SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET AUTHORIZATION REQUEST: NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1998
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Chairman CALVERT. This hearing of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee will come to order.
Today we will look at the Fiscal Year 1999 budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We will hear both from NOAA's Administrator and the GAO, which has released a report on the management problems at the National Weather Service.
For all of NOAA, the request totals $2.12 billion, an increase of 6.8 percent over Fiscal Year 1998 appropriations. For that portion of NOAA under this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, the request totals $1.62 billion. This is 12 percent over Fiscal Year 1998 and 3.2 percent over the authorized level under H.R. 1278 which passed the full Science Committee last year.
There is good news and bad news for the taxpayers in NOAA's performance over the past year. The good news is the all-too-accurate prediction of El Niño induced weather conditions made last year before this Subcommittee. Unfortunately for my home State of California, we have seen a series of storms that have been intensified by the El Niño phenomenon and we can't say we weren't warned. These conditions are mild, however, compared with the El Niño effect in other parts of the world, including droughts in the Far East and Pacific storms in South America. But I should add that this isn't over yet, and we expect a wet March and, potentially, April.
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Because of the unusual publicity surrounding this year's prediction, which has made El Niño a household word around the world, the public has had a rare chance to see the practical results of scientific research.
The Science Committee has given strong support to other research programs that have studied El Niño and other long-term weather studies and will continue to do so.
Despite this long-term research success story, short-term management problems continue to plague the National Weather Service this past year. There are two areas of concern. First, the announced shortfall in the Weather Service's Fiscal Year 1998 budget which led to public concern over the Weather Service's ability to maintain local warning and forecast performance standards and eventually to the dismissal of the Director of the National Weather Service. Our objective in discussing this report is not to hash over the past, but to assure the public that we will not face a similar situation this year.
The second issue is the troubled AWIPS modernization program that has seen cost estimates rise by 75 percent since its inception. Despite the $550 million budget cap agreement that included the Science Committee, appropriations, and NOAA, we now learn from an outside audit commissioned by NOAA that under the existing plan, AWIPS will bust the cap by $50 million to $100 million and will suffer another 9-month delay in deployment. Now the agency is faced with scaling back the system in order to meet the cap.
The value of the modernization program is unquestioned. The importance to public health and safety of the state-of-the-art radar and software systems is brought home with every major storm as we have seen in recent weeks in Florida and California. That is all the more reason that management practices match the efficiency of the equipment so we can avoid these costly delays.
Before I introduce today's witnesses, let me turn to my friend from Indiana, the distinguished Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Roemer, for his opening remarks.
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your generous introduction once again and look forward to this hearing with you.
I welcome our witnesses today, and I'd ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be entered into the record.
Chairman CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. ROEMER. I'd also ask unanimous consent, that a statement from my colleague from California, Ms. Tauscher, be entered into the record with accompanying articles.
Chairman CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tauscher follows:]
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN ELLEN TAUSCHER
BEFORE THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE
HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY 99 NOAA BUDGET
IN SUPPORT OF FUNDING FOR EGERIA DENSA
MARCH 4, 1998
I thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and the Committee for allowing me to submit a written statement for today's hearing regarding the 1999 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget. I wish to bring to the attention of both the Committee and to NOAA's Administrator, Dr. D. James Baker, the need to control and eliminate a non-indigenous aquatic species that is threatening to destroy waterways across the Nation. I am referring to Egeria Densa, a water weed that originates in Brazil and has taken over not only many waterways in the San Francisco Bay Delta, but also canals, rivers, lakes, and bays around the country, including the Mississippi River, the Florida Everglades, and the Chesapeake Bay. I urge Dr. Baker of NOAA to do all he can to contain this problem and encourage him to utilize funding provided through the Sea Grant Research program to invest dollars in eliminate this scourge.
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In my State of California we have more nonindigenous species destroying our natural environment than any other State. One of the worst offenders is Egeria Densa, which can be found throughout the San Francisco Bay Delta. This weed impacts water quality in the bay by displacing native vegetation and choking the waterways, causing severe damage to boats, loss of recreational area, and a dramatic reduction of the property values along the deltas in my District.
Rooted in the bottom of the delta, this nonnative weed reproduces when fragments of the plant break off and travel with boats or tidal flow to be deposited and then grow in another area. During warm months, the plant picks up nutrients in the delta and, with the help of the sun, spreads like wildfire throughout the delta sloughs. Many areas that only a couple of years ago were open for boaters, are now completely inundated by this weed. In fact, several areas of the delta are now so full of Egeria Densa that it has turned canals into clogged beds of weeds in which nothing else can compete. In the past several years, this spread has accelerated to the point that if serious attention is not given to eradicating the weed through safe and non-poisoning methods, I fear that boaters and delta users may use environmentally harmful chemicals in an attempt to eliminate the problem on their own.
It is essential that a national strategy to effectively defend against Egeria Densa and other invasive water species be developed before they become a major epidemic in the San Francisco Bay Delta and other waterways throughout the Nation. Therefore, I ask that the House Science Committee Energy and Environment Subcommittee to work with NOAA to ensure that adequate resources are included to fund such a strategy, as well as the Sea Grant Research program, in the 1999 NOAA budget. Let me be clear, this is a problem which, if not dealt with soon, will become a crisis as serious as other non-indigenous aquatic species, clogging water ways, reducing property values, limiting recreation, and hindering commerce.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts on this issue with the Committee, and I look forward to working with Administrator Baker on this issue in the future.
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with your assessment and opening remarks about there being good news and bad news within NOAA. Certainly the good news I've experienced back in my home District personally, where NOAA helped work with us to put in the best technology in the world with a NEXRAD radar. I had President Clinton visit my District in the past year which generated about 2 wonderful days of publicity. When our NEXRAD radar went up, I think we had 3 days of wonderful publicity. And the technology is up and working well.
Dr. Friday accompanied me for the orientation and the dedication and we were delighted to have your presence there. And things went extremely well in the community with celebrations. And now we're taking grade-school children into the facility and showing them how important weather is and what they can learn about weather, and helping our businesses and our farmers learn more about the changing lake-effect phenomenon that we have in our District as well, too.
That's some of the good news. Some of the bad news is our concern, as Members of Congress, for cost overruns. The AWIPS program appears to be going from about $550 million to $618 million. We talked last year and the year before about a cap. I was one who worked with you to put that cap in there, and you initially told me that you thought that was a pretty good idea. And now it appears that cap is not just going to be exceeded, it looks like it is going to be shattered. We want to work with you. We know that there are software development problems in NOAA, in other parts of government. We want to better understand why this has such a large cost overrun.
