protection Agency administrator under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, said the new flurry of activity on maritime issues could represent an important shift. “These kinds of issues only get elevated if the president puts it high on his priority list,” he said.

DA turns case – weather satellites are key to protect ocean ecosystemsDavis ‘11[June 2011, Gary, Director of satellite operations at the NOAA, History of the NOAA Satellite Program, http://www.osd.noaa.gov/download/JRS012504-GD.pdf]

1. Introduction¶ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) satellite program has stood watch over the American public and partner nations for more than four decades developing and applying space based Earth remote sensing for NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) forecasts. The NWS is responsible for weather warning services (the geostationary satellites) and their global forecasts (the polar program). NOAA’s satellite operations grew out of the early space program and the desire to study our Earth from a vantage point high in the sky. Over the past half century, NOAA's satellites have evolved from weather satellites to environmental satellites. Data is used for applications related to the oceans, coastal regions, agriculture, detection of forest fires, detection of volcanic ash, monitoring the ozone hole over the South Pole, and the space environment. As NOAA has evolved from weather only sensing to environmental sensing, it has aligned about

strategic themes. Current and future generations of satellites support all of the NOAA’s strategic goals.¶ .

Protect restore and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources through an ecosystems

approach to management ¶ . Support society’s needs for weather and water information¶ . Understand climate variability

and change to enhance society’s ability to plan and respond¶ . Support the Nation’s commerce with information for safe, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation¶ Operating the country's environmental satellite program, whose cloud images are seen daily on television weather forecasts, is one of NOAA’s major responsibilities. Within NOAA, the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) office operates the satellites and manages the processing, distribution, and archival of the data. The NOAA satellite constellation is made up of complimentary operational environmental satellites: the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) and Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES). Both types of satellites are necessary for a complete global weather network.¶ In addition, each day NOAA’s NESDIS processes and distributes more than 3.5 billion vital bits of data and images to forecasters globally. The timeliness and quality of the combined polar and geostationary satellite data have been greatly improved by enhanced computer installations, upgraded ground facilities, and data sharing agreements with military weather services.

Key to Forecasting

NOAA infrastructure is key to predicting storms and other natural disastersKicza 13 (Mary E., Assistant Administrator National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Informaiton Service, “Dysfunction in Management of Weather and Climate Stellites”, Subcommittee on Environment and Oversight Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, September 19, http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY21-WState-MKicza-20130919.pdf)NOAA’s mission to provide science, service, and stewardship to the Nation is fundamentally dependent on observations of our environment. These observations are the backbone of NOAA’s predictive

capabilities. NOAA must ensure operational weather, ocean, climate, and space weather data are available seven days a week, 24 hours a day, to address our Nation’s critical needs for timely and accurate forecasts and warnings of solar storms and severe weather, such as hurricanes, flash floods, tsunamis, winter storms, and wildfires. Of the data actually assimilated into NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS) numerical weather prediction models that are used to produce the longer term weather forecasts three days and beyond, over 95 percent comes from satellites, of which over 80 percent are from polar-orbiting satellites. These polar-orbiting satellites include NOAA’s Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES), Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (Suomi NPP) satellite, and NASA Earth Observing Satellites (EOS) in the afternoon orbit, and the European Metop satellites which fly in the mid-morning orbit. GOES satellites, along with Doppler Radar, assist operational weather forecasters with current and short-term forecasting abilities (i.e., weather that is occurring now up to three days in the future) and severe weather warning forecasts.

Reductions in satellite coverage leads to a higher risk of weather catastrophe Conathan 11 ( Michael, Director of Ocean Programs at American Progress, “NOAA Says Loss of Environmental Satellite Funding could Halve Accuracy of Precipitation Forecasts”, March 24, http://scienceprogress.org/2011/03/noaa-says-loss-of-environmental-satellite-funding-could-halve-accuracy-of-precipitation-forecasts/)The National Ocean and Atmospheric Association released new data yesterday showing precisely how the loss of environmental monitoring satellites would affect our ability to forecast extreme weather events, using the example of the “Snowmageddon” storm that dumped

