Segment 1 Of 7 Next Hearing Segment(2)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
NOAA'S FY 2002 BUDGET:
PREDICTING WEATHER AND CLIMATE
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 9, 2001
Serial No. 107–28
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
NOAA'S FY 2002 BUDGET: PREDICTING WEATHER AND CLIMATE
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
73–332PS
2001
NOAA'S FY 2002 BUDGET:
PREDICTING WEATHER AND CLIMATE
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 9, 2001
Serial No. 107–28
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DAVE WELDON, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
NICK SMITH, Michigan
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
MARK UDALL, Colorado
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
JOHN MIMIKAKIS Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
BEN WU Professional Staff Member
ERIC WEBSTER Professional Staff Member
CAMERON WILSON Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
MARY DERR Majority Staff Assistant
MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
May 9, 2001
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Opening Statements
Statement by Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Statement by James A. Barcia, Minority Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Written Statement by Representative Constance A. Morella, Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Written Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, U.S. House of Representatives
Panel
Scott B. Gudes, Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting Administrator, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Richard E. Hallgren, Executive Director Emeritus, American Meteorological Society
Eric J. Barron, Distinguished Professor of Geosciences; Director, EMS Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State University
Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University; Member, NOAA Science Board
Joseph K. Hoffman, Executive Director, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin; Member, Interstate Council on Water Policy
Discussion
Timeshare of NOAA Airplanes & Fleet
Additional Funding for NOAA Programs
GEOS Satellites
Sharing Satellite Information
Funding Climate Change Scientists
Forecasting Energy Demands
California Energy Crisis
Climate Monitoring
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Data Assimilation of Satellite Information
Funding for Climate Change Research
River/Flood Forecasting
Climate Variations
NOAA Skaggs Building
National Energy Policy
NOAA Budget Priorities
Great Lakes Restoration Grant
NOAA Chief Scientist
Ocean Observations
Stream Gauges
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Commercial Sector Weather Spending
Footnotes
APPENDIX 1: Written Testimony, Biographies, Financial Disclosures, and Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Scott B. Gudes, Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Acting Administrator, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Written Statement
Biography
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Richard E. Hallgren, Executive Director Emeritus, American Meteorological Society
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
Dr. Eric J. Barron, Distinguished Professor of Geosciences and Director, EMS Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State University
Written Statement
Biography
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Financial Disclosure
Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University; Member, NOAA Science Board
Written Statement
Biography
Mr. Joseph K. Hoffman, Executive Director, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin; Member, Interstate Council on Water Policy
Written Statement
Biography
Financial Disclosure
APPENDIX 2: Additional Material for the Record
NOAA Background Brief
The United States Detailed National Report on Systematic Observations for Climate: United States Global Climate Observing System (U.S.-GCOS) Program
The Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) Partnership Process
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Toward a U.S. Plan for an Integrated, Sustained Ocean Observing System
Annual NAOS Report
An Implementation Plan for Research in Quantitative Precipitation Forecasting and Data Assimilation, U.S. Weather Research Program
USWRP Implementation Plan—Hurricane Landfall
''Automated Surface Observing System,'' Final Assessment Report for the Federal Aviation Administration, January 1999
''Future of the National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Network,'' National Weather Service Modernization Committee, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council
NOAA'S FY 2002 BUDGET: PREDICTING WEATHER AND CLIMATE
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
73332a.eps
HEARING CHARTER
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOAA's FY 2002 Budget: Predicting Weather and Climate
WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2001
10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.
ROOM 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
I. Purpose
On Wednesday, May 9, 2001 at 10:00 a.m., the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards will hold a hearing on the Administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Witnesses will discuss NOAA's overall budget and programs with emphasis on issues relating to weather and climate prediction.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
II. Witnesses
Mr. Scott Gudes is acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator. He will present the Administration's FY 02 budget request for NOAA.
Dr. Richard E. Hallgren is the Executive Director Emeritus, American Meteorological Society and former head of the National Weather Service. Dr. Hallgren will discuss funding and policy issues concerning the National Weather Service and NOAA's satellite programs.
Dr. Eric Barron is the Distinguished Professor of Geosciences and Director EMS Environment Institute, Penn State University. Dr. Barron is currently chair of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Research Council and will discuss climate change research efforts within NOAA.
Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa is Director of External Affairs, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University. Dr. Pietrafesa is a member of the NOAA Science Board and will discuss the Board's activities and the overall state of research within the agency.
Mr. Joe Hoffman is Executive Director, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, and will be representing the Interstate Council on Water Policy. Mr. Hoffman will discuss the impact of US Geological Survey's stream gauges on the National Weather Service's ability to monitor and forecast floods.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
III. Background
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The President's FY 2002 Budget Request for NOAA is $3.15 billion and represents a decrease of $60.8 million, or 2% below FY 2001 Enacted Levels (FY 00 Enacted was $2.34 billion). The lower request reflects the elimination of most congressionally mandated earmarks from FY 01 and the addition of about $270 million in program increases in such areas as severe weather prediction, coastal conservation, and climate. Also included in this amount is a $60 million increase in base accounts for mandatory pay raises and benefits. Annual appropriations for NOAA are included in the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act.
NOAA comprises five separate offices, the National Ocean Service (NOS), Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), the National Weather Service (NWS), National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The Science Committee has sole or shared jurisdiction over all NOAA agencies except the National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA also divides its budget along crosscutting initiatives and strategic goals such as satellite continuity, severe weather forecasts, and climate services.