I want to assure you, Dr. Baker, that this is not something that I personalize with NOAA. I'm even more upset about a $3.6 billion cost overrun in the Space Station. So, it's not your Agency by itself that causes me a great deal of concern and inquiry here.
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, I'd just like to mention to you one project that I'm very, very supportive of and will ask you a question when my time comes around. We talked last year, Dr. Baker, about the zebra mussel problem, particularly in the Great Lakes area and in the Midwest. We have made some strides with legislation that we just passed through the House with a $5 million funding bill to help us with this problem in Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan, and other parts of the Midwest and the United States. I am concerned about how NOAA will—what kind of role NOAA might play in a coordinating role here with the various zebra mussel research programs and how we will work between individual States to coordinate this research as well, too. And I look forward to comments on that.
So, again, we appreciate your presence here today, and I yield back any remaining time I have, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman CALVERT. Thank you.
We have with us today two witnesses, Dr. D. James Baker, is Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere as well as the Administrator for NOAA. I would also like to give special recognition to someone accompanying Dr. Baker: retired General John Kelly has agreed to take on a new challenge, that of Director of the National Weather Service, a position he has held for all of 1 week, I believe. General Kelly headed up a task force which looked at management problems within the Weather Service last year, and now will have the unusual opportunity to implement his own recommendations. General, congratulations, and we look forward to working with you.
Also with us is Joel Willemsson, Director of the U.S. Accounting and Management Division at the U.S. General Accounting Office.
Gentlemen, it is our policy to swear in all witnesses. And, Dr. Baker, to save time, if you could bring up to the table General Kelly and anyone else you might call on today. If you will all rise. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Without objection, the full written testimony of both witnesses will be entered into the record. However, I would ask that you summarize your testimony in about 5 minutes so we'll have time to move onto questions.
So with that, Dr. Baker, your opening remarks please. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF D. JAMES BAKER, UNDER SECRETARY, OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Roemer: thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 budget request. And, Mr. Chairman, I have to say it is a special pleasure to testify before you. You are the first Subcommittee Chairman who has visited our Silver Spring facility and we appreciate very much your coming out and having a little hands-on demonstration of our new technology there.
As you pointed out, I have a number of people with me: Bill Mehuron who's our acting-Deputy Under Secretary; Bob Winokur, Assistant Administrator for our satellite service; Dr. Friday, Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; Andy Moxam, our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer; and Brigadier General-retired Jack Kelly, who's the new Director of the National Weather Service.
Before I begin with the budget numbers, let me state that because of investments that have been provided by this Committee, NOAA has been a leader in weather and climate research and forecasts, environmental monitoring and research, fisheries management, and sustainable use of the coast.
Most recently, Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, NOAA has demonstrated the value of these forecasts by the successful forecasts of the 1997, 1998 El Niño. You can see from the picture over there this very warm anomalous warm pool that we see in the eastern tropical Pacific has been the driver for this unusual weather that we've had. It has been devastating to parts of the country, but significant improvements in observing and forecasting technology allowed us to issue these forecasts far enough in advance to allow communities to prepare for some of the damaging impact. We first announced in June 1997 that this El Niño would be an event of the century in intensity, and that major impacts could be expected in the United States and globally.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Research since 1982 has provided a relatively good understanding of the links between El Niño and regional changes in rainfall and temperature. Although this understanding is far from perfect, we were sufficiently confident to issue further forecasts during the summer that the southwest California, in particular the southeast, were under risk of well-above normal rainfall and could undergo flooding events. In fact, we cosponsored a summit with FEMA in Santa Monica to warn California managers of the rain and floods to come.
Subsequent weather patterns for October 1997 through January 1998 have matched well with the forecasts. A number of regions around the country, including yours, Mr. Chairman, have recorded 100-year departures from normal rainfall or temperature.
Providing this type of information to government and industry users as well as to the public more than 6 months in advance is precedent setting—we have never done this before. Based on current forecasts, hundreds of federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private groups, were able to take steps to prepare and mitigate impact. We have implemented a weekly conference call—what we call a threats assessment—with all of our federal, and local, and state partners to discuss areas that will be impacted within the next 6 to 10 days, and that rolls forward each week.
From the earliest days of our seasonal inter-annual research program, a key goal has been the transfer of this knowledge to operational climate services. We have led the United States in research in inter-annual climate variability, yet many questions remain about the El Niño: why it occurs; how it ends; what comes next; can we do a better job of forecasting. And so we continue our very strong research program.
El Niño reminds us of the importance of the oceans to the weather and climate system. And in recognition of the importance the United Nations has declared 1998 as the ''Year of the Ocean.'' We've planned a year-long series of events to remind us of the value of the ocean in our daily lives, and we are leading the federal interagency effort to review the status of ocean-related programs. Legislation has been introduced in both sides of Congress that highlights the importance of the ocean and proposes a commission to review future oceans policy. The ''Year of the Ocean'' provides us all with a chance to educate more Americans on the tremendous importance and fragility of our Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lake resources.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, our total request is $2.111 billion in new budget authority. It is a net increase overall of $124 million over our 1998 enacted level. This request allows us to play an essential role in a number of interagency and Presidential initiatives, including the Natural Disaster Reduction Initiative, the President's Clean Water Initiative, the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative, and the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
We continue to experience the benefits associated with Weather Service modernization in 1997. Improvements in the accuracy and timeliness of severe weather and natural hazards are directly related to modernized technologies such as our next-generation radars, our new and improved weather satellites, and the initial deployment of our Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System—the AWIPS system. These improvements have been attributed to saving lives and reducing impacts of natural disasters all over the country. For example, record flooding occurred in the upper Midwest during 1997; flood potential statements were issued by the National Weather Service 8 weeks in advance of that flooding. In addition, tornado outbreaks in Arkansas and Texas resulted in over 50 deaths last year, but use of our advanced remote sensing technology and our Doppler radars allowed us to issue tornado warning with lead times from 18 to 32 minutes, which minimizes the loss of life.
We are nearing the completion of Weather Service modernization. The remaining challenge is completion of the deployment and development of the AWIPS system—the cornerstone of modernization. The system has performed superbly in its initial deployment, and the offices that don't have it are clamoring for it. But as you are aware, we are currently reviewing plans and cost estimates for the AWIPS program, including independent cost reviews. We expect that this review will be finished shortly and we will discuss the results with this Subcommittee as soon as possible.