massive precipitation from the Gulf of Mexico to New England on February 5-6, 2010. We here at CAP and Climate Progress

have been keeping close tabs on House Republicans’ efforts to make the country more vulnerable to extreme weather events. If Congress refuses to fund new environmental monitoring satellites to replace aging spacecraft that could fail at any time, it will undoubtedly expose Americans to increased risk from storms, floods, blizzards, and hurricanes. Meanwhile, more and more science is emerging that strengthens the link between unprecedented weather phenomena and human-caused global climate change. The GOP-controlled Congress took steps to eliminate $700 million in funding for NOAA’s satellite program in its bill to fund the federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year (until October 2011). Though that bill is still being negotiated, the three-week continuing resolution that keeps the government open until April 8 also contained cuts to NOAA’s vital satellites. As I have written, making these short-sighted cuts now will force taxpayers to spend three to five times as much to buy exactly the same equipment 18-months down the road—a delay extremely likely to leave the nation without coverage since our current satellites are approaching the end of their projected service lives. Failing to replace these vital sources of data is simply not an option. This is because these satellites are critical to our ability to predict and prepare for high-impact weather phenomena. Without the satellite data, NOAA’s forecasts lose as much as 50 percent of their accuracy, underforecasting snowfall in Washington, D.C. by almost foot, and rainfall in the Gulf by up to an inch. The resulting failure to prepare for flash floods, roadside strandings, air traffic delays, and transit interruptions could halt all commerce. Even worse, failing to maintain our satellite network, according to NOAA, would reduce future flood preparedness time from days to mere hours, putting human lives at risk. Does it snow where you live? Does it rain? The GOP wants you to wait a year and a half and then pay five times as much to eventually get a reasonable estimate of how much wet stuff is going to fall from yonder cloud. Apparently their intention is to boost the economy through sales of bottled water, batteries, and toilet paper so everyone is prepared when the next big storm hits. Absent a substantial investment to maintain our environmental satellite network, it could happen any time—without warning—so you better start shopping.

Satellites are key to minimizing impacts of stormsConathan and Polefka 3/6 (Michael, Director of Ocean Policy @ American Progress, Shiva, Research associate, "The Top 5 Challenges Facing the New NOAA Administrator", Center for American Progress, March 6 2014, americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/03/06/80920/the-top-5-challenges-facing-the-new-noaa-administrator/)Of course, rebalancing the agency’s priorities doesn’t mean neglecting the critical upgrades and maintenance of services in the National Weather Service and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service—the rather wordy name of NOAA’s office in charge of its space observation

operations. Extreme weather events are becoming increasingly frequent, destructive, and costly.

In 2011 and 2012 alone, extreme weather events caused $188 billion in damages that disproportionally affected lower- and middle-income Americans. NOAA has made great strides in hurricane prediction capabilities during the past two decades, particularly when it comes to predicting the path that the storms will follow. In addition to saving lives, these investments have led to real cost reductions. For example, improved landfall forecasting means smaller evacuation zones and evacuation costs roughly equal to $1 million per mile. Similar improvements in hurricane intensity forecasting and tornado predictions could pay similar dividends. In 2012 and 2013 alone, tornados killed 119 people in the South and Midwest, including two massive twisters that claimed 26 lives in Oklahoma on May 19–20. We can and must continue to improve our capacity to save lives and safeguard property.

Warming

Observation capabilities are key to adapting to warmingConathan and Polefka 3/6 (Michael, Director of Ocean Policy @ American Progress, Shiva, Research associate, "The Top 5 Challenges Facing the New NOAA Administrator", Center for American Progress, March 6 2014, americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/03/06/80920/the-top-5-challenges-facing-the-new-noaa-administrator/) Adapting to a changing ocean Mounting evidence, including data sent back to Earth by NOAA’s satellites, shows that oceans absorb much of the heat trapped by the thickening layer of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. As oceans warm, currents shift from traditional pathways, and already detectable effects of climate change include stronger hurricanes, fisheries shifting to cooler waters, and accelerating sea-level rise. In addition to rapid warming, our ocean’s pH balance is changing. Seawater today is acidifying at a rate faster than anything the planet has seen in more than 300 million years. As James Barry of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute recently put it in a Seattle Times article, “[T]his change we’re seeing is happening so fast it’s almost instantaneous. I think it might be so important that we see large levels, high rates, of extinction.” Human-caused atmospheric carbon pollution driving the warming and acidification of the ocean provides perhaps the preeminent example of the fundamental link between our planet’s sea and sky—an ecological reality that motivated the Stratton Commission to call for NOAA’s creation in 1969. As these changes accelerate with increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and the economic, social, and geopolitical costs of climate change continue to mount, the need for integrated scientific research and observation will only increase as well. NOAA’s role is more vital than ever to help us understand and adapt to the new climate reality.