Budget Highlights
The National Ocean Service (NOS) is primarily responsible for NOAA's marine mapping and charting services. It also works to ensure the health and management of coastal zone environments. The FY 02 Total Request is $394.6 million, a 33% decrease from FY 01 Enacted level of $593.6. However, last year's level included $285 million from the compromise on Rep. Don Young's Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) bill that was incorporated into the FY 01 Interior and Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriation bills. The major reductions to the NOS account are $150 million for Coastal Impact Assistance, which provides assistance to coastal areas to repair damage associated with oil extraction; $30 million for Great Lakes Community Restoration Grants; and $28 million for earmarked construction projects under National Estuarine Research Reserves. NOS proposes increases of $9 million (total $69 million) for Coast Zone Management Grants, which provides money to states to mitigate the effect of runoff pollution, and $13 million (total $16 million) for the National Marine Sanctuary Program.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is NOAA's research arm. The FY 02 Total Request is $340.1 million, a 3% decrease from the FY 01 Enacted Level of $350.4 million. The request eliminates $28 million in congressionally mandated earmarks from FY 01, such as an Aquatic Ecosystem project at the Canaan Valley Institute, WV (–$4.3 million), and a marine facilities construction project at the University of New Hampshire (–$13 million). OAR proposes increases of $13 million (total $24 million) for Climate Observations and Service, a new research program focusing on scientific aspects of climate with emphasis on building an ocean observing system, and $10 million (total $14 million) for an Ocean Exploration initiative, which will build our understanding of ocean systems and processes. The request also provides $7 million for the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, and a $287,000 increase for the Sea Grant program (total $62.4 million), which provides universities with money for marine related research.
The National Weather Service (NWS) provides weather, water, and climate forecasts and warnings for the U.S. The FY 02 Total Request is $727.6 million, a 5% increase over FY 01 Enacted Level of $692.8 million. There were no significant reductions in existing programs. The NWS requests $3 million for National Centers for Environmental Prediction, the main centers for weather prediction, and $7.5 million for NWS Telecommunications Gateway Backup to provide backup capabilities for critical computer systems for weather prediction. NWS seeks an additional $1.3 million (total $5.1 million) for Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS), a joint FAA/DOD/NWS real-time weather information system that replaces manual surface observation techniques.
The National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS) provides procurement, launch, operation, data collection, and storage for polar orbiting and geostationary environmental satellites. There have been some concerns about ensuring that today's satellites are properly maintained as we seek to build the new generation of polar orbiting satellites. The NESDIS FY 02 Total Request is $738 million, $131 million for operations and $606 million for procurement and construction. This is a 15% increase from FY 01's total enacted level of $640 million. NESDIS proposes to eliminate the six regional climate centers ($2.9 million) and $9 million (total of $55.8 million) for Environmental Data Management Systems, which convert paper data to computer files. NESDIS requests major increases of $15.7 million (total $69 million) for Environmental Observing Systems (the day-to-day operation of the satellites and development of new products, especially software upgrades), an increase of $83.4 million (total of $156.6 million) for the National Polar Orbiting Operation Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) the next generation polar satellite—joint NASA/DOD/NOAA program, and an increase of $9.6 million (total $146.3 million) for the current NOAA Polar K–N series satellites.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Cross-Cutting Initiatives of Note
NOAA has an agency-wide Climate Observation and Service Program to move the research data, observing systems, and understanding from experiments to applications and practical products. NOAA requests an increase for this program of $16.5 million, for a total of $34.7 million. New spending requests include: $3 million increase (total of $7 million) for a new supercomputer at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ; $2.3 million for a new Carbon Cycle initiative; and $5.0 million for improved ocean observations. NOAA's request also provides $68.7 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a multi-agency effort to organize and manage climate change research.
NOAA's Strategic Goals with budget and line office breakdowns
NOAA also likes to describe the agency (and budget) in terms of its strategic goals of Environmental Stewardship and Environmental Assessment and Prediction, which cut across the line offices.
Environmental Stewardship
Build Sustainable Fisheries (14% of NOAA's total budget)—agencies involved NMFS (lead), NOS, OAR, NESDIS
Recover Protected Species (7% of budget)—NMFS (lead), NOS, OAR
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Sustain Healthy Coasts (19% of budget)—NOS, NMFS, OAR, NESDIS, NWS
Environmental Assessment and Prediction
Advanced Short-term Warning and Forecast Services (45% of budget)—NWS, OAR, NESDIS, NOS
Implement Seasonal to Interannual Climate Forecast (4%)—NWS, OAR, NESDIS, NOS
Predict and Assess Decadal to Centennial Change (2%)—OAR, NESDIS, NWS, NOS
Promote Safe Navigation (4%)—NOS (lead), NWS, NESDIS, OAR
73332b.eps
73332c.eps
73332d.eps
73332e.eps
73332f.eps
73332g.eps
73332h.eps
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
73332i.eps
73332j.eps
73332k.eps
73332l.eps
73332m.eps
73332n.eps
73332o.eps
73332p.eps
73332q.eps
73332r.eps
73332s.eps
NOAA's FY 2002 Budget:
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Predicting Weather and Climate
Chairman EHLERS. I now call the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards to order. I am very pleased—we have a distinguished Panel today. I look forward to a very good hearing on NOAA's Fiscal Year 2002 Budget: Predicting Weather and Climate. I welcome the members and the public to the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee's first in a series of budget oversight hearings. Today, as I said, we will examine the Administration's Fiscal Year 2002 request for NOAA.
In July 1970, President Nixon proposed creating NOAA to serve a national need, ''For better protection of life and property from natural hazards, for a better understanding of the total environment, and for exploration and development leading to intelligent use of our marine resources.'' As we examine NOAA's 2002 budget request, we will see if NOAA is living up to these high expectations.
Let me just observe parenthetically that a President who has been much maligned in the past accomplished some great things during his years in office. President Nixon not only established NOAA, he also established the Environmental Protection Agency and a number of other agencies. And we often overlook that in vertical context. In fact, most of the Subcommittee's jurisdiction has to deal with agencies that he created.