For our environmental satellites, 1999 funding will ensure that the continuous geostationary operational environmental satellite and polar orbiting satellite coverage will be continued. An increase of $79.6 million from 1998 enacted levels requested primarily for the acquisition of this geostationary satellite at a contract which was awarded to Hughes in February 1998—and it was a good news story because we saved, overall, from the estimates, close to $.5 billion in that procurement.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
An additional $65 million is required to meet NOAA's commitment to share development costs with the Department of Defense for our new National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, called NPOESS, an increase of about $30.6 million—a joint program with DOD. We saved over what we would have spent about $1 billion.
Well, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that more than in most years, we have seen the dramatic impact of weather and climate on the economy and safety of our Nation and the world. Our technology, services, and dedicated people have performed well, and we believe that our 1999 request will help ensure the continued delivery of these essential services.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Baker follow:]
Insert offset folios 1-29
Chairman CALVERT. Thank you, Doctor. And next Mr. Joel Willemssen with the GAO.
TESTIMONY OF JOEL WILLEMSSEN, DIRECTOR, CIVIL AGENCIES INFORMATION SYSTEMS, ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Roemer.
As requested, I'll briefly summarize our statement and in doing so, I'll cover three topics: one, our work regarding confusion on key events surrounding the Fiscal Year 1997 Weather Service budget—our report on that, as you know, is being released today—two, an update on AWIPS problems and related Year 2000 computing concerns; and three, an update on a report we issued last year on Weather Service coverage in the Erie, Pennsylvania area.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regarding the NWS budget: last year, NWS officials frequently referred to a Fiscal Year 1997 budget shortfall. However, this so-called shortfall was recorded in different amounts at different points in time ranging from about $27 million last February, to about $47 million last May. Agency officials explained this discrepancy and the resulting confusion by saying that the varying amounts responded to specific questions at particular points in time and did not necessarily include all known elements of the shortfall.
Two other events associated with the shortfall also raise concerns. The first centered on a Weather Service request that NOAA reprogram funds and NWS's intention to fill critical field office vacancies before approval of that request. The second event involved certification approval to consolidate, automate, and or close Weather Service offices. Upon learning that it would not be able to fill critical field vacancies, NWS recommended to NOAA that numerous certification packages previously forwarded for approval be held back because, according to Weather Service officials, not filling the vacancies would result in degraded weather services at some locations. Five days after this NWS recommendation, the head of the Weather Service was reassigned by NOAA's under secretary.
Turning to AWIPS and its continuing problems: after continued cost-growth with AWIPS, last year, as you know, the Department of Commerce committed to a $550 million funding cap. We testified last spring that it would be extremely difficult for NOAA to develop and deploy AWIPS with this $550 million cap. As you know, a recent independent assessment showed the likely cost to complete AWIPS will now increase by $68 million to about $618 million.
In addition, while AWIPS was planned for full deployment in 1999, that schedule is now in doubt. The latest schedule calls for an interim software build to be completed in March of 1999. Completion dates for the final two software builds—builds five and six—are now uncertain, because, we're told, NWS wants to reassess the requirements for those builds to identify whether cost increases can be limited.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to the continuing software development risks, another area of concern is whether AWIPS and all modernization components will be what is called Year 2000 compliant. NWS officials acknowledge that there are risks to the continuing delivery of weather services if their systems are not Year 2000 compliant. AWIPS currently is not Year 2000 compliant according to Weather Service officials. Further, there are additional questions about whether other key modernization components and key data interfaces are Year 2000 compliant.
Finally regarding weather radar coverage in the area of Erie, Pennsylvania: as you know, we reported last year that the preliminary conclusions of a NWS lake-effect snow study indicated that weather services provided to Erie were not as good as services provided to other lake communities. Because of this, the Director of NWS's Office of Meteorology recommended that a new radar be installed for the Erie area. In its response to a draft of our report, Commerce officials said they were still in the process of completing the study on lake-effect snow and reviewing the need for additional radar. As of last week, however, no decision on this matter had been made.
That concludes the summary of my statement. I would be pleased to address any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Willemssen follow:]
Insert offset folios 30-43
Chairman CALVERT. Thank you.
Doctor, I could probably spend all my time talking about El Niño in California, but suffice it to say, we're very interested in what's going to happen the next month because Southern California has probably received all the rain it can with significant damage so far, but if we get additional rain here in March, we could have a real problem, because we're at the literal saturation level. So we would be very interested in any predictions that you could pass along to our folks in California so we can prepare for that. But saying that, we did spend a lot of time in California and because of those predictions preparing for the worst, and I think that was a good thing to do, obviously, in retrospect, because of all the rain we did have.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But moving on, could you summarize the Kelly report on the National Weather Service for us and how you have gone about implementing his recommendations.
EFFECTS OF EL NINO ON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and let me just say that we are very pleased with our ability to get the warnings out on what would happen with El Niño and we do expect more of the same as we look in March and April. The jet stream structure is pretty similar to what we have seen bringing those storms that are fueled by El Niño into California. And although we expect things at the moment to go back towards normal by the summer, I think in March and April you can see somewhat more of the same—above average precipitation.
GENERAL KELLY'S REPORT ON THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICES
Mr. BAKER. Let me refer now to the report that Jack Kelly did. As you know, and as the GAO pointed out, we had some questions about what was actually required in terms of budget numbers to operate the modernized Weather Service for the past year and the coming year—very specific question. And we felt that we had been getting somewhat confused and conflicting information at my level. We brought on Jack Kelly to do a very careful and detailed analysis using some consultants working with him to tell us precisely what it costs to operate today's Weather Service for last year and this coming year. And we have. That is the focus of that report and we have in fact funded the Weather Service at the numbers that General Kelly recommended. He also recommended a series of management changes in the Weather Service, and he is currently in the process of implementing those management changes.
General Kelly has long experience of managing a large weather service—the Air Weather Service—but he also served NOAA three times in the past, so he's very experienced with the National Weather Service on the civil side. He helped us with some issues related to the deployment and procurement of our NEXRAD radar system in the late-1980's. He worked with us on the converged polar satellite system. He did the Jack Kelly study, and now he has come on for the fourth time to serve now in a very strong management role for the National Weather Service.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman CALVERT. Well, we are happy to have General Kelly on board. And as I mentioned to you yesterday, if he can fix this, we'll send him on over to the FAA and maybe he can fix that problem over there.
Setting aside just how much of a shortfall there was in the Weather Service operating funds last year, the publicity surrounding this issue has created a great deal of public concern over whether the crucial safety functions of the Weather Service were jeopardized. I'd like to ask three questions on that issue.
