Lawmakers likely to fight proposed budget cuts

For years, the Obama administration proposed cuts to a Pacific salmon recovery program — and for years, Congress ignored the request and fully funded the program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That tug of war represents a common disconnect between the executive branch and Congress on spending, even under unified party rule. With reports that the Trump administration wants to cut 17 percent from NOAA's budget, the question now is: How far is Congress willing to go?

According to The Washington Post, the Commerce Department is tasked with finding $990 million in cuts to its budget. Among the targeted programs are congressional favorites; for example, the National Weather Service, slated for a 5 percent proposed cut, is often given a budget larger than the president's request.

Other suggested program reductions would hit at lawmaker districts. If the National Marine Fisheries Service, for example, eats a 5 percent cut, what happens to the Pacific salmon program?

Environmentalists are banking on lawmakers — and their constituents — to make a fuss.

"Members of Congress will hear from those constituents," said Jeff Watters, director of government relations at the Ocean Conservancy. "These cuts are not theoretical. They're not just numbers. These are actual, on-the-ground services that people in coastal communities rely on and depend on."

As an example, Watters pointed to the National Sea Grant College Program, which the Trump administration has proposed eliminating, according to the Post. The program — which supports research at 33 universities — is popular among both Republicans and Democrats.

When the oyster industry in Florida's Apalachicola Bay suffered a steep decline in 2012, the state turned to the Florida Sea Grant program to figure out how to restore harvests.

"When everyone was floundering, it was the local sea grant university program that they went to try to pull together a report," Watters said. "A Republican governor relied on their local sea grant program to figure out an on-the-ground, very real set of environmental challenges."

New York Rep. José Serrano, the top Democrat on the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, agreed that the "practical impact" of cuts will harm both red and blue states.

"NOAA is one of the areas where we must maintain bipartisan support," Serrano said in an email. "It is too important for our environment and for future generations. I will fight to protect this important funding — ensuring sufficient investments in basic research and weather forecasting is too important to let these proposals be implemented."

Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), chairman of the subcommittee, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But last week, he praised NOAA's work on cleaning waterways — and called marine sanctuaries "national treasures."

Of the House's 435 lawmakers, 93 represent coastal districts — each with its own reliance on federal programs for everything from fisheries research to algal bloom forecasts. At a "Members' Day" hearing, Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) urged Culberson and the rest of the subcommittee to fully fund NOAA, emphasizing the economic importance to coastal communities.

"I strongly urge this subcommittee to invest in our nation's largest natural resource: our ocean," he said. "It is important that we not only protect our oceans for recreational purposes but for our $282 billion 'blue economy.' ... These programs help educate our youth, protect our seafood that reaches our tables, preserves the marine environment and employs thousands of Americans along our coasts."

In recent years, the House has proposed cuts to NOAA while the Senate has supported boosts. Neither chamber has suggested cuts as deep as 17 percent — partly because of bipartisan support for full funding of NWS and weather satellites, which take up much of the agency's budget.

House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) recently criticized the focus on such programs in NOAA's budget — but only to suggest that more funding should go to fisheries programs.

"Fishery surveys and other basic fisheries research, in addition to stock assessments, have been inadequately factored into NOAA's annual budget requests. The result: use of outdated or inadequate data, more regulations, rules, and closures, and ultimately, loss of jobs and severe economic impacts to coastal communities," Bishop wrote in a document outlining his views on environmental budgets for fiscal 2018. "Better data and stock assessments are necessary for the sustainable management of fishery resources that provide the economic underpinning of many of the nation's coastal communities."