Weather satellites are key to air pollution studies and climate adaptationHotz ‘13 [Robert, June 21, For Weather Satellites, Forecast Is Cloudy; Failures of Aging Devices Threaten to Leave Gap in Key Data,”http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324049504578543331078279910?mobile=y]

"NOAA is having a real crisis with regard to the weather satellites," said atmospheric scientist Dennis Hartmann at the University of Washington in Seattle, who heads a National Research Council committee that monitors Earth-observation satellite programs.¶ Signals from these highflying measuring devices provide the raw data for forecasts, rainfall estimates and drought reports, land-use surveys and air-pollution studies, seasonal wildfire forecasts and sea-ice updates, to name a few applications. Without the data, it is harder to track threatening weather, build accurate climate models or monitor global pollution , experts said.¶

"We need all the data we can get—every bit and byte we can get down from space," said senior system engineer Stacey Boland at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, who is a member of the research council committee. "These older platforms—well past their warranty—are starting to falter."

NOAA satellites key to climate adaptationDavis ‘11 [June 2011, Gary, Director of satellite operations at the NOAA, History of the NOAA Satellite Program, http://www.osd.noaa.gov/download/JRS012504-GD.pdf]

JPSS will ensure continuity of crucial climate observations and weather data in the future. Data and imagery obtained from the JPSS will increase timeliness and accuracy of public warnings and forecasts of climate and weather events reducing the potential loss of human life and property damage. The data collected by JPSS will contribute to

the 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. JPSS, with its

global view, will play a vital role in continuing these climate data records for the US and the international community.

Weather satellites key to understand climate changeSutter ‘11 [John, August 4, NOAA: Weather satellites are in jeopardy, http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/08/24/noaa.weather.prediction/index.html?hpt=te_bn1]

The Washington Post reports that meteorologists and officials who coordinate disaster response support additional funding, too:¶ "Bill Hooke, a senior fellow at the American Meteorological Society, compared what forecasters would experience when a polar-orbiting satellite is lost to waking up after having a small stroke," Andrew Freedman writes in the newspaper. "'The world that you're looking at wouldn't seem quite right to you, and you wouldn't be able to function quite as well,' he said."¶ Scientific American

says the fact that these satellites are used to track climate change as well as weather could make the budget

request unpopular with legislators, some of whom see climate change as a sticky issue.¶ "The information those satellites collect is also key to understanding climate change -- an unpopular topic on Capitol Hill -- but the

agency has downplayed that aspect as it presses lawmakers for more cash," that magazine writes.

Readiness

JPSS key to troop deployments [July 3, Christine, Executive of the American Geophysical Union, The importance of the weather satellite, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-importance-of-the-weather-satellite/2011/06/30/AGDTPuwH_story.html]

As Stephen Stromberg pointed out in his June 30 PostPartisan [“Don’t gut the Weather Service”], allowing funding for the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) to fall victim to political debate will negatively affect weather forecasting abilities.¶ What he did not mention were the far-reaching consequences of such a scenario. The satellite’s data will continue to help military planners deploy troops; emergency managers fight wildfires and respond to other disasters; and farmers to plan for optimum planting. He also did not mention that this penny-wise, pound-foolish budgeting approach doesn’t just stop with JPSS funding. Results from cuts to science funding could also limit our ability to assess water quality and mitigate the impacts of natural disasters.¶ We need to reduce the national debt, but it would be a mistake to do that by sacrificing programs that protect public safety and national security and support global competitiveness.

