You are on page 1of 12

AFF Answers

but rather because state regulation makes Congress a more honest and democratically accountable regulator of conduct throughout the nation. sometimes known as "dual federalism. theories of preemption need to accept the truisms that the federal and state governments have largely overlapping jurisdictions. lies in the often competitive interaction between the levels of government. the benefits of federalism in the present and in the future will rest on how the federal and state governments interact. on the one hand. n8 Instead. on the other.the theory. Professor of Law at New York University School of Law. 2007 82 N. that each level of government is acutely aware of what the other is doing.L. Hills is a Jr. national values are well protected by the states' political process. Rev. and the pro-preemption theory of Alan Schwartz. . In particular. n9 Federalism's value. Thus. rest on an outdated and mistaken assumption . mutually exclusive spheres. April. and that each level regulates with an eye to how such regulation will affect the other.U. 2008.Y." that states and the federal government (should) operate in different. a presumption against federal preemption of state law makes sense not because states are necessarily good regulators of conduct within their borders. not in how they act in isolation from each other.”New York University Law Review. To reverse the usual formula. 1 Lexis] I take the position in this Article that both the anti-preemption views represented by Candice Hoke and Betsy Gray.Perm Federalism is only successful when state and federal government action is combined Roderick Hills. *“Against Preemption: How Federalism Can Improve the National Legislative Process. if there is any.

on and on. and lets Chinese contractors build our bridges…” And so it goes.) Still.S. in at least one case. Since Jan.factcheck. Days later. EUGENE KIELY is aWashington assignment editor USA today. .. 2011. The emails increasingly contain harsh language about the president.S.” This year. right? Wrong.S. how did Obama get blamed for the decisions by state agencies and for state projects that.. 2/17/12. we received emails such as this one on Nov. 2011 — we received an email that made this leap to Obama: “SOME CHINESE COMPANIES WHO ARE BUILDING ‘OUR’ BRIDGES. bridges — even though the broadcast news story didn’t mention stimulus funds at all. but said nothing about the president’s $830 billion stimulus bill. 11. (3000 JOBS LOST TO THE CHINESE FIRM)…. 23 emails carried this added bit of Obama-bashing: “I pray all the unemployed see this and cast their votes accordingly in 2012!” One of those emails — a more recent one from Feb. “ABC News on Obama/USA Infrastructure.THIS IS NUTS ! ! ! If this doesn’t make you furious nothing will…. 2011: “I just got an email regarding Diane Sawyer on ABC TV stating that U.Links to politics Obama gets blamed for state ideas Eugene Kiely. we have gotten more than a dozen emails with the subject line. He cancels pipelines. Could this possible be true?” The answer: Yes. 4. 11. We looked at the nearly 100 emails we received on this subject and found that Obama wasn’t mentioned at all in the first few emails. Typical of the emails we received shortly after the ABC News report aired was this one from Oct. Obama’s name started to surface in the subject line of such critical emails — raising the attack on the president to yet another level and perhaps ensuring the email will be even more widely circulated. Bridges and roads are being built by Chinese firms when the jobs should have gone to Americans. S. All from a news report that blamed state officials — not Obama — for spending taxpayer money on Chinese firms to build U. 4.” It didn’t take long for Obama to be blamed. if that’s the right word. The Alliance for American Manufacturing says the federal Buy American laws have been “weakened with loopholes and various exemptions that make it easier for bureaucrats to purchase foreign-made goods instead of those made in American factories with American workers.org/2012/02/did-obama-approvebridge-work-for-chinese-firms/] Who’s to blame. emails started to appear in our inbox that claimed ABC News reported that Chinese firm were receiving stimulus funds to build U. That same day — Nov. 8 — contained this additional line: “Tell me again how Obama’s looking out for blue collar guys. jobs went to Chinese firms. didn’t even use federal funds? The answer is a textbook lesson in how information gets distorted when emails go viral.” often preceded with the word “SHOCKING” in all caps. it’s true. Unbelievable…. (The report did include a clip of Obama delivering a speech on the need to rebuild America’s bridges and put Americans to work. 17. End of story. if the project ends up using manufactured steel from China? The National Steel Bridge Alliance blames the state railroad agency. bridges. Since Jan.” So. *“Did Obama ‘Approve’ Bridge Work for Chinese Firms?” http://www.AND NOW OBAMA WANTS ‘MORE STIMULUS MONEY’…. that included this erroneous claim language: “Stimulus money meant to create U.

