|
Washington, DC -- U.S. Rep. Ron Klein (FL-22) will submit testimony and ask questions during a joint subcommittee hearing of the House Science Committee concerning recent actions between the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Thursday titled, “Tracking the Storm at the National Hurricane Center.” The joint hearing between the subcommittees on Energy and Environment, and Investigations and Oversight, will take place this Thursday at 10 a.m. in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building.
While the purpose of the hearing is to explore questions raised by the process that culminated in Bill Proenza's removal as head of the National Hurricane Center, Klein’s opening statement and subsequent questions to witnesses will focus on the purpose of QuikSCAT and it’s relevance to forecasting and detecting hurricanes.
The following is the opening statement Klein has submitted to the record.
Opening Statement of Rep. Ron Klein
Before the House Science & Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
July 18, 2007
I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, along with the ranking member for holding this hearing and allowing me to participate. I can think of only a handful of issues as important as keeping the American public safe from hurricanes and other deadly storms. It’s a fundamental duty of the federal government that I and all Americans take very seriously. That’s why I have taken a high level of interest in the health of our weather satellites, and in particular, the Quick Scatterometer, otherwise known as QuikSCAT.
On June 5, 2006, NOAA convened a workshop with other federal agencies to assess, among other things, the impact of satellite surface wind speed and direction measurements. QuikSCAT, one of two weather satellites at the heart of the workshop’s assessment, received several eye-catching quotes in support of its usefulness. Rick Knabb, senior hurricane specialist at the National Hurricane Center, said, “When QuikSCAT is gone, it will be like going back seven years in tropical cyclone analysis.” He also added, “Losing QuikSCAT would be like losing a limb, especially for Tropical Analysis and Forecasting Branch.”
I’ve heard similar comments during my many meetings with NOAA officials, including from General David Johnson, former director of the National Weather Service. And during my recent visit to the National Hurricane Center, several forecasters independently verified to me the value of QuikSCAT’s data when detecting and analyzing hurricanes and tropical storms. They showed me how the cone used to predict the path of a storm may be altered when QuikSCAT’s data is incorporated, making the cone narrower and the timing of landfall more precise.
Now, in the midst of the controversy surrounding Mr. Proenza’s dismissal as director of the Center, I’m hearing comments that essentially retreat from the earlier support of QuikSCAT. There are accusations that Mr. Proenza misrepresented or overstated the science when saying two-day and three-day forecasts would be adversely affected by the loss of QuikSCAT, and one senior forecaster at the Hurricane Center even compared the loss of QuikSCAT to “driving a BMW with cloth rather than leather seats.”
This sudden retreat concerns me. While I recognize that there may be disputes over Mr. Proenza’s management or administrative style, I am not in a position to evaluate his employment status. However, while I recognize that disagreements over scientific studies can occur among reasonable and reputable scientists, my fear is that this retreat may be born out in part by political motivations.
Such actions may have distracted us from legitimate inquiries into QuikSCAT along with NOAA’s other weather satellites. Fortunately, this committee has taken its oversight responsibilities seriously and convened this hearing, inviting me to participate. I’m very grateful because from the very beginning of my interest in QuikSCAT, I’ve been asking two very simple questions to NOAA. How did we get to this point where a useful weather satellite is on its last legs with no replacement set to launch, and what are NOAA’s short-term and long-term contingency plans to replace the loss of its data. I should add that we also now need to inquire whether the QuikSCAT retreat is legitimate and if this once-praised satellite has value. But if it does, I feel it is imperative that we find out what are the backup plans, when it fails, to replace the data and other information it provides in the evaluation of hurricanes and tropical storms.
I sincerely hope at the end of this hearing that I can leave and say that we have logical, supportable answers. But if I’m not satisfied, I intend to keep pressing to ensure that our forecasters have the best resources and technology available to help them keep the American public safe from hurricanes and other deadly storms. I look forward to the outcome and the responses of the distinguished panelists and subcommittee Members, and thank the esteemed chairman and ranking member for their leadership on this issue.
|