Readiness Impacts

Lack of military readiness leads to great power wars that cause extinctionFeaver 3Professor of Political Science at Duke, Peter D., Armed Services: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations, p.213

The civil-military problematique is so vexing because it involves balancing two vital and potentially conflicting societal desiderata. On the one hand, the military must be strong enough to prevail in war. One purpose behind establishing the military in the first place is the need, or perceived need, for military force, either to attack other groups or to ward off attacks by others. Like an automobiles airbag, the military primarily exists as a guard against disaster. It should be always ready even if it is never used. Moreover, military strength should be sized appropriately to meet the threats confronting the polity. It serves no purpose to establish a protection force and then to vitiate it to the point where it can no longer protect. Indeed, an inadequate military institution may be worse than none at all. It could be a paper tiger inviting outside aggression strong enough in appearance to threaten powerful enemies but not strong enough in fact to defend against their predations. Alternatively, it could lull leaders into a false confidence, leading them to rash behavior and then failing in the ultimate military contest.

Readiness is key to Hegemony Spencer 00Jack Spencer, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation 9/15/00, Heritage Foundation Reports

Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.

Decline in readiness forces U.S. isolationismSpencer 1Jack Spencer, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 2001, Priorities for the President http://www.heritage.org/mandate/priorities/chap10.html

Loss of Credibility. America's national security requirements dictate that the armed forces be prepared to defeat groups of adversaries in any given war. America, as the sole remaining superpower, has found itself with many enemies. Because attacking America or its interests alone would surely end in defeat for a single nation, these enemies are likely to form alliances against the United States. Therefore, basing the strength of America's armed forces on U.S. military superiority over any single nation makes little sense. The evidence indicates that the U.S. armed forces are not ready to support America's national security requirements. Moreover, regarding the broader capability to defeat groups of enemies, U.S. military readiness has been declining. The National Security Strategy, the Administration's official statement of national security objectives, concludes that the United States "must have the capability to deter and, if deterrence fails, defeat large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames." According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot now achieve this goal. Former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson says that, "from a Navy perspective, we never were sized for two MTW's [major theater wars]. We are sized to do the daily business that we are asked to do as a forward presence rotational force." General James Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps, explains that "the Marine Corps is not, by its size, a two MTW force." Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan says that "The Air Force...is not a two MTW force either. Our lift force, many of our special assets--bombers, tankers, and airlift assets--are not enough for two MTWs." The U.S. military's high commitment to operations other than warfare further diminishes its credibility. According to General Shelton, Rapidly withdrawing from a commitment like Bosnia or Kosovo to support a major theater war would require a quick

decision by the National Command Authorities to allow time for units to withdraw, retrain, redeploy, and be used effectively. This could mean the late arrival of some forces for MTW employment. The inability of the U.S. military to carry out its military endeavors would be devastating. It would tell America's allies that the United States cannot fulfill its security commitments--news that will weaken its alliances. The result is that normally reliable allies will be less eager to give America access to already diminished forward basing areas. This makes the U.S. military, already dependent on those areas, less effective, which further degrades overall military power. To make up the difference, the United States would have to spend huge amounts of money. However, due to the political unpopularity of such increases, the United States will simply have to field a much smaller military. Eventually, it will be forced to isolate from the rest of the world just so that it can protect its borders, never mind its interests in far off regions of the world.

Low military readiness causes rogue state lashoutJack Spencer,, Research Fellow at Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. “The Facts About Military Readiness.” 9-15-2000. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2000/09/BG1394-The-Facts-About-Military-Readiness)

America's national security requirements dictate that the armed forces must be prepared to defeat groups of adversaries in a given war. America, as the sole remaining superpower, has many enemies. Because attacking America or its interests alone would surely end in defeat for a single nation, these enemies are likely to form alliances. Therefore, basing readiness on American military superiority over any single nation has little saliency. The evidence indicates that the U.S. armed forces are not ready to support America's national security requirements. Moreover, regarding the broader capability to defeat groups of enemies, military readiness has been declining. The National Security Strategy, the U.S. official statement of national security objectives,3 concludes that the United States "must have the capability to deter and, if deterrence fails, defeat large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames."4According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater war strategy.5 Recently retired Generals Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps and George Joulwan of the U.S. Army have even questioned America's ability to conduct one major theater war the size of the 1991 Gulf War.6 Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.