TIMING OF NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE REPROGRAMMING REQUEST
Chairman CALVERT. First, why during the critical shortfall months did NOAA request reprogramming for an international telecommunications conference in Minnesota and fisheries programs long before the reprogramming request came down for the National Weather Service?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I don't remember that specific event but at every point when we recognized that we might have some difficulties with funding parts of the Weather Service, we went back and tried to get adequate information to justify any reprogramming requests that come up to first to our Office of Management and Budget and then over to you. And as I say, the resulting confusion that we had in getting those numbers out shows the difficulty that we had and ultimately resulted in the change of management that we currently have.
ACTIONS TAKEN TO AVOID THE CONFUSION THAT OCCURRED LAST YEAR OVER FILLING CRUCIAL NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FIELD VACANCIES
Chairman CALVERT. What actions have you taken to avoid the confusion that occurred last year over filling the crucial field vacancies as outlined in GAO report?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, we have identified the critical vacancies that need to be filled, and we have filled those. We made a point of requesting reprogramming as soon as we recognized that issue. We requested that; it was provided by Congress; and critical vacancies have been filled. In addition, we have put in place a new management that is providing us, I think, a closer scrutiny of these budget issues as we go forward.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman CALVERT. And finally, what actions have you taken to avoid the confusion that occurred last year when the Weather Service had to recommend that 27 out of 83 certification packages be held back since not filling critical vacancies would result in degraded weather service?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, that specific issue related to the adequacy of funds so that we could in fact certify that we had people on board and we could do the actions that were required. And it was necessary for us to hold back any proposal to make sure that we had adequate funding in place. And at each point, we identified what funding was required and we did not go forward until we had that funding required. The reprogramming took care of part of that and now the budget request for 1999, fully funds that full set of activities that the Kelly report recommends.
Chairman CALVERT. Mr. Roemer.
Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Baker, I'm not going to go over and over the AWIPS dilemma or problem, but I would like to reiterate my opening statement, my concern for this apparent $68 million cost overrun and really encourage your organization to get a firm grasp on that program and make sure it is fixed.
I would like to say that we would like to work with you. We have enjoyed a very, very good working relationship with you and your staff on the NEXRAD issue. We'd like to continue to work together with you on the South Bend weather station that we have in my District.
NOAA ROLE IN COORDINATING ZEBRA MUSSEL RESEARCH
Mr. ROEMER. Let me ask you a couple of questions. In my opening statement I referred to our work together as well on the zebra mussel infestation problem. What role if any does NOAA play in coordinating the various zebra mussel research and in controlling efforts that are being pursued by individual States?
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BAKER. Congressman Roemer, the zebra mussel issue has been an important one for the local communities. In fact, a large fraction—in fact a majority of the United States—is now being impacted by this which is one of many invasive species which have a huge impact. We have seen this as a proper role for the Sea Grant Program. The Sea Grant Program does coordinate very well across all of the States that are Sea Grant Program—including your own State—and we are requesting $800,000 for an overall coordination activity, implementation of the National Invasive Species Act. It's a $700,000 reduction from the $1.5 million which was added by Congress, but it is still, I think, a very important amount and, in fact, it is aimed precisely at preventing and controlling the introduction of non-indigenous species into marine and Great Lakes coastal environments. So, we're supporting research activities. We have an interagency aquatic nuisance species task force. We are looking at alternative technologies to handle ballast water and we have a continuing and ongoing zebra mussel program with a very strong activity in our Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab.
CUT IN ZEBRA MUSSEL RESEARCH
Mr. ROEMER. Why the cut from $1.5 million to $800,000?
Mr. BAKER. This is one of many programs in the NOAA budget that we feel we could usefully spend more money, and in the puts and takes of the many parts of our budget, we had to take some cuts. But, I would say, it's not because we don't think it's important; it is an important program, but we have many important programs and in the end, we have to make this balance. I would like to see us do more here, if we could.
Mr. ROEMER. You and I had this conversation last year, I believe, and we went back and forth about how important it was to see you guys dedicated to and committed to this program, and I asked you many questions about why you hadn't made request zebra mussel infestation problem. And then finally, Congress came up with bill that we spent $5 million on to coordinate our research efforts and then we find that you've cut back on this coordination from $1.5 million to $800,000. I sure hope, given the seriousness of this problem to our region and our Great Lake region, that you will take this extremely seriously and its threat to our—the health of our—Great Lakes, the economy of the Great Lakes, the business ancillary benefits of the Great Lakes, and that you will work with Congress so that we don't have to continually go back and forth and then get cut in half when we come back for requests.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DEFINITION OF GREAT LAKES
Mr. ROEMER. On a little bit of a lighter note—and I hope it's a little bit of a lighter note—in the zebra mussel legislation that we passed, my good friend from the State of Vermont, Senator Leahy—and I might add, my smart friend from the State of Vermont, Senator Leahy—slipped in some language in the definition of Great Lakes that actually said that Lake Champlain in Vermont would be included as a Great Lake. Now initially I had my tongue in cheek and I thought this was pretty funny and pretty clever, but I guess I would ask you as a head of a very important agency in the government, does this kind of redefinition only apply to this particular zebra mussel act, or does it begin to establish some rather important legislative history and precedent where future commissions between Canada and the United States, or future funding for the Great Lakes, that Senator Leahy could eventually say: listen, I'm pointing back to these definitions of the Great Lakes. This is not a joke. This is a serious legislative history that's been established; we are eligible; Lake Champlain is eligible as a Great Lake based on these half-dozen references. What is your interpretation of this?
Mr. BAKER. Congressman Roemer, the Sea Grant Authorization Act, which is what you are referring to, will be signed by the President shortly, and the inclusion of Vermont and Lake Champlain allows that State to become part of the National Sea Grant Program. And they would have to go through the process of developing a program, applying for membership, and then competing for the funds that are available in the overall Sea Grant Program. That's what that bill puts into law.
Mr. ROEMER. But the way he has written it, Dr. Baker, is that Lake Champlain should be considered a Great Lake. And my question to you is: is that, in terms of legislative history, just a clever, smart, funny way of getting eligibility for this one particular $5 million program, or does that begin to establish some rather serious legislative history that will begin to have Lake Champlain considered a Great Lake? I would appreciate, you know, any kind of an answer you have to the question, and if you can, do some research back in your agency——
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BAKER. We'd be happy to do that.
Mr. ROEMER. And give me a written answer on that as well, too.