The President's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request for NOAA is 3.15 billion. This is a decrease of 61 million from the Fiscal Year 2001 enacted levels. However, this request is considerably higher than the 2.3 billion Congress enacted for Fiscal Year 2000. I am also pleased that this request increases the overall research and development funding for Fiscal Year 2002 by over 8 percent.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
And let me add another parenthetical note here. One thing I have observed in chairing this Subcommittee is the great difficulty of deducing R&D funding for various budgets under the jurisdiction—and we are discussing having the General Accounting Office establish standard procedures for reporting that information, which I think would help both you and——
While this budget request seems sound, and I commend NOAA and the Administration for making needed adjustments to base programs, Congress is sure to replace many of NOAA's mandates and Congressional earmarks that were left out of this request. I am concerned about where the offsets and tradeoffs are going to occur. Specifically, I am concerned that this budget request eliminates 30 million for Great Lakes Community Grants.
While NOAA has many roles and missions, we have chosen as a theme for this hearing predicting weather and climate, two missions that are paramount to the protection of life and property and which encompass a majority of NOAA's budget and programmatic focus. Airline travel, just-in-time deliveries, our Nation's economies, our vacations, and even our future, depend on NOAA's ability to help guide, warn, and educate us about weather and climate.
I would also say to those of you from the ocean community that this Subcommittee is working with other subcommittees on a specific ocean research and exploration hearing to be held later this summer. This is an area in which Congress has much interest and in which committees must take joint action.
We assembled a distinguished Panel of experts from around the country to discuss NOAA's budget and its ability to fulfill these critical missions. I thank you for appearing and look forward to hearing your testimony. I now would like to recognize Congressman Barcia, also from the great State of Michigan, also very interested in the Great Lakes. I hope you all bear that in mind. He is the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee and we will turn to him for his opening statement.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
[The prepared statement of Vernon Ehlers follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF VERNON J. EHLERS
I welcome Members and the public to the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee's first in a series of budget oversight hearings. Today, we will examine the Administration's Fiscal Year 2002 request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
In July of 1970, President Nixon proposed creating NOAA to serve a national need, ''. . .for better protection of life and property from natural hazards. . .for a better understanding of the total environment. . .[and] for exploration and development leading to intelligent use of our marine resources.'' As we examine NOAA's 2002 budget request, we will see if NOAA is living up to these high expectations.
The President's FY 2002 budget request for NOAA is $3.15 billion. This is a decrease of $61 million from the FY 2001 enacted levels. However, this request is considerably higher than the $2.3 billion Congress enacted for FY 2000. I am also pleased that this request increases the overall Research and Development funding for FY 2002 by over eight percent.
While this budget request seems sound, and I commend NOAA and the Administration for making needed adjustments to base programs, Congress is sure to replace many of NOAA's mandates and Congressional earmarks that were left out of this request. I am concerned about where the offsets and tradeoffs are going to occur. Specifically, I am concerned that this budget request eliminates $30 million for Great Lakes Community Grants.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
While NOAA has many roles and missions, we have chosen as a theme for this hearing predicting weather and climate; two missions that are paramount to the protection of life and property and which encompass a majority of NOAA's budget and programmatic focus. Airline travel, just-in-time deliveries, our nation's economy, our vacations, and even our future depend on NOAA's ability to help guide, warn and educate us about weather and climate.
I would also say to those of you from the ocean community that this Subcommittee is working with other committees on a specific ocean research and exploration hearing to be held later this summer. This is an area in which Congress has much interest and in which committees must take joint action.
We have assembled a distinguished panel of experts from around the country to discuss NOAA's budget and its ability to fulfill these critical missions. I thank you for appearing and look forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. BARCIA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for that introduction and this opportunity to make an opening statement, and also to thank our very distinguished Panel. And I also want to thank Chairman Ehlers for calling this hearing and seeking additional input on the needs and concerns of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. It certainly is a timely hearing. And because it is a new element in this Subcommittee's jurisdiction and is new to many of us who have served on the Technology Subcommittee in past years, I look forward to learning more about NOAA's operations as the year progresses.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
As the Chairman mentioned, in Michigan we rely on both the wet side and the dry side of NOAA. Michigan has the largest amount of freshwater shoreline of any area in the world. We rely on NOAA to better understand the ecology of the Great Lakes, to assist in navigation, and study our fisheries. And, of course, residents across the State of Michigan rely on NOAA for weather forecasting capabilities and they rely on those advisories in a daily mode. So we are very dependent, in the State of Michigan, on the functions of NOAA and we appreciate the good job the agency has done in the past.
I am pleased that this Fiscal Year's 2002 budget request addresses many of NOAA's most pressing issues. During this hearing, I would also like to find out if NOAA's operations can be improved to ensure that both individuals and industry fully understand how to use the information the agency provides. For example, how NOAA's long-term forecasting can benefit the energy industry. During the past three sessions of Congress, I have spent a great deal of time explaining the National Institute of Standards and Technology's mission and how it helps the Nation.
As the Ranking Member on an expanded Subcommittee, I am finding that many understand the primary mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, something to do with weather forecasting, as well as oceans and fisheries research.
However, NOAA does not often receive the credit they deserve for the outstanding work they do. Most Americans rely upon the research and data provided by NOAA without even realizing it. Most people think that weather information comes from television, radio, or the newspaper. They do not know that NOAA provides the underpinnings for these weather forecasts. Few people realize the significant investment by NOAA in equipment and personnel, nor do many realize that NOAA relies on 11,000 volunteers across the Nation to collect weather data. I hope this hearing is the first to help publicize the important work that NOAA performs and how its activities can be better used. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee and look forward to their testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
[The prepared statement of Jim Barcia follows:]
PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE JIM BARCIA
I want to join Chairman Ehlers in welcoming our distinguished panel to this morning's hearing.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a new element in this Subcommittee's jurisdiction and is new to many of us who have served on the Technology Subcommittee in past years. I look forward to learning more about NOAA's operations as the year progresses.