Flashpoints exist across the globe. Only U.S. military readiness prevents escalation to full-blown warDennis Duggan, Assistant Director, National Sec.-Foreign Relations Commission, The American Legion, FNS, April 17, 1997

Mr. Chairman, The American Legion is pleased to appear before this Subcommittee to express its concerns about FY 1998 defense appropriations. The American Legion knows only too well what can happen when diplomacy and deterrence fail. As history has demonstrated, it is important for the President and Congress to continue to uphold their constitutional responsibilities to provide for the "common defense" of the American people in a highly uncertain world. The world is still a dangerous place. There is unrest in the Middle East, in Bosnia and eastern Europe, and on the Korean peninsula . A

revitalized Red China is exercising its military and maritime prowess by reaching into the Pacific and to our very

shores and cities. Russia is still armed with at least 7,000 intercontinental missiles and opposes the concept of an

expanded NATO. The continuous proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the increase in ethnic and nationalistic wars are prompting more U.S. contingency operations continue to demand attention . Additionally, the United States faces the challenges posed by international terrorism, fundamentalist religious movements and drug cartels, none of which operate within the basic rules of international law. The American Legion has always adhered to the principle that our nation's armed forces must be well-manned and equipped , not to pursue war, but to preserve and

protect the hard-earned peace . The American Legion strongly believes the current military downsizing is based more on budget targets and budget deficit reduction than on current and foreseeable threats to the national security well-being of the American people and America's vital interests. Mr. Chairman, The American Legion is convinced that the United States is returning to the days of the "hollow forces." Once Army divisions, Navy aircraft carrier battle groups, and Air Force fighter wings are cut from the force structure, they cannot be rapidly reconstituted without the costly expenditures of time, money, and human lives. History has demonstrated that it has been safer to err on the side of preserving robust forces to protect America's interests.

Readiness deters wars, creating a secure international orderIke Skelton, U.S. Rep, Missouri, Congressional Record, 143 Cong Rec H 1897, *H1898, April 29, 1997

So to respond to my colleagues who ask, what is the enemy,'' I say, true; today we cannot define precisely what the enemy is or will be. We can say, however, that we will fail in our responsibility in this Congress if, once again, we allow the armed forces to be unprepared for the enemies that may emerge. In fact, as I will argue today, a failure to support a strong military in the present historical circumstances would be even more unfortunate and more

unforgivable than in the past for two reasons. First, today the United States is the only Nation able to protect the peace. In the past we were fortunate that allies were able, often by the narrowest of margins, to hold the line while we belatedly prepared for war. Bismarck once said: God protects fools, and the United States.'' Today, no one else is capable either of preventing conflict from arising in the first place, or of responding decisively if a major threat to the peace does occur. While I trust in God, I believe God has given us the tools we need to keep peace, and it is our task to use them wisely. Second, and perhaps most importantly, if we fail in our responsibility to maintain U.S. military power, the United States, and, indeed, the world as a whole, may lose an unprecedented opportunity to construct an era of relative peace that could last for many, many years. Today, our military strength is the foundation of a relatively secure international order in which small conflicts, though endemic and inevitable, will not

decisively erode global stability. As such, our military strength is also a means of preventing the growth of one or more new powers that could, in time, constitute a threat to peace and evolve into the enemy we do not now foresee. Because of this, the very limited investment required to maintain our military strength, though somewhat larger than we are making right now, is disproportionately small compared to the benefits we, and the rest of the world, derive from it. My fellow Missourian, Harry S Truman, stated this clearly: We must be prepared to pay the price for peace, or assuredly we will pay the price of war.'' These two premises, that the United States alone is able to protect the peace, and that adequate, visible U.S. military power may prevent new enemies from arising in the future, are, it seems to me, the cornerstones of a sound strategy for the years to come.