showing Texas. Although these figures are in current-year dollars and are not adjusted for inflation.No Money States are broke Melkers 4 (Julia. useful. Focusing only on programs that were administered or directly sponsored by the executive branch of state government. But the federal government allowed that aid to largely expire at the end of fiscal year 2011. so did the futures of two stateS&Tprograms: The Maine Science and Technology Foundation (MSTF) and the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF) were dissolved by their respective legislatures. Regarding performance measurement. Importantly. With growing funding for S&T. the SSTI found steady increases in state support. which in turn may threaten the vitality of state S&T-based programs. This. and changing state requirements for performance reporting. Recently. Economic Development Quarterly. “States Continue to Feel the Recession’s impact. may represent a shift in theway that S&T programs are managed and perceived within the states in the future. As legislative sessions came to an end in spring 2003. they nonetheless represent steadily increasing support. and reflective measures of state S&T activities to better inform legislative members in times of fiscal stress (National Academy of Sciences. An article in Science provides an early warning of changes to come with its telling title. Professor of Public Administration – University of Illinois at Chicago.” http://www. “Rising Deficits Could Doom Science Programs” (2003). Far from providing additional assistance to states. many state budgets have experienced significant downturns. California. states reported approximately $306 million. Temporary aid to states enacted in early 2009 as part of the federal Recovery Act was enormously helpful in allowing states to avert some of the most harmful potential budget cuts in the 2009. “Assessing the Outcomes of State Science and Technology Organizations”. Research by the State Science and Technology Institute (1996) revealed a significant increase in state funds for cooperative research programs.cfm?fa=view&id=711. .cbpp. This number is almost certain to grow as governors release new gap projections along with their proposed budgets in the coming months. in fact. the development of an extensive infrastructure across the 50 states to support S&T-based economic development. Yet it also illustrates the realities of organizations in the political arena. 188) State support for S&T as a vehicle for economic growth and state competitiveness has been reflected in legislative appropriations for S&T organizations over the past 2 decades. state programs will increasingly be held accountable for demonstrating results. ) Twenty-nine states have already projected (and in some cases already closed) budget gaps totaling $44 billion for fiscal year 2013 (see Figure 1). 2010 and 2011 fiscal years. Florida. p. 18(2). Interestingly. it points to the importance of developing realistic. These shortfalls are all the more daunting because states' options for addressing them are fewer and more difficult than in recent years. increasing in 1994 to $369 million and by almost 10% to $405 million in 1995. each reporting more than $200 million in R&D expenditures (Jankowski. NewYork. with some programs moving to other state agencies. Recent studies document the state commitment to S&T through increased funding. May. 1999).org/cms/index. 1999). No money—the aff would cost billions—they don’t have the money now and won’t for years CBPP 1/9/12 (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. the federal government is now moving ahead with spending cuts that will very likely make states' fiscal situation even worse. given different budget formats and the nature of university fund allocation. leading to some of the deepest cuts to state services since the start of the recession. where a portion of funds may go to research or be allocated internally to research programs. certain activities were moved under larger traditional economic development umbrellas. In fiscal year 1992. and Pennsylvania leading in R&D expenditures. precise figures on state funding of S&T are not necessarily transparent.

L. Federal interaction can provide investors with a level of simplicity and clarity needed to facilitate sound decisions. 326 . Sovacool is currently a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization. Sovacool recently completed work on a grant from the National Science Foundation's Electric Power Networks Efficiency and Security Program investigating the social impediments to distributed and renewable energy systems. Envtl. VA. where neither potential regulators nor those desiring regulation know where to turn. “The Best of Both Worlds: Environmental Federalism and the Need for Federal Action on Renewable Energy and Climate Change” June. high compliance costs. Sovacool 8 Dr.Deters Investment Conflicting state programs deter investment. part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. A multiplicity of regulators that do not match well with an underlying social ill can lead to a regulatory commons problem. the existing state regulatory environment must impose additional costs on businesses and consumers. Dr. He is an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg. where he has taught for the Government and International Affairs Program and the Department of History.J. 2008 Stanford Environmental Law Journal 27 Stan. And they can significantly increase transaction costs associated with enforcing and [*471] monitoring a plethora of distinct individual programs. lexis Third. 397. and a drag on otherwise beneficial activities. Benjamin K. Differing state statutes can complicate efforts to conduct business in multiple states. 325 Redundant and overlapping state regulation can lead to confusion. They risk creating incentives for multiple firms to duplicate costly research and development.

S. Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Fellow. In this context of substantial uncertainty about the future.org/sites/default/files/Leadership%20in%20Nuclear%20Energy%20Markets. “Pete” Miller. so helping to maintain and improve a range of electricity supply options remains a role for federal policy. Bipartisan Policy Center Nuclear Initiative¶ And Former Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy. fuel diversity is especially important as a way to help ensure that the electric power sector can deliver reliable. . and Dr. July 2012. and the prospect of further environmental regulations.¶ Leadership in Global Nuclear Energy Markets. policy should be aimed at helping to preserve nuclear energy as an important technology option for near. one that features low natural gas prices.or longer-term deployment.S. and secure energy services over long timeframes. In particular.” http://bipartisanpolicy. “Maintaining U. flattening electric demand. affordable.Natural Gas/Wind – No Investor Confidence States don’t solve investor confidence – which is key to utilities Domenici and Miller 2012 (Senator Pete Domenici.pdf) Electric utilities in the United States face a changing market environment. Co-chair. Warren F. Market signals alone are unlikely to result in a diverse fuel mix. U.

2011 *Roberta. budgetary concerns caused some states to consider ¶ cutting back energy tax incentives. Recent federal economic stimulus legislation increased tax incentives ¶ for investments in renewable energy for individuals and businesses. RSR) Effective global mitigation of climate change will require strong leadership by national governments. state. and fund long-term commitments. Kristen Hughes.Natural Gas/Wind – No Solvency State governments fail at climate policy—patchwork policies and budget constraints Mann.lclark.. National funding also remains vital to underwrite long-term commitments needed to meet ever more challenging climate action targets (Rabe. and local tax policies for climate ¶ change raises concerns similar to those raised by scholars contemplating ¶ the effect of comprehensive federal climate change legislation on ¶ existing regional. state.¶ 14¶ Local governments facing budget ¶ shortfalls may consider reducing climatefriendly public transportation ¶ services and increasing property taxes. state and local governments. letting the federal government fund climate change efforts ¶ makes sense as well. while lacking revenue. University of Oregon School of Law. From a fiscal ¶ perspective. Online. Only national governments can promote uniform standards for compliance and related programs. 2-19-7. “FEDERAL. including that of the US. regional. AND LOCAL TAX POLICIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE: COORDINATION OR CROSSPURPOSE?” 4-25-11. most State ¶ governments are constitutionally prohibited from doing so¶ 12¶ and are ¶ further limited by their inability to print money. “American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal. On the other hand. STATE. national governments remain vital in mandating and enforcing compliance among diverse actors within their jurisdiction. 2002). may be well positioned to identify ¶ and encourage the use of locally abundant renewable energy sources. http://www. Lewis and Clark Law Review. create uniform standards. and local green energy and climate change policy”. More specifically. all from the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP). ‘7 (John. 2002). Only the federal government can enforce compliance. Wilson Rickerson.edu/live/files/8326lcb152art4mann] /Wyo-MB Coordination of federal. et al. Professor and Dean’s Distinguished Faculty Fellow. state. thus ensuring achievement of policy goals with maximum fairness and minimal costs (Rabe. Lado Kurdgelashvili. The federal government can run a deficit. . setting climate ¶ change policy at the national level is efficient because it avoids the need ¶ to comply with a patchwork of state and local regulations. What ¶ level of government should bear the primary responsibility for setting ¶ climate change policy? From a business perspective. and local efforts to mitigate climate change.¶ 13¶ At ¶ the same time. Byrne.