[The following information was received for the record:]
The Sea Grant reauthorization passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by the President March 6, 1998. The bill, S. 927, included Lake Champlain in the definition of the term ''Great Lakes.'' This language, sponsored by Senator Leahy, was incorporated as an amendment to the legislation during the Senate deliberations on the reauthorization bill. This provision makes scientists and educators with research and outreach activities focused on Lake Champlain eligible to compete for Sea Grant funding.
However, as you are aware, concerns were later expressed by various members that defining Lake Champlain as a Great Lake would set an unwelcome precedent. Responding to these concerns, Senator Leahy sponsored amendment no. 2098 to the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Bill (S. 1768). This amendment maintains the scope of Sea Grant authority without having to expand the membership of the Great Lakes by including Lake Champlain as separate item in the list of bodies of water for which Sea Grant projects can be undertaken (section 203). Thus Lake Champlain-focused research and outreach projects would still be eligible for Sea Grant funds, and the Great Lakes would remain the five original lakes. The amendment was cosponsored by many Senators from Great Lakes States, and passed the Senate March 24, 1998. While we are awaiting further Congressional action on the Supplemental Appropriations bill, the amendment to the Sea Grant authorization included in the bill would resolve the issue you raised.
Mr. BAKER. This is not the first time there has been such a reference in legislation. I believe there was some reference to Lake Champlain as Great Lake in 1990, I believe, but I'm not an expert on this. It is our job as a federal agency to respond to legislation that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President, and that's what we would do. And I would be happy to look into it further if you would like.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ROEMER. I would appreciate your professional and expert interpretation of this in terms of legislative history.
My last question would be: I don't know if you have read the book ''The Perfect Storm.'' Have you read that?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir, I have.
Mr. ROEMER. Fascinating book.
Mr. BAKER. And so have all of these people, too.
REASONS FOR LACK OF NOAA RESEARCH FUNDING IN THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
Mr. ROEMER. It deserves to be on the best seller list, and I'm not getting any benefit. I'm not related to the author by talking about it. It's a wonderful book to read about the weather patterns and the unbelievable tremendous force of hurricanes off the East Coast, the culture of fishermen in Massachusetts; all kinds of fascinating things in the book. But I mention it because I see that in the President's emphasis on new R&D programs, that NOAA seems to be not included in with some of the many increases that we've seen in the R&D that the President has recommended for atmospheric and other kinds of increases in coming years. Why is this?
Mr. BAKER. Congressman Roemer, this is an issue that we have faced with NOAA research for a number of years. If you go back and look at our research program, we have barely kept even, and really, not even kept even with inflation over a long period of time. And one of the reasons that we felt that ''The Perfect Storm'' is a good thing to read, that we strongly supported the ''Year of the Ocean'' as an activity, is to try to get better awareness of the importance of the research that we do. It is the research that we did yesterday that provides today's forecast. The research that we did yesterday on El Niño, is providing those forecasts that we do. And we have to do research today, to provide improvements for tomorrow.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We do have some increases in parts of our research program. We have a $2 million increase in part of our program for the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. We have some additional funds in the National Weather Research Program. We do have some increases.
There also are some decreases in the budget—in the Sea Grant Program and in the National Undersea Research Program. Once again, in the final take of cuts and adds to the budget, this is what happened.
But we hope that the recognition of the importance of our forecasts, of what we have done with El Niño, and the ''Year of the Ocean,'' we'll be able to get better recognition of NOAA research and we can present to you a better budget as we go forward in the future. I agree with you completely.
Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Dr. Baker, and if your staff has anymore recommendations along the lines of ''The Perfect Storm,'' let me know for my reading material.
Chairman CALVERT. I told my friend, by the way, Mr. Roemer, that we're going to include the Salton Sea, George Brown and I, next year, as a Great Lake, so we can get some additional money.
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Roemer. I understand you have to go to another hearing.
My friend Mr. Roemer was wondering why the President may not have proposed more money for NOAA research. I whispered to him: you should become as biased as some of our friends over in EPA, so you could probably get some more funds requested over to you.
BOOZ-ALLEN AUDIT OF AWIPS
Chairman CALVERT. But with that, let me ask another question about AWIPS. Please describe for us the result of the Booz-Allen audit—Booz-Allen, by the way, I just read in the Wall Street Journal this morning has been hired by the Internal Revenue Service to do an audit of their management and functions over there. I hope they are as successful as they have been on this program regarding the AWIPS budget. Also I understand that NOAA is preparing a revised AWIPS proposal that would come close to the cap. What capabilities of the system would be given up to accomplish that?
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, we have been concerned for the last 2 or 3 years about the cost and the schedule for the AWIPS program and we've had a number of discussions here in this Committee, one of which resulted in an agreement that we would keep this program within a $550 million cap. And we have been closely in touch with the developers as we move ahead.
In the middle of last year, although we continued to get glowing reports on the deployment of the system and how well it was working, and the independent scientific reviews were showing that the program was, in fact, delivering what it should in terms of programmatic requirements, we had concerns about whether the cost figures that we were getting were in fact accurate, whether we would meet the cap. And so we commissioned an independent study. That was, in fact, the Booz-Allen study. And we asked them to do an independent study: can we meet the $550 million cap and do the requirements that we have currently said are in the system that we have said we would provide to you and to all of our users.
The Booz-Allen report came in. It was—they said, that in their overall review, they would estimate the total cost would be about $618 million as opposed to $550 million, if in fact, all of the things that were in place were going to be delivered and if reasonable things happened. They believed that if we made some management changes, and if those management changes were implemented soon and were effective, that the program could come in at a lower figure. In fact, they said, if everything worked—you put all your management changes in and you had no problems—you could come in at a number that was around $590 million. But if you had problems, which is also possible, you might come in at a number that was higher. It might be as high as, I think, $674 million. But this was, I think, a very valuable independent estimate.
And as soon as we had that estimate, we went back to the AWIPS developers in the system, and said, we have to know: is this an accurate statement; what does it mean; can we in fact deliver what we have said we would deliver; and what are we going to do at this point. And, I said, that we would not come back to you, Mr. Chairman, or to our Secretary of Commerce until we had an independently validated number that showed precisely what we could do at each level.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are currently in that process and I expect that we will finish up by next week. We will have an estimate of what can be done within the $550 million cap; what we believe that is critical that cannot be done; and what the cost would be to do that. All I can say at the moment is that people are working day and night to come up with an answer to your second question, which is: what capabilities would be included in the $550 million, and what it would cost to do the additional things. And we're concerned about the cost; we're concerned about meeting end-state staffing; and we're concerned about providing full capability of a modernized Weather Service. And as I say, people have been working furiously to get this done. We expect to go to the Secretary early next week—Monday or Tuesday—and we expect to be coming to you shortly after that to say what we can do.