***Aff Answers

UQ/IL

Funds for aquaculture research already appropriatedPekow ‘14[Charles, May 17, House committee offers tight NOAA budget for 2015, http://www.examiner.com/article/house-committee-offers-tight-noaa-budget-for-2015]

The committee report also asks NOAA to provide it with quarterly reports on its stock assessment efforts starting next winter. The reports must describe NOAA's methods for determining stock assessments, the costs of each survey and how the agency incorporates independent data. The committee also ordered NOAA to provide within 90 days of the enactment of the bill a report on how it determines fishing quotas, especially when spikes occur in fishing. The emphasis would be on reported spikes in Atlantic sea

bass fishing in 2013.¶ The bill also would earmark $12 million for cooperative fisheries research . The committee asks NOAA for another report on how it spent its cooperative research funds over the last two years and the uses of the research. The committee criticized NOAA for not

using the research fast enough in its stock assessments.

NOAA budget is already too shortConathan ‘11[Michael, Director of Oceans Policy at American Progress., The GOP decides accurate weather forecasting and hurricane tracking are luxuries America can’t afford¶ , ¶ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/18/207538/gop-cuts-noaa-satellite-weather-forecasting-and-hurricane-tracking/]

The House of Representatives is debating the Full Year Continuing Resolution Act (H.R. 1) to fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. TheRepublican leadership has proposed sweeping cuts to key programs across theclimate change, clean energy, and environmental spectrum . They have also decided that accurate weather forecasting and hurricane tracking are luxuries America can no longer afford.¶ The GOP’s bill would tear $1.2 billion (21 percent) out of the president’s proposed budget for the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. On the surface, cutting NOAA may seem like an obvious choice. The FY 2011 request for the agency included a 16 percent boost over 2010 levels that would have made this year’s funding level of $5.5 billion the largest in NOAA’s history.¶ Even this total funding level,

however, is woefully insufficient for an agency tasked with managing such fundamental resources as the atmosphere that regulates ourclimate, the 4.3 million square miles of our oceanic exclusive economic zone, the ecological health of coastal regions that are home to more than 50 percent of all Americans, response to environmental catastrophes including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and fisheries that employ thousands of Americans and annually contributetens of billions of dollars to the national economy.

NOAA received a massive funding increase specifically for satellites – they will not be cut.Ogburn ‘13[Stephanie, July 19, Emerging NOAA spending bills focused on extreme weather, http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059984676]

There's a big difference -- $700 million -- between how much money the Senate Appropriations Committee wants to allocate for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and how much the House Appropriations Committee is willing to spend.¶ But there's one big bipartisan element

that both House and Senate appropriators agree on, and that's the need for NOAA to spend a

big chunk of its budget on improving weather forecasting.¶ The Senate version of the bill, which passed

through full committee yesterday, allocates nearly $5.6 billion to NOAA. More than half of that is focused on weather.¶ A total of $1.95 billion is allocated for weather satellites, which collect data used in modeling severe weather and are useful for climate science. An additional $1.1 billion is for the National Weather Service.¶ On the House side, the numbers are strikingly similar: The Weather Service is slated to receive $940.7 million, and $1.8 billion is allotted for NOAA's two big satellite programs.¶ The data those satellites collect are used in modeling extreme weather as well as for climate science.¶ These numbers are above what was requested in the Obama administration's budget for the National Weather

Service, signifying Congress' prioritization of that mission .

Satellite funding is inevitable, shielded from other cuts.Leone ‘14 [April 28, Dan, Space News, http://www.spacenews.com/article/features/40378profile-mary-kicza-assistant-administrator-for-satellite-and-information]

Despite almost constant partisan strife in the U.S. Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree on this much: It’s worth knowing when to pack an umbrella. ¶ If they had any inclination to waver on this shared principle, it evaporated in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Weather satellite data were instrumental in predicting the highly destructive storm’s track along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard in October 2012, giving those in its path crucial time to prepare. ¶ Thus NOAA’s two main weather satellite development programs — the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R and Joint Polar Satellite System

(JPSS) — were fully funded in the omnibus spending bill that passed in December and covers federal activities

for the remainder of 2014. What’s more, Congress tried to shield these efforts from sequestration , the

across-the-board spending cuts that affected virtually all other federal activities beginning in March 2013.