In Michigan, we rely on both the ''wet'' side and the ''dry'' side of NOAA. Michigan has the largest amount of fresh water shoreline of any area in the world. We rely on NOAA to better understand the ecology of the Great Lakes, assist in navigation and study our fisheries. Of course, residents across the state of Michigan rely on NOAA weather forecasting capabilities daily.
I am pleased that the Fiscal Year 2002 budget request addresses many of NOAA's most pressing issues. During this hearing, I would also like to find out if NOAA's operations can be improved to ensure that both individuals and industry fully understand how to use the information the agency provides. For example, how NOAA's long-term forecasting can benefit the energy industry.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
During the past three Congresses, I have spent a great deal of time explaining the National Institute of Standards and Technology's mission and how it helps the Nation. As the Ranking Member on an expanded Subcommittee, I am finding that many understand the primary mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—something to do with weather forecasting as well as oceans and fisheries research.
However, NOAA does not often receive the credit they deserve for the outstanding work they do. Most Americans rely upon the research and data provided by NOAA without even realizing it. Most people think that weather information comes from television, radio or the newspaper. They do not know that NOAA provides the underpinnings for these weather forecasts.
Few people realize the significant investment by NOAA in equipment and personnel nor do many realize that NOAA relies on 11,000 volunteers across the Nation to collect weather data. I hope this hearing is the first to help publicize the important work that NOAA performs and how it's activities can be better used.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee and look forward to their testimony.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Barcia. If there is no objection, all additional opening statements submitted by the Subcommittee members will be added to the record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Constance A. Morella follows:]
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
PREPARED STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE CONSTANCE A. MORELLA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing and convening this panel. I want to begin by personally welcoming Mr. Hoffman. I first met Mr. Hoffman at a media briefing in August of 1999 concerning the drought conditions and water restrictions we experienced at that time. His organization has a tremendous impact on my district and I thank him for his service and for taking the time to come before us today.
For many years, I have been a staunch supporter of NOAA and the many important services it provides. As such, I am very concerned about the proposed reductions in the overall budget as well as some of the individual program cuts.
First the good news. The legislative office at NOAA informs me that the research and development crosscut across the 5 line-item offices is $740 million, an 8% increase over FY 2001. Of particular note is the Climate Observations and Services Initiative, which will play a large role in the measurement and analysis of global temperatures and trends. With the looming concerns of global warming, support of the underlying measurements is essential to accurately assess the risks and produce appropriate policies to address them.
However, there are some troubling areas as well. For instance, the allotments for maintenance and upgrade of our aging facilities seem to be insufficient. NOAA has identified backlogs of deferred maintenance many times larger than the budgets allocated to address them. In the short-term, failure to make these repairs produces inefficiencies and safety concerns. Continued deferment over long periods results in the potential for disaster. While maintenance budgets are not nearly as flashy as new climate programs, they are no less important for their banality.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
I look forward to today's testimony and while I am aware of many of the new efforts funded under the current proposal, I would hope that the panelists would also address what they see as the deficiencies of the current budget and highlight areas of concern.
[The prepared statement of Nick Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICK SMITH
I want to thank the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Ehlers, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Barcia, for holding this hearing on the budget request and science activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA's activities in studying the oceans, climate and weather are of considerable importance to our nation. I appreciate the members' leadership in recognizing the importance of NOAA and holding this hearing to ensure the agency has the funding to pursue its missions. I would also like to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses here today for taking time to testify before the Subcommittee.
In 1970, President Nixon proposed that NOAA be created to explore and study our marine environment and resources. NOAA is composed of five offices including the National Ocean Services (NOS), the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), the National Weather Service (NWS), the National Environment Satellite, the Data and Information Service (NESDIS); and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These offices together perform the majority of all research our oceans, marine animals and environments, weather forecasting and climate and on ocean navigation. NOAA has extensive atmospheric and ocean monitoring systems to gather the data which aids in this research. In addition, NOAA has a number of educational programs focused on teaching a new generation of marine scientists and meteorologists, such as the Sea Grant Program. I support NOAA's efforts to explore and understand our marine environments, including the Great Lakes. There is much to be done as 95% of our oceans remain relatively unknown.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
NOAA's budget request for this year is $3.15 billion for FY 2002. This budget request reflects a 2% decrease from FY 2001 enacted levels and the elimination of most Congressional earmarks. This still represents a substantial increase over the FY 2000 enacted level of $2.34 billion. This budget request cuts a number of programs including the Great Lakes Community Restoration Grants which is of particular concern for Michigan. I applaud NOAA's willingness to collaborate with agencies like NASA and DOD to leverage federal dollars, and I encourage the agency to improve its overall efficiency. Predicting severe weather occurrences is very important for the health and economic well-being of the American people. We need to develop the basic and applied research instruments and expertise to achieve this goal. It is my hope that NOAA will continue to work in these areas and coordinate with other agencies, such as NSF, in the area of basic research and education. I look forward to the testimony and asking questions of the distinguished panel.
Chairman EHLERS. I would like to proceed to the introduction of our witnesses, going from our left to our right. Mr. Scott Gudes is Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator. He will present the Administration's Fiscal Year '02 budget request for NOAA. And you actually have jurisdiction over more of the planet than I believe any other member of the Administration. Dr. Richard E. Hallgren is the Executive Director Emeritus, American Meteorological Society and former Head of the National Weather Service. Dr. Hallgren will discuss funding and policy issues concerning the National Weather Service and NOAA's satellite programs.
Dr. Eric Barron is a Distinguished Professor of Geosciences and Director of the EMS Environment Institute at Penn State University, the 11th member of a ten-member sports club. Dr. Barron is currently Chair of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the National Research Council and will discuss climate change research efforts within NOAA.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Representative Etheridge has just arrived and I understand, Mr. Etheridge, that you wanted to introduce our next witness.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me also thank the Ranking Member for your allowing me to sit in on this since this is not a Committee I am on, and allowing me to introduce my constituent, Dr. Len Pietrafesa, who is a member of our district. He currently serves as the Director of External Affairs at the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and he is a Member of NOAA's Science Board. And he is here today to talk about the state of research within the agency as a whole.
He earned his BS degree in Physics and Mathematics from Fairfield University in Connecticut, his MS in Geophysics and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics from Boston College at the University of Chicago, and his Ph.D. in Geophysics and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics from the University of Washington, at which time he joined the faculty at North Carolina State University. He is the author or co-author of 146 peer-review publications in the area of estuary and coastal ocean and atmospheric weather and climate physical physics dynamics. That is a mouthful.
I have had the pleasure of working with him. We held hearings last year as it relates to the importance of the prediction of hurricanes—in particular, Mr. Chairman, the problems associated with inland flooding. And, as many of you may remember, in 1999, Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina. And even though my district is anywhere from 100 to 140 miles inland, depending on where you are in the district, we had extensive flooding. And the real issue of hurricanes is not—as bad as it is on the coast, we can predict that, but we lost more than 50 people as resulted from Hurricane Floyd, and those deaths were inland, from freshwater flooding.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
And as a result of that, we had a summit and he was generous enough to help with that. And we talked about the overwhelming need for some type of warning system for floods similar to the Saffir-Simpson scale that we have for hurricanes so that folks will understand what a flash flood means, what we are talking about. I appreciate the work you are doing, that you continue to do. Honored to have you join us this morning. Thank you.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. And I see you are continuing your tradition of introducing more witnesses than any other member of the Panel.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Quality of our universities in our district. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman EHLERS. A lot of good people in North Carolina. Our last witness, Mr. Joe Hoffman, is Executive Director of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin and will be representing the Interstate Council on Water Policy. Mr. Hoffman will discuss the impact of U.S. Geological Survey's stream gauges on the National Weather Service's ability to monitor and forecast floods. And it is a very important issue, as I well know, because a few years ago I had to restore to the budget some funding for these stream gauges in the Great Lakes area.
As our witnesses know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each and we ask you to watch the clock and honor that. When it goes red, you are supposed to be finished. And after you have completed your testimony, members of the Committee will each have five minutes to ask questions. We are likely to be interrupted by another vote at approximately 11:15, and I apologize ahead of time for that, but that is the way life is around here. We will start our testimony with Mr. Gudes.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT GUDES, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE AND ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. GUDES. Thank you, Chairman Ehlers, Congressman Barcia, and members of the Subcommittee. I do want to thank you on behalf of my boss, Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, 12,500 men and women working in NOAA around the country, for this opportunity to testify about your NOAA. I also want to say that we really do appreciate listening to the opening statements and the work that you are doing, the focus of this Subcommittee on NOAA programs. And especially, I would like to point out our appreciation for your professional staff, John Mimikakis, Eric Webster, Mike Quear, Cameron Wilson, and other professional staff, who have really worked very closely with all of our staff. I have here today several of our Division Directors: Jack Kelly, the Head of the Weather Service; Dave Evans, the Head of Research; Greg Withee, the Head of our Satellite Service; Sonya Stewart, our CFO; and Marlene Kaplan, Head of Legislative Affairs.
I just wanted to—and I know I have five minutes—but I just wanted to comment on your opening statement, Mr. Chairman. We are very aware of the work that happened 30 years ago and the real vision to use this statement here on your Committee that took place 30 years ago, and what the Nixon Administration did about pulling together disparate elements of the government together and to be one premier ocean and atmospheric agency. And tomorrow, we are actually having—it is Public Service Recognition Week and we are honoring a number of NOAA employees around the country. But one of the things we are also doing is presenting a special award to Dr. Bob White. Dr. Bob White was the first Administrator of NOAA. It was his vision that really helped create our agency, and I couldn't agree more with all of your comments.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Let me just say you read the numbers, Mr. Chairman. You are right, $3.152 billion, $61 million less. But, as you pointed out, there is a lot of changing going on in the budget, $270 million dollar increases, most of which I will talk about, $330 million of decreases. I just want to make one other point to the members of the Subcommittee. We tend, in the budget business, to talk too much maybe about plusses and minuses from the year before, and not focus enough on everything that is within the budget. And there is a lot of good news within this budget that continues. So I will just point out there is just a little bit more, but about $62 million for the Sea Grant Program. That is only the second year in the last 20 years that the Sea Grant Program has been fully funded, a very important partnership with the universities. $68 million for climate and global change research, again fully funded in the budget, a little more than last year; $8.3 million for NEXRAD Doppler radar modernization—very, very important. So there are a lot of things that I won't be highlighting, but they are in our budget.
I often like to point out, before I talk about budget changes, about what you and your constituents get for the support that you have given us in past years. And these are just a few of the examples. Hurricane track forecasts—mid-1980's, about 400 nautical miles of error at 72 hours. That has been brought down in half. We are about 200 nautical miles of error at 72 hours out. That is a halving of that. That is about satellites. That is about better training. That is about better observing systems. That is about better computers. Go back, please. About better supercomputers. And we can do better. USWRP, U.S. Weather Research Program, as Congressman Etheridge just pointed out, is in our budget request. We need to do better on track forecasts. We need to do better on intensity. We need to do better on quantitative precipitation forecasts.
Just one other example—acquisition reform. Back in the early '90's, late '80's, we were down to one geostationary satellite in this country—one. And we had a big procurement delay and a lot of problems. And a lot of work by Greg Withee who is here from our satellite service, the head of the Loral Corporation, Bernard Schwartz, Lincoln Labs, a lot of people—Ray Kammer was the Deputy Under Secretary of NOAA at the time. We now have two geostationary satellites in orbit, west and east, one on cold storage ready to be activated once we need it, and we have another one ready to be launched in July of this summer. And we have frozen the costs of geostationary satellites. Those are in current dollars.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
So we are—I just want to point out to the Subcommittee that I think that the programs that we are being supported with, we are coming back and getting the kind of outputs that this Subcommittee and your constituents expect. Okay. Next slide.
My highest priority in the budget is our people in NOAA. One of the things that is really important is to have what I call a truth-in-advertising budget, about showing what the real cost of maintaining a workforce of 12,000-plus people. That is $60 million for must-pay bills—$24 million of that is just our Weather Service alone, probably the most people-intensive part of NOAA. So this about doing the right thing by our people and it is about fully funding our programs. Next slide.
Infrastructure is really about our ability to be able to continue to run NOAA and be the premier agency in the future, and not just this year. And we have a number of areas where we have some increases of that $270 million in the budget. One of them is fully paying our rent bill in our David Skaggs Building in Boulder, Colorado. Part of it is flying hours—to more efficiently use our two P3s and G4 for hurricane surveillance and winter storms. $7.5 million is for a backup telecommunications gateway for the National Weather Service. And that says I just used my 5 minutes. Is that right?
All right. Mr. Chairman, how about if I go all the way to my Great Lakes slides since you said that I was supposed to be paying attention to the Great Lakes?
Chairman EHLERS. That sounds appropriate.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. GUDES. And then I will have everybody else yelling at me that I didn't mention all the other things. Can we just go forward to the Great Lakes slide, please? Mr. Chairman, as I often like to point out, the ''O'' in NOAA—keep going forward—the ''O'' in NOAA does relate to the Great Lakes as well. And this is a very important area to us. There have been a number of pieces of legislation that extend NOAA programs to the Great Lakes. The Sea Grant Program, for example, is active in all the Great Lake areas, in all the states.
We have the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, which is under our research component, which is based in Ann Arbor, which really does focus on ocean surfaces and ocean—or, if you will, Great Lakes' research in the Great Lakes area in sediments, in water levels, in ice flows, in nonindigenous species, zebra mussels—big issue with the Great Lakes Environment Research Lab. Really a premier institution. We also do—by the way, in the Sea Grant, about $9 million goes in the different states in the Great Lakes area, including the Michigan Sea Grant Program.
We also do some work with some of our parts of NOAA in the Great Lakes that you might not have thought about at first, like the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder Colorado, which does bathymetry worldwide. And one of the products we have is the map there of Lake Michigan, which is actually in 3D. We have that done. We have Lake Erie. We are working on Huron right now. But, again, a very good product that we put out on the Great Lakes.
Finally, I should mention that at the University of Wisconsin we have a joint institute with our satellite service, which is really our premier R&D center for geostationary satellite products and sensors. And it was mentioned before by Congressman Barcia about our marine sanctuary at Thunder Bay and ocean exploration. This summer we are going to be doing some submersible missions with Bob Ballard, actually looking at some of the shipwrecks in that area.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
And if I could just go to the final slide, past ocean exploration, Mr. Chairman, part of what my job is to ensure that the services and products, the research that you and the members of the Subcommittee are funding, reach your constituents, reach our customers, if you will. We have a web site, www.noaa.gov, which has been re-engineered. It is among the top five, usually, web sites in the government. You can look at different standards for hits and we are often at the top. And I would just say that in terms of my job, part of what I view my role to be is helping train the next generation of meteorologists, oceanographers, marine biologists. We take education and outreach very seriously. And, as I go around the country, teachers, students, members of the public, increasingly say to me, you know, you people in NOAA have one of the best web sites in government and we really appreciate it.
So I have used over my 5 minutes and I will be in trouble with all my people who talk about climate and satellites later. Thanks.
Chairman EHLERS. We will allow about 60 seconds for your comments about Mr. Nixon.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman——
Chairman EHLERS. I am pleased to——
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, down here—the other way.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Chairman EHLERS. Mr. Gutknecht.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I don't know if I need to make a motion or ask unanimous consent that Mr. Smith of Michigan be permitted to sit with the Subcommittee and that he be permitted to submit a statement for the record.
Chairman EHLERS. Without objection, so ordered. We will next proceed to Dr. Hallgren.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD E. HALLGREN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EMERITUS, AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Mr. HALLGREN. I appreciate the opportunity to provide some personal thoughts on NOAA's 2002 budget in the area of predicting weather and climate. Weather and climate are two sides of the same coin. The common aspects—science, services, and especially observations—are far greater than the differences. And we have a bad habit of trying to stress the differences.
The United States has more severe weather and flooding than any other nation in the world and approximately $2 trillion, 25 percent of the U.S. gross national product, is affected by weather and climate. So even with today's natural hazards and natural climate variability, forecasts and warnings on all time scales are extremely important to the future of this country and climate change could increase the impact and need.
The Nation has made a major investment in developing weather and climate services and, therefore, enjoys today the best service of any nation in the world through the combined efforts of the public and private meteorological services. And with the new observing and new processing systems and much better science, the country has enjoyed much better services and much better warnings.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Severe weather and flood warnings have improved markedly, Scott mentioned. On the hurricanes it is true, and the tornadoes as well. We now have scientifically based seasonal forecasts for the first time in history. And high-speed—the—our 4-day forecasts are as accurate as our 2-day forecasts in the '80's. But we have a long ways to go. Anyone who uses weather forecasts or climate forecasts know that we still have a long way to go.
The proposed NOAA 2002 budget for weather and climate services is a significant step forward in the continuing process of investing in improved services. The budget allocations, in my opinion, are very much in the right direction, but clearly constrained by the overall budget allocation for NOAA. The request focuses heavily on improvements in the infrastructure and support for a number of basic core activities that have not received adequate support in recent years. I strongly support these increases.
I applaud in every way I can the substantial budget allocation across NOAA for adjustments to base to cover pay increases and other increased operating costs. I can only recall on one other occasion in my third of a century of preparing or following budgets in NOAA for weather and climate services that the leader had the fortitude to provide full funding for this non-glamorous but absolutely critical area. It screws up management royally when you don't do it.
In my written testimony, I provide some comments on almost all aspects of weather and climate services, and I will focus here this morning strictly on the satellite and weather service.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
The budget requests new money for sensors and processing capability for ASOS and continues the developments in NEXRAD and the planned development in AWIPS. These are extremely important and they must be funded. It is disappointing that we aren't funding more the Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Program. And I would also like to say that the time has come to establish a substantial refreshment program for both NEXRAD and AWIPS. NEXRAD, believe it or not, is technology of the middle '80's, and AWIPS is more or less technology of the '90's. Let us not fall again into the mode of operating 20 to 30-year-old systems.
I strongly support the computers in the National Center for Environmental Prediction, and that will keep coming because you are always going to have new computers. I support the increase for the Environmental Modeling Center. They have long been trying to work on soft money too long while doing the model development. And I, as Scott mentioned, the—strongly support the effort on the U.S. Weather Research Program. And, for goodness' sake, we better do the backup system for the national telecommunication gateway before we have, at some point in time, a major problem.
It is also extremely exciting to me to see the large increase for NPOESS and the funding for the ARGO floats for observing the ocean. As Scott mentioned, we remember the gaps we had in the operation of the geostationary satellites in the '80's and '90's. We are down to three of the current polar environmental satellites. It is time to move forward with NPOESS so that continuity can be assured.
And for the first time in history, and I have been chasing this for 30-some years, we have a shot at doing a quality ocean observing system. The ARGO system, when combined with the altimetry from satellites and other satellite observation, makes possible a giant step forward. I strongly support the funding for that, as well as the funding for the Environmental Observing Service operation in the satellite center. The funding for this area has not kept pace over the years and no matter how good the space-borne systems are, they are no better than the processing on the ground.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
The most exciting initiative in NOAA's budget, in my opinion, is the creation of a Joint Data Assimilation Center. Through this effort we can make much more effective use of the data. Its value rises substantially. I strongly support the increase in that area, along with the funding support for the Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment that is being done internationally.
Although I had hoped that NOAA's budget request for predicting weather and climate would have been substantially larger, I believe the Administration has done a good job of supporting high priority programs, including some of the fundamental activities that have been neglected and underfunded for a number of years.
Finally, I want to say that predictions of weather and climate are vital to coping with climate change not only for determining the magnitude of potential changes in climate, but also for adapting to the change. Making wise decisions in many sectors of our economy—agriculture, energy, water resources, transportation and many others—based on short- and long-range predictions, will be one of the key elements in coping with whatever climate change we have in the future. Thank you.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you, Dr. Hallgren. Dr. Barron.
STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC BARRON, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF GEOSCIENCES AND DIRECTOR EMS ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. BARRON. It is my pleasure to be able to discuss the climate programs at NOAA. A little bit of perspective on climate information goes a long way. Climate information is no longer just a stack of weather records. We really are moving into a phase which we can make predictions on the time scales of seasons and much longer time scales, even out to a century. It is that ability to make predictions that yields power. It is the power to be able to address and enhance economic vitality. It is the ability to begin to do a better job of limiting threats to life and property. It is an ability to improve our environmental stewardship.
We really are moving into a phase where you can clearly say that climate information is in service to society. Now, what does it take to have a strong climate program? It takes a robust observing system. It takes a commitment to modeling and prediction. And it takes a strong interface with decision-makers. I am just going to take each one of these in turn.
A robust observing system, one that has continuity that focuses on quality, is absolutely essential to decision-makers and to climate research. This is clearly recognized by NOAA. We have an Environmental Satellite Program, surface observing systems that are crucial to climate science and decision-makers. We have increased efforts to entrain observations into our modeling centers. Have a NPOESS Preparatory Program that has a great deal of promise in linking NOAA and NASA efforts. Yet, it is interesting that despite the successes and strengths, this is also a continuing topic of concern for the scientific community.
Why is that? It is because we have so many different agencies involved in collecting the information that contributes to climate and, at the same time, the mission associated with that observational collection doesn't have climate at its top priority. That creates vulnerability. And with that vulnerability comes concern about our ability to deliver this fundamental component of the system.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
What can we do to make improvements? One thing we can do is pay attention to the very well-articulated set of principles that guide climate observing systems, in terms of continuity, in terms of overlapping measurements, in terms of free and open access of data. These are repeated in many national academy documents.
We can ensure that NPOESS has a strong effort at data management and access. I also think that it is time to begin to look at an investment in efficiency in our observing systems. To begin to sit there and look at who is making what measurement with what type of decision process. And I believe that if we do this and actually make the investment and time to do this, we might actually find some significant efficiencies and ones where we can begin to fill gaps and weaknesses, most notably in terms of the hydrologic cycle.
We need a strong modeling and prediction effort. This is something we can be extremely proud of in this country. We have a potent research community contributing to models. And NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab is one very strong partner in this particular process. But we are also moving into a phase for which these efforts in prediction are so successful that we have increasing demand for the products almost in an operational mode. This is a case where the scientific community is not particularly well-prepared to address those types of issues. We need to begin to focus on an operational capability for delivering these products to society and one in which has open access to the best computer architecture.
We need a strong link to the decision-makers. That is also a critical component of this particular effort. Again, NOAA has emphasis between the National Climate Data Center, regional climate centers, and a fledgling climate services effort to begin to focus on this particular issue. But we still need to move more strongly in this direction, one in which we are performing user experiments and one in which we are working hard to make sure that at the start of observations and the start of modeling, that the user community and the decision-makers are involved.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
And one very last point—and that is, we can also project this into the future. We are really at the point where we see that climate information and climate predictions for which NOAA is at the core, as just the beginning. It is the beginning of what is going to be forecast capabilities that cross human health, farming, that focus on energy demand, that look at water and water resources, that focus on air quality.
The Climate Modeling and Observation Network is the foundation for that. We need to begin to move to a mode where we begin to think about environmental intel. centers, where we can couple all of the different facets of issues and problems and prediction capability and put all of that information at the fingertip of decision-makers and scientists. That is something we can't do globally, but we can work to a mode where we can begin to do this on a regional basis, as test beds. And I think then we will realize that this investment in climate science and NOAA is one that really, truly begins to serve this Nation. Thank you for your attention.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much for your testimony. Dr. Pietrafesa.
STATEMENT OF DR. LEONARD J. PIETRAFESA, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY; MEMBER, NOAA SCIENCE BOARD
Mr. PIETRAFESA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Ehlers requested that I address the following three questions, the first of which is, what is the NOAA Science Advisory Board? Science and technology underline NOAA's mission to monitor, predict, and manage. And to help facilitate NOAA's science, the 15-member Science Advisory Board, composed of life, physical, and social scientists and policy experts, was formally constituted in July 1998 to be the critical link between NOAA and the university community. The Science Advisory Board is the only Federal advisory committee authorized to advise the NOAA Administration on issues related to NOAA science and its applications. The existing charter is due to expire in September of this year.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
The second question was, what are the major challenges facing NOAA in conducting research? I present the following in non-prioritized order. First, is the preservation of NOAA's invaluable data archive. Amongst many scientific issues, retrospective studies ensemble forecasting and observational simulation experiments cannot be conducted without these data. There must be an investment so that new data are made available in a timely fashion and historic data are accessible when needed so that NOAA can effectively carry out the recommendations in the report entitled, ''The Nation's Environmental Data: Treasures at Risk.''
Second, to tie its science to functional society, there needs to be support for integration of NOAA atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic sciences with the social sciences. Third, is NOAA's development of a long-range strategic plan which ties high-priority scientific initiatives directly to the NOAA budget and budgeting process, which will ensure that the Nation's long-term environmental agenda can be properly addressed.
The U.S. Weather Research Program and the Climate Services and Coastal Storms Science-Based Initiatives are examples of areas where the ratio of future benefit to today's cost investment will be enormous.
Next, is the building of the agency's strategic plan to include research, development, and technology transfer as core elements of an end-to-end process. The agency needs to be supported so that it can transfer the knowledge and information derived from NOAA-sponsored research into scientific advice to managers and decision-makers in a seamless, easily understandable manner. Good examples are the workshops and services provided by the National Hurricane Center, the National Weather Service, and the Coastal Services Center.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Fifth, is the need for investing in climate observations, modeling, and services to take advantage of the fact that NOAA-supported science is at the cusp of important new understandings of atmospheric, hydrologic, and oceanic processes that will enable the Nation to reduce the impacts from, and adapt to, climate variations.
Sixth, is a workforce issue. NOAA must take advantage and be supported to partner with universities to ensure the vitality of its future science and technology workforce. Co-ops at co-located facilities are an example of a way to address this critical issue.
Seventh, is the challenge of maintaining, upgrading, and expanding the NOAA observational backbone network and computational facilities required for environmental monitoring and prediction. NOAA should be supported, as proposed in its visionary reports, such as the marine observation report and the NCEP, the National Center for Environmental Prediction, test bed plan. The Chairman would be interested to know that there are 57 base-funded marine buoy observational systems around the coastal waters of the United States, including the Great Lakes. Only 57 base-funded systems in place right now. NOAA cannot do a good job of predicting the weather of either the atmosphere or the oceans or the Great Lakes with such a scant array.
Also, NOAA must work with other agencies and should be supportive of these other agencies, to ensure that the observational networks of these other agencies, such as the USGS river hydrological network is not reduced because of Federal budget cuts.
The third question is, what are the specific areas needing more attention or coordination? They are those that are concerned with processes and events and conditions which pose an immediate or long-term risk to the health, safety, and welfare of human communities and environmental systems. These include NOAA's proposal to develop a better scientific understanding of ocean, atmospheric, hydrologic coupling, as related to persistent or extreme weather events and climate conditions, processes leading to deleterious impacts on ecosystem structure, including plants, animals, and humans. And, third, the better understanding of nonlinear, non-stationary couplings between physical and biological systems, focusing on the interaction between nature and society and impacts upon society.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Investments in NOAA science are critical for the agency to carry out its mission. In closing, and on behalf of the NOAA Science Advisory Board, I thank you for this opportunity to meet with you and we would be happy to respond to any questions you might have. Thank you, sir.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Hoffman.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH K. HOFFMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN; MEMBER, INTERSTATE COUNCIL ON WATER POLICY
Mr. HOFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Interstate Council on Water Policy, which represents state and interstate water management agencies across the country, I am pleased to be before this Subcommittee today. In my role as Executive Director of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, which is one of these resource agencies, I see the importance of the National Weather Service and U.S. stream gauge interaction to our flood and water supply planning activities in the Potomac Basin.
The program, particularly of flood forecasting carried out by the National Weather Service and its river forecast centers is of significant value to a wide range of interests in this country. It does save lives. It does save dollars in property damages lost.
A network of precipitation or rain gauges, new radar systems, stream gauges deployed throughout