261) Grid regulation does not stop at state lines. It is the best way to address issues of interstate and transboundary pollution. Professor of Law. set off a cascade of interruptions on high voltage lines and tripping off 263 power plants. Regulators in those states have used their state authority to frustrate grid upgrades. 2008 Stanford Environmental Law Journal 27 Stan. That guarantees grid failures. Benjamin K. part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. “Power Future. where he has taught for the Government and International Affairs Program and the Department of History. In the blackout of 2003. Instead they had to call each generating plant owner and each utility to suggest operational changes. Boston. If we are going to overcome these structural vulnerabilities. the relatively weak Midwest ISO did not have over-arching authority to order operational changes or responses within the region. Centralization has its own unique set of advantages. [*279] it could increase the ultimate cost of power to low-cost power states. & Pol'y F. 64 Why are we still so disintegrated? There has been significant resistance in low-cost generation states in the Midwest. loss of a line. and computer failures made contingency analysis of no value. 2005¶ 15 Duke Envtl. And centralization is the only way to ensure distributive justice by promoting a minimum standard of environmental protection and to prevent some states from racing to the bottom to set more lax environmental standards. This involves a significant legal "pivot" in the way we regulate and structure the energy future. we must plan power regionally. It creates better economies of scale in data collection. 63 Human error. Northwest. lexis The debate concerning environmental federalism in the United States has deep and complex historical roots. 397. L. It is out of such areas that the blackout of 2003 appears to have emanated. Dr. which are still mostly conventionally regulated. L.J. Ferrey 5 (Steven. He is an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg. Strong arguments exist for centralized.” Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum¶ Spring.Natural Gas/Wind – Race to the Bottom Race to the bottom empirically proven with environmental policy Sovacool 8 Dr. devolved. . and South. Suffolk University Law School. to allowing transmission infrastructure upgrades that would facilitate the export of their low-cost power to higher-cost markets and states. Sovacool is currently a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization. and environmental problem identification. “The Best of Both Worlds: Environmental Federalism and the Need for Federal Action on Renewable Energy and Climate Change” June. research and development. The roles and responsibilities of the states and federal government have shifted over time between decentralized and centralized forms of environmental policy. Centralization can ensure that uniform federal standards provide predictability and clarity for investors and stakeholders. VA. 65 If this occurred. Envtl. and dual forms of environmental federalism. Sovacool recently completed work on a grant from the National Science Foundation's Electric Power Networks Efficiency and Security Program investigating the social impediments to distributed and renewable energy systems.

another boom and bust cycle for renewables. http://climatepolicyinitiative. However: • State budget constraints from the recession made increasing support from states unlikely.Wind – No Money State incentives empirically have failed to support renewable projects without federal support because of budget constraints and weak global economy Rowley et al 12 (Kath. According to FERC. • European states facing fiscal constraints pulled back renewable energy policies but U. As a result. . electricity demand in the U. could lead to significantly reduced levels of annual renewable energy deployment in the near future.S. Unemployment reached nearly 10%.S. As a result. or separate state funds for renewable energy.-wide fiscal support analogous to the support provided by federal incentives to U. 16 While the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act provided $145 billion to state and local governments to help them cope with the downturn. The impact of the recession on ratepayers was similarly stark. for example.U. a number of states have implemented renewable energy policies such as binding targets for renewable energy generation or state tax concessions. fell by 4. states with such policies in place could have covered the cost gap in the absence of federal support through the increased use of such mechanisms. leading to booms just prior to expiration followed by substantially lower employment in the year after. Brendan Pierpont. states. it does not appear that the budget and demand constraints noted above are likely to ease in the near term. regulators may be empowered to authorize increases in retail electricity prices to cover a utility’s incremental costs for compliance with renewable energy targets. in particular. Member States facing significant fiscal constraints—such as Spain and Italy— abruptly curtailed their renewable energy policy ambitions in the absence of E. and Andrew Hobbs. In theory. renewable energy deployment in the U. These policies often include mechanisms to cover the gap between the cost of renewable electricity generation and market prices for electricity. to the impact of the downturn on renewable energy deployment in Europe. as we noted in the introduction. These constraints made it unlikely that states would have increased spending if federal renewable energy incentives had been removed.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/Supporting-Renewables-while-Saving-Taxpayers-Money. • The recession’s impact on electricity demand made additional ratepayer support unlikely. states did not. These may involve explicit funding or subsidies such as tax concessions. This is in marked contrast. current state policies alone do not appear to be strong enough to sustain the level of growth in renewable energy deployment seen over the last four years . Due to the continued weakness of the global economy. “Supporting Renewables while Saving Taxpayers Money. utilities and the relevant regulators would have faced an exceptionally difficult business and political environment for making a case to increase retail rates to cover additional costs of new renewable electricity generation.pdf//wyo-mm) Over the last decade. Further. Nevertheless.” September 2012. we believe that additional state or ratepayer support was not likely and that federal policies were critical to the recent growth in renewable energy deployment. Significant tax revenue losses associated with economic contraction along with increased mandatory spending to provide services to those impacted by the downturn (such as through Medicaid insurance) created significant fiscal pressures in nearly every state. which began with the financial crisis of 2008.U. rebates. and most state renewable energy targets prior to the recession were either maintained or strengthened. continued to grow during the recession.S. The global economic downturn. the PTC for wind. The PTC was allowed to expire at the end of 2001 and 2003 when wind faced similar market conditions. The cuts were particularly severe in states with balanced budget requirements. Thus. E.2% in 2009 due to decreased economic activity (the steepest drop in 60 years). Uday Varadarajan. it is likely that the expiration of federal incentives. Climate Policy initiative.S. this covered only about 40% of state deficits and states were nevertheless forced to make severe cuts to essential services. Others may involve implicit support—for example. was particularly difficult on state budgets.

.J.. 12 N. 405 "This "negative' aspect of the Commerce Clause prohibits economic protectionism. 403 The U." 401 Although the Commerce Clause is an affirmative grant of power." 400 In creating this power. 399 While the Commerce Clause grants affirmative powers to Congress to regulate in a variety of areas. the federal government exercises regulatory power over the wholesale power market. New York University Environmental Law Journal. to regulate Commerce . among the several States. The Commerce Clause provides that "the Congress shall have Power . 397 The generation and transmission of electric energy is an activity particularly likely to affect more than one state.only FERC has jurisidiction Ferrey 4 Steven. although states are permitted to promote in-state businesses.. Supreme Court consistently holds that the Commerce Clause exerts a prohibitive force limiting states' powers to regulate interstate commerce in certain situations even in instances where Congress has not regulated. there is no clear [*579] directive limiting states' abilities to regulate where Congress has remained silent. Professor of Law.." 406 Therefore. the Supreme Court has also interpreted it as limiting the States' ability to "unjustifiably ." 402 Although the Commerce Clause affirmatively grants Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce. 507 The specific mechanism for structuring any state renewable subsidies must not run afoul of Constitutional requirements. Envtl. while the states are left alone to regulate most retail transactions. The regulation of utilities is a traditional function of local police power in the states. discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce. 404 State statutes that clearly discriminate against interstate commerce are routinely found to be impermissible. the so-called "dormant Commerce Clause" also is interpreted as a limitation on the power of states to regulate in particular areas." 407 . Suffolk University Law School. 398 Under the Federal Power Act of 1935. the framers sought to "avoid the tendencies toward economic Balkanization that had plagued relations among the Colonies and later among the States under the Articles of Confederation.Wind – Rollback The CP is unconstitutional and gets rolled back... L.S.U.Y. they are not permitted to protect those businesses from out-of-state competition by enacting laws that "benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.

Who could have predicted the Internet revolution? Who could have thought that HIV/AIDS. from improving technologies for detection of weapons of mass destruction to improving how we protect our soldiers in combat. the recent actions taken by this Congress in its FY07 funding decisions to increase research funding for NIH. But as NIH Director Elias Zerhouni told Congress just last week. and a higher quality of life for all of our citizens. with advice from scientists who can tell them about the possibilities. research in the physical sciences and engineering has been nearly flat-funded over some three decades. and Design. There is no doubt that the long-term investment by the federal government in basic scientific research has improved the lives of the citizens of the United States and made this the discoveries and produced a final product. There is now recognition in both political parties of the need for greater funding of research in the physical sciences. Back in California. Other obvious areas for research likely to be fruitful in the coming years are global disease prevention and cures. Now we must find the national vision and the political will to transform how the debate over support for research and education is framed. innovative ways. We must persuade our national political leadership that investment in research and education will help to ensure continuing U. But the good news is that the additional resources needed to sustain our leadership in scientific research are not excessive. “The Role of Public Investment in Promoting Economic Growth”. I thank this committee for bringing the nation’s attention to this incredibly successful partnership and hope it will continue to spread that message through the Congress and the Administration.Desal – No Global Solvency Doesn’t solve global desal issues Drake 7 (Michael. However. global leadership sustained and produce medical innovation. along with local and state organizations to advance the understanding of the distinct characteristics of the urban water environment in order to assist people and institutions in their effort to promote health. and biophtonics. NIST and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science and renewable energy activities. The Center is a partnership with 60 faculty members and a variety of departments at UCI. the Urban Water Research Center at UCI is working with the Environmental Protection Agency. Working together. how to address our compelling environmental problems. it's easy to remember to thank the scientists and the technicians and the industries that made none of this would be possible without public investment in basic research. And while my campus receives large million dollar grants from CIRM. NSF. we passed Proposition 71 which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). Lexis) Investment in basic R&D requires both the means and being risk tolerant . Policy. since that investment. as well as a continuation of Congress’ commitment to fund the life sciences. For example. I request that you continue these trends into FY08. and many others. to decide. NIH funding has not kept pace with inflation and the benefits of that historic investment have already started to erode. Sometimes the states seek to pick up the slack when they believe the federal government is lagging. bioinformatics. It’s true that Congress and two successive Administrations doubled funding for the NIH over the five year period of FY 1998-2003. Given the growing importance of interdisciplinary research. But the federal commitment to basic research has had a mixed record in recent years. 3-23. UCI Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. But when it comes to the extraordinary research we have done and will do. Without it.7 trillion federal budget. These fields allow scientists to attack problems in new. Only the federal government has the resources and the ability to support this vital research. surely among the cruelest of diseases. economic growth. Testimony Before the House Committee on Financial Services – CQ Congressional Testimony. and Chancellor – University of California. and protect environmental values. THE FUTURE If Congress does indeed strengthen the federal role in funding basic science. new diagnostic tools based on our understanding of the human genome and proteomics and further advances in the physical sciences. Anyone who has a family member with Alzheimer’s can tell you how wrenching this disease is. an obvious area is the development of reliable and environmentally sound water systems. Additionally. I applaud Congress’ leadership on the stem cell issue and their efforts to pass legislation that will expand access to this valuable area of research. M. for example. While this is a 10-percent increase over five years ago. and national and homeland security related problems. what future opportunities should we pursue? That is for policymakers. and how devastating the costs of handling the disease can be. Earth System Sciences. as baby boomers age. including Civil and Environmental Engineering. leadership in basic research must be at the national level . And then there is that extraordinary discovery we can't even imagine. But we can never forget that a better country and a better world. enhance the efficient use of water resources. The disease afflicts one in eight people over 65. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. However. bioengineering. adequate funding for both the life sciences and the physical sciences is essential . The report stated that more than five million Americans now have that disease. I often have to think in terms of revenues and infrastructure and hiring packages.S. and appreciate. As a physician. I believe that enormous progress could be made in diagnosing and treating this disease in the next ten years if the funding were available. . several states have undertaken research initiatives using embryonic stem cells. two variables that the federal government can absorb more effectively and efficiently then states can.D. and 42 percent of those over 85. and continues to be a leader in the area of stem cell research we still fall short in terms of funding. could be made to decline for more than a decade? And who could have thought that we could peer twelve billion years into the past to view the universe in its infancy? These accomplishments are a direct result of the federal government’s commitment to research funding. We must make it politically unacceptable for policymakers to fight over research and education funding at the margins of a $2. CONCLUSION As a university chancellor. One other powerful opportunity is the focus of a report issued earlier this week by the Alzheimer’s Association. in less than ten years could be turned from a near-certain death sentence to an onerous but survivable burden for those fortunate enough to live in the United States and receive triple-drug therapies? Who could have thought that mortality due to childhood cancers. including stem cell research. We are encouraged by. these departments are able to effectively address the multitude of interdisciplinary water problems that people face in the modern urban environment. Planning. Irvine. the country will miss opportunities that are developing in. the number may triple by 2050. state-by-state pursuit of any kind of research does not provide the necessary leadership . I also put on my physician's cap and marvel at how the diagnostic tools and therapies and preventive knowledge that have been developed in recent decades have transformed the practice of medicine and changed the quality of life in America for nearly 300 million people. The reality is. UCI College of Health Sciences. including global climate change. I know that it is difficult to obtain additional funding resources in a discretionary budget that is nearly frozen at the overall level. For example. It is critically important that NIH has adequate funding to support all types of biomedical research.