No Impact

NOAA can still adequately function with lack of satellite data.Kicza ‘13 [September 19, Mary, Administrator of National Environmental Satellite Data for NOAA, HEARING TITLED DYSFUNCTION IN MANAGEMENT OF WEATHER AND CLIMATE SATELLITES BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON ENVIRONMENT AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY21-WState-MKicza-20130919.pdf]

With funds provided by the Public Law 113-2, “Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013,” NOAA is implementing a number of strategic actions designed to make its weather forecasting enterprise more robust in the face of the possibility of a gap in polar-orbiting weather data. These activities seek to make better use of existing data, take advantage of new data sources planned in the future, improve operational high performance computing capacity, and improve the assimilation of data into weather prediction models, including hurricane models. The goal is to minimize the impact of a gap in coverage should it become a reality. While none of these activities, individually or

collectively, can totally replace a lack of JPSS data, they represent the positive actions NOAA can take to mitigate the loss of these data . Should a data gap not occur, these investments will nonetheless improve NOAA’s ability to use existing data, thus improving weather forecasts. These actions are being taken in addition to the steps NOAA is taking to ensure that JPSS and GOES-R Series satellite development continue as planned.

Even fully funded satellites don’t solve data gap – other programs prevent effective deployment,Leone ‘14 [April 28, Dan, Space News, http://www.spacenews.com/article/features/40378profile-mary-kicza-assistant-administrator-for-satellite-and-information]

Thus NOAA’s two main weather satellite development programs — the Geostationary Operational

Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R and Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) — were fully funded in the omnibus spending bill that passed in December and covers federal activities for the remainder of 2014. What’s more, Congress tried to shield these efforts from sequestration, the across-the-board spending cuts that affected virtually all other federal activities beginning in March 2013.¶

Nonetheless, the possibility of a gap in NOAA’s data-collection capabilities still looms , thanks largely to the 2010 cancellation of a troubled polar-orbiting weather satellite program that was intended to replace separate legacy systems operated by NOAA and the U.S. Air Force, and delays to JPSS, the civilian program that emerged in its stead. ¶ Also facing uncertainty are certain climate change sensors that are now NOAA’s responsibility but cannot fit on the first JPSS platform. NOAA had planned to fly these sensors on a dedicated satellite dubbed Polar Free Flyer, but Congress chose not to fund that program in 2014 and the agency is now looking at alternatives.

AT Readiness Impact

Decline will be peaceful and solves all their offense—only a risk of chain gangingMacDonald and Parent 11—Profs of Political Science @ Williams and MiamiPaul K. and Joseph M., Graceful Decline?, International Security, Spring 2k11, Volume 35, Number 4, Muse

In short, the United States should be able to reduce its foreign policy commitments in East

Asia in the coming decades without inviting Chinese expansionism. Indeed, there is evidence that a policy of retrenchment could reap potential benefits. The drawdown and repositioning of U.S. troops in South Korea, for example, rather than fostering instability, has resulted in an improvement in the occasionally strained relationship between Washington and Seoul.97 U.S. moderation on Taiwan, rather than encouraging hard-liners in [End Page 42] Beijing, resulted in an improvement in cross-strait relations and reassured U.S. allies that Washington would not inadvertently drag them into a Sino-U.S. conflict.98 Moreover, Washington's support for the development of multilateral security institutions, rather than harming bilateral alliances, could work to enhance U.S. prestige while embedding China within a more transparent regional order.99 A policy of gradual retrenchment need not undermine the credibility of U.S. alliance commitments or unleash destabilizing regional security dilemmas. Indeed, even if Beijing harbored revisionist intent, it is unclear that China will have the force projection capabilities necessary to take and hold additional territory.100 By incrementally shifting burdens to regional allies and multilateral institutions, the United States can strengthen the credibility of its core commitments while accommodating the interests of a rising China. Not least among the benefits of retrenchment is that it helps alleviate an unsustainable financial position. Immense forward deployments will only exacerbate U.S. grand strategic problems and risk unnecessary clashes.101

Hegemony fails at resolving conflicts and decline is inevitable.Maher 10—PhD candidate in Political Science @ BrownRichard, Ph.D. candidate in the Political Science department at Brown University, The Paradox of American Unipolarity: Why the United States Will Be Better Off in a Post-Unipolar World, 11/12/2010 Orbis, ScienceDirect

And yet, despite this material preeminence, the United States sees its political and strategic influence diminishing around the world. It is involved in two costly and destructive wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where success has been elusive and the end remains out of sight. China has adopted a new assertiveness recently, on everything from U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, currency convertibility, and America's growing debt (which China largely finances). Pakistan, one of America's closest strategic allies, is facing the threat of social and political collapse. Russia is using its vast energy resources to reassert its dominance in what it views as its historical sphere of influence. Negotiations with North Korea and Iran have gone nowhere in dismantling their nuclear programs. Brazil's growing economic and political influence offer another option for partnership and investment for countries in the Western Hemisphere. And relations with Japan, following the election that brought the opposition Democratic Party into power, are at their frostiest in decades. To many observers, it seems that America's vast power is not translating into America's preferred outcomes. As the United States has come to learn, raw power does not automatically translate into the realization of one's preferences, nor is it necessarily easy to maintain one's predominant position in world politics. There are many costs that come with predominance – material, political, and reputational. Vast imbalances of power create apprehension and anxiety in others, in one's friends just as much as in one's rivals. In this view, it is not necessarily American predominance that produces unease but rather American predominance. Predominance also makes one a tempting target, and a scapegoat for other countries’ own problems and unrealized ambitions. Many a Third World autocrat has blamed his country's

economic and social woes on an ostensible U.S. conspiracy to keep the country fractured, underdeveloped, and subservient to America's own interests. Predominant power likewise breeds envy, resentment, and alienation. How is it possible for one country to be so rich and powerful when so many others are weak, divided, and poor? Legitimacy—the perception that one's role and purpose is acceptable and one's power is used justly—is indispensable for maintaining power and influence in world politics. As we witness the emergence (or re-emergence) of great powers in other parts of the world, we realize that American predominance cannot last forever. It is inevitable that the distribution of power and influence will become more balanced in the future, and that the United States will necessarily see its relative power decline. While the United States naturally should avoid hastening the end of this current period of American predominance, it should not look upon the next period of global politics and international history with dread or foreboding. It certainly should not seek to maintain its predominance at any cost, devoting unlimited ambition, resources, and prestige to the cause. In fact, contrary to what many have argued about the importance of maintaining its predominance, America's position in the world—both at home and

internationally—could very well be strengthened once its era of preeminence is over. It is, therefore, necessary for the United States to start thinking about how best to position itself in the “post-unipolar” world.

No correlation between hegemony and resolving conflicts.Maher 10—PhD Candidate in Political Science @ BrownRichard, Ph.D. candidate in the Political Science department at Brown University, The Paradox of American Unipolarity: Why the United States Will Be Better Off in a Post-Unipolar World, 11/12/2010 Orbis, ScienceDirect

Primacy: The Ability to Influence Outcomes. The other way to think about power is the ability to realize one's own preferences or preferred outcomes, or the ability to influence other actors—usually other states but not always—to do what you want them to do. When we think of power this way, we realize that the United States’ vast resources alone often are not sufficient to realize its preferred ends. There is no perfect correlation between the resources at one's command and the ability to realize preferred outcomes. Perhaps no other period of world politics in recent memory represents this discrepancy more acutely than today. U.S. capabilities dwarf those of any other state. Politically, diplomatically, and economically the United States remains in a preeminent position. While it hardly gets everything it wants, no other country can match U.S. influence in these realms. At the same time, from Iran, to North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, not to mention Russia and China, the United States is seemingly not getting its way on issues central to its interests. More states are unafraid to challenge the United States (if only at the margins), ignore its blandishments, or seek to decrease their reliance or dependence on American security guarantees.