This is an issue that we're very concerned about. And Jack Kelly has already instituted a number of management changes in the Weather Service so that we can get control of some of the high-risk parts of the AWIPS development.
Chairman CALVERT. If you could please keep the Committee informed and pass along any reports or any proposed changes as you receive them, we would appreciate that.
Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a note here, I said that the Booz-Allen high number was $674 million, it was actually $647 million. Not that is comforting, but I just wanted to correct that number.
Chairman CALVERT. Okay, I appreciate that.
REASONS FOR CHANGING NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHORTFALL NUMBERS
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Willemssen, were you ever able to determine why the shortfall numbers changed from month to month?
Mr. WILLEMSSEN. What happened is that at varying points in time when either NWS officials, or in some cases also NOAA officials, were either testifying or briefing Congressional Committees, at some points in time, some items were left out within their overall shortfall figure, at other times they were left in. Sometimes inflationary items were left out, other times left in. Personnel separation costs, the same thing. NOAA-wide overall charges, the same thing. So, that lack of consistency in terms of the message being delivered to a variety of parties on Capitol Hill caused much of the confusion.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman CALVERT. Did you find a different level of concern over the nature of the shortfall problem between NOAA and the Weather Service?
Mr. WILLEMSSEN. I think it is fair to say that the level of concern was much higher at the National Weather Service. There was a much higher level of concern about the potential impact on being able to continue to deliver weather services. The evidence that we saw, looking through the files, was there was a number of communications, especially between the deputies at the Weather Service and a key deputy and assistant at NOAA going back and forth; quite a bit of disagreement. I'm not convinced looking at the evidence that the same level of concern with that communication was apparent at the NOAA level.
CAUSES FOR NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHORTFALL
Chairman CALVERT. Could you elaborate on how the problems came about and whether good management practices were used to deal with this particular problem?
Mr. WILLEMSSEN. One of the key things that occurred during the year as the attrition rate at the Weather Service became higher than expected, as rumors went around about upcoming reductions in force, people elected to get out before they were taken out in a different way. So I'd say the attrition rate was an overall key factor in why that happened, and also, over time there were some critical field vacancies that, with the budgetary pressures, weren't filled readily.
In terms of sound management practices, we saw this as more of an episodic event, as opposed to something that we could point to from a systemic standpoint. I think it gets down to basics. One is to clearly communicate between the key parties and to make sure that your message is consistently heard, and to the extent that you understand the decisions are being made, to document those decisions, and that when you communicate to external parties, that you do so, also, in a clear, consistent manner, and that partners in the arrangement within NOAA and the Weather Service feel like they're part of the overall team, trying to further the mission of the Weather Service.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman CALVERT. There seemed to be a communication problem, not only between NOAA and the Weather Service, but also with the Commerce Department, it would seem.
Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Correct, sir.
CAUSES OF AWIPS COST GROWTH
Chairman CALVERT. You state in your testimony that the original AWIPS cost estimate was about $350 million. Please briefly tell us some of the factors that led this program to the point where it's projected to cost about $620 million. Or we've heard various numbers here today.
Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Okay, certainly.
One, tremendous underestimation of complexity and what the Weather Service and NOAA and the prime contractor, PRC, were getting themselves into. We reported several years ago at the time of contract award that the kinds of items that should have been clearly specified in terms of government responsibility and contractor responsibility were not spelled out. As the contract unfolded, as additional uncertainties came up, there were delays in trying to work out those relationships and who was responsible for what. Those delays lead to further cost increases.
The other thing I would point out is the latter software builds with AWIPS, specifically builds 5 and 6, were not what we would consider incredibly well-defined, and I think the Weather Service is starting to realize that now. We pointed out a couple of years ago that we thought it was important for NOAA and the Weather Service to revalidate the almost 22,000 requirements associated with AWIPS to see if, indeed, they needed all of these. Now we understand that's the process that they're going forward with. We would have liked to have seen that process done 2 years ago, as opposed to being driven by cost escalation at this point in time.
YEAR 2000 PROBLEM BUDGET IMPLICATIONS FOR AWIPS
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman CALVERT. My last question is regarding not only AWIPS, but, in your opinion, what are the budget implications for AWIPS in the Year 2000 problem?
Mr. WILLEMSSEN. I have done quite a bit of work on the Year 2000. We've testified on about 10 occasions in the last year on Year 2000. If I were in the shoes of Dr. Baker, I would put that at the top of my priority list, not only for AWIPS, but all the associated systems and data interfaces that are needed to deliver weather services. We have not done a study on the Year 2000 issue at the Weather Service. Frankly, though, based on the very limited work we just did last week, I'd be concerned about whether the Weather Service and NOAA have an adequate handle on all the systems and data interfaces, and they understand the date dependencies that need to be addressed now.
Chairman CALVERT. Do you have any plans to do a study on the Year 2000 problem in the near future, as far as the AWIPS or the National Weather Service?
Mr. WILLEMSSEN. All of our studies on the Year 2000 at this point are pursuant to Congressional requests. We have a number of requests at a number of agencies. At this point we don't have such plans at the Weather Service.
NOAA AND THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM
Chairman CALVERT. Dr. Baker, do you have any comments regarding the Year 2000 problem?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. This is a very high priority for us, and I welcome Mr. Willemssen's comments because it is a point that we have taken seriously for about the last year and a half. Bill Mehuron, who's our Acting Deputy Under Secretary, has taken this on. He has done Year 2000 reviews across all of NOAA and has identified a number of issues. We are currently on track to having our Year 2000 issues resolved by March of next year, as the President has requested by all agencies, and we would welcome the review of that, but, as I say, we believe that we have identified the major problems, and we are working on it.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I do want to say it's a very high priority for us. We are doing tests of our system. We are looking at all of NOAA. We recognize the specific and large issues in the Weather Service because we have an operational product that we're delivering, and in specifically AWIPS, and making sure that some of the old code that was written is, in fact, identified and replaced, so that we don't have that problem.
I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that Secretary Daly has made this a high priority in the Department of Commerce, and Scott Gould, who is our new Assistant Secretary, has been working very diligently on this in the Department of Commerce, because it's obviously an important thing for us in the Year 2000.
I can point out that during that review, by the way, we discovered there was also a 9/9/99 problem. In some old Cobol code, zeroes were replaced routinely with nines. So my recommendation is, don't fly on September 9, 1999.
Chairman CALVERT. Well, people who can remember Fortran and Cobol have been around for a long time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Foley?
NOAA'S BUDGET AND THE PROPOSED TOBACCO SETTLEMENT
Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baker, everybody seems to be lining up in Washington for the tobacco settlement, if it arrives, and one of the concerns is the Administration budget is predicated on funds generated from the settlement. Can you tell us what part of NOAA's budget request is tied to the President's Research Fund for America, and if the lack of a tobacco settlement would jeopardize research programs in NOAA's budget?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Foley, all of our Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research has been included in that 21st Century Fund for America. As you know, over a period of 5 years, I think something like 8 percent of the money that was identified was for that research fund is associated with the tobacco fund. So, to the extent that you don't see tobacco fund monies, then our programs that are in that fund would be impacted.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FOLEY. Would you have replacement dollars available? Are you looking at other sources, based on the complexity of those negotiations?
Mr. BAKER. Well, at the moment, we're part of the President's budget, and we would hope that the research that the President has put at such a priority—and I think you've seen support in Congress for increasing research—would go forward, even in the absence of the tobacco settlement, but I recognize the difficulty there.
STATUS OF NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE REPORT TO FILL CRITICAL FIELD VACANCIES
Mr. FOLEY. In light of the GAO report detailing the difficulty in filling critical field vacancies last year, what is the status of the Weather Service efforts to fill critical field vacancies at this time?
Mr. BAKER. I'm just checking with the new Director of the Weather Service.
We're in the process of filling critical vacancies. We put that in very high priority to get finished up.
NATURAL DISASTER REDUCTION INITIATIVE
Mr. FOLEY. Can you elaborate on the $28.3 million request for a natural disaster reduction initiative? Specifically, what parts of this program are new and what parts consist of already-existing programs?
Mr. BAKER. Just a minute; we'll get the breakdown.
This natural disaster reduction initiative was an attempt for us to pull together in the Department of Commerce the strengths that we have, ranging from weather forecasts and warnings to economic assistance to communities, to better building standards for houses, so that as hurricanes come by, they can withstand it.
The $28.3 million of the $55 million request was, in fact, a reference to the Jack Kelly report to restore the operational infrastructure of the National Weather Service.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FOLEY. Now you obviously—what you just said, you wanted to do some disaster assistance; is that what I'm hearing?
Mr. BAKER. We don't do that, but the Economic Development Administration does disaster assistance to communities after disasters have occurred.
Mr. FOLEY. Do you find that a duplication of what FEMA's responsibilities would be?
Mr. BAKER. No, this is something that is coordinated with FEMA. The Economic Development Administration goes into communities after disasters have occurred, and looks at those things which communities think are necessary for economic development. So they're grants that go out to communities.
REQUEST FOR CLIMATE MODELING AND PREDICTION
Mr. FOLEY. Your $2 million increase for the climate and global change program is described as being for regionally-specific climate modeling and prediction over North America. Dr. Ari Patrinos, of the Department of Energy, has echoed the IPCC report in stating that, ''Regional modeling is notoriously unreliable.'' Is this program an actual research program to develop better models?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir, it is. And let me just say that we understand that very long-term climate research, looking at many years at regional forecasts, is not an easy thing to do, but we can demonstrate today that we are doing regional climate forecasts months in advance with the El Niño. In fact, this diagram here shows that over a period of 3 months the crosses in the line are almost identical. One line is our forecast, and one line is what was observed. This information, this is scientific climate forecast—it's only 3 months in advance—is the first stage of moving toward regional climate forecasting. We're a long way from being able to do regional climate forecasting 20 or 30 years from now, but this is the direction we are going, and we are very encouraged that, with the knowledge we've gained in understanding the El Niño, we'll be able to get—or should I say, reduce the uncertainties in what we can forecast for the future, which is what our goal is at NOAA.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FOLEY. The title ''Climate and Global Change Program,'' is there anything similar in EPA's budget that does similar research?
Mr. BAKER. Well, there's a number of agencies that are part of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. It's a broad title. Each of the agencies puts together what it feels are its agency's responsibilities, and then we have a coordinated proposal. It goes forward to OMB. OMB is very worried about having duplication in the budget. They don't want to see duplication, and that's what we started in 1988 with this program, the avoidance of duplication by having an overall program. So we submit this.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are similar kinds of names of the programs in different agencies, but we all do where our strength is. We do science research and forecasting. That's our strength.
NOAA RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS
Mr. FOLEY. Do you have any areas where you may recommend you take a greater responsibility and decrease another agency's efforts, so we do not have duplication? Is there any specific thing that EPA may be doing that you could do better?
Mr. BAKER. Hey, I can't talk about that in public.
[Laughter.]
Mr. FOLEY. I'll see you in private.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BAKER. There is, I think, some real NOAA strengths, and we've been seeing more and more of them as we go forward, and I think it is very important that we do cooperate with other agencies, so that the agencies that have strengths are supported, and the agencies that don't have a strong program are not. That general principle is one that we try to work very hard on.
Mr. FOLEY. Well, my point is one, hopefully, of a helpful nature, because I sense that, obviously, what you're doing, the research is vitally important to protecting and predicting for communities potential disasters before they occur. I know in Florida we're particularly pleased with hurricane forecasting and the tracking, essential to safeguarding lives and properties. I think climate/global warming have similar tendencies to obviously influence future weather patterns. So it would be my hope, rather than having a multitude of agencies just throwing dollars into the wind to try to determine what may happen as a result of these, we actually bring it to a more specific scientific analysis, and ultimately utilize this research for the protection of human life.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I'm just trying to find ways, as we amass this huge research effort throughout so many various agencies in the government, that we decide, first, is it important to the agency's mission? Second, what do they do with the end result, if anything, other than defend their own policies and procedures? But, more importantly for us, I'd rather the Weather Service, who has fundamental oversight over telling us what we may anticipate—El Niño, the types of things we've experienced recently—that at least the rubber finally meets the road, and it becomes quantifiable data that's useful for communities across America.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Foley, I agree with you. I think one of the advantages of doing research in an agency like NOAA is we're not a regulatory agency. We're a science and technical agency. So we're not trying to do research to match particular policies. We're trying to understand how things work and then provide that to the policymakers.
Mr. FOLEY. Thank you.
Chairman CALVERT. I think that was an excellent comment, and as I mentioned earlier, before Mr. Foley arrived, I sometimes have problems with a regulatory agency doing the research, rather than having NOAA, which I think has superior science.
Mr. FOLEY. If the Chairman would yield—one of the things I found in my real estate profession, MAI stands for ''made as instructed.'' Oftentimes you ask for a report to bring back a prediction of what you were suggesting, and so the report echoes or mirrors the vision of the agency head that said, ''Here's what I want done. Bring it back to me in this manner.''
Mr. BAKER. That never happened in my NOAA experience.
Chairman CALVERT. With that, Mr. English.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE COVERAGE FOR NORTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome the witnesses.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. Baker, as you know, the GAO has testified before this Subcommittee with regard to northwestern Pennsylvania and its current level of coverage, and I'd like to get your reaction to a couple of their statements. The GAO has indicated, as a result of a study that was commissioned at the request of the Chairman of this Full Committee and myself, the GAO has concluded that the Weather Service coverage for northwestern Pennsylvania is not as good as for other lake communities. They have testified here that they recommend that a new radar be put into place in that location to cover a gap in the existing coverage. Without getting into a discussion of whether or not there's been a degradation of service, because I think there's been a disagreement on that, clearly, there are some problems right now with the present arrangement where Cleveland is reliant on Erie's 74–C radar satellites and volunteers to provide data below 4,000 feet, which they can't see currently with their NEXRAD. There has been a statement made by the Director of the Office of Meteorology, Mr. Louis Uccellini, noting that there is a problem and concluding that Erie's—and here's a quote—''level of service is still unacceptable,'' and that the city, ''does not receive the same level of service that other lake communities receive.''
I wonder if you could comment on this, and knowing that the Department of Commerce has not made a final conclusion on the placement of the NEXRAD in the area, can you support the statements that have been made here?
Mr. BAKER. Representative English, this is an area that we have been very concerned about, as you know. As we looked at the overall coverage of the new radar system and what we would have in modernization, there were six areas that were identified around the country that needed to be looked at carefully, where I think the scientists and the communities were concerned about whether we would, in fact, be able to deliver what we should in terms of services; that is, at least no degradation of service. Erie is one of those places, with your lake-effect snow and what you can see or not see with the new system.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we had a Weather Service team look at this. The Secretary's team has looked at what the Weather Service team did. They have given their recommendations to me. I have passed those on now to the Secretary of Commerce, and we are just about to release those. I think we're only waiting for OMB approval before we can do that. So I think you can expect within the next week or so that we will have an answer to you.
But let me say, we are concerned that we do provide superior weather services around the country with our modernized weather station and weather service, and we are looking at every one of the areas of concerns and listening very carefully to the community and to the scientists as to the coverage of service. So I want you to know we are listening and we will have that answer out for you within a few days.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you. We will look forward to it.
As you know, this Committee has authorized adequate resources for the placement, if necessary, of a NEXRAD in Erie. So I'm hopeful that this won't be a cost-driven decision; that this is something that at this point can be decided on the merits.
We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with your organization on this. We continue in our community to be very concerned. We've seen evidence that suggests to us, and to the people involved in weather forecasting in the Erie area, evidence that suggests a degradation of service, notwithstanding the study—as you know, the methodology of which I've questioned and challenged, but that, again, is a separate issue.
In my view, there's a compelling case to be made for putting a new NEXRAD radar into Erie to these problems. Given this community's reliance on accurate and timely weather information, given the nature of weather on Lake Erie, given the number of boaters who are using Lake Erie, we think there is a very serious safety issue here, given some of the weather conditions present in the region, the propensity for tornadoes. We think there is a compelling case to be made here. We appreciate your efforts in this area, and we look forward to hearing something definitive in the next week or two.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BAKER. Thank you.
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. English.
PM-2.5 AND OZONE RESEARCH
I have one additional question for Dr. Baker. NOAA's Health of the Atmosphere Program has been involved in important research in the areas of particulate matter and ozone. The most recent progress report published by NOAA's Environmental Research Lab in Boulder shows different size power plants produce very different emissions than previously thought, and very different from the way EPA is formulating its regulations.
Would you agree there is much more research yet to be done to understand the effects of PM 2.5 and ozone and how they interrelate?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, we've been concerned about particulate matter issues, and that's, of course, one of the reasons that we have proposed an increase in our Health of the Atmosphere Initiative, because we think it is very important to have accurate science. This is our role. It's something that we look at carefully, and we've been concerned about better understanding of both natural and human influence factors that affect particulate matter; that is, what part is due to natural causes and not controllable; what part is due to human causes, and then how does that vary region by region and State and State? We think it's very important that this information gets into the policy process. As I said, the policy process is not our business, but it is our business to provide accurate science and make sure that science is in there, so that there is a good scientific footing for the several-year implementation of these new standards that would occur if these rules will be adopted in some form.
I mean, we know that these lower standards mean that air quality targets are much closer to natural background levels than is currently the case. And this means all the more reason that we have to have good science and why our Boulder laboratories have been working very hard on this problem.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman CALVERT. Would you agree that EPA at the present time doesn't know enough about the sourcing of especially particulates, the chemical makeup, just a general range of information regarding, as I mention again, particularly particulates of the 2.5 and below, to enforce them, to enforce new regulatory standards?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I can't really comment on the EPA and the way in which they make their rules. All I can say is I think there is more science to be done and we're trying to feed that into the process.
Chairman CALVERT. With that, I don't believe there is any additional questions. Again, I want to thank you for coming today and answering our questions, and your testimony was very enlightening.
With that, this Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following material was received for the record:]
Insert offset folios 44-415
48–356CC
1998
FISCAL YEAR 1999 BUDGET AUTHORIZATION REQUEST: NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARCH 4, 1998
[No. XX]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan**
DAVE WELDON, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
MARK FOLEY, Florida
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
CHARLES W. ''CHIP'' PICKERING, Mississippi
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
MERRILL COOK, Utah
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma
PETE SESSIONS, Texas
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California RMM*
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
TIM ROEMER, Indiana
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
LOIS CAPPS, California
BARBARA LEE, California
TODD R. SCHULTZ, Chief of Staff
BARRY C. BERINGER, Chief Counsel
PATRICIA S. SCHWARTZ, Chief Clerk/Administrator
VIVIAN A. TESSIERI, Legislative Clerk
ROBERT E. PALMER, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
MATT SALMON, Arizona
MARK ADAM FOLEY, Florida
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma
TIM ROEMER, Indiana
PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ZOE LOFGREN, California
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
*Ranking Minority Member
**Vice Chairman
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
March 4, 1998:
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Panel I:
Oral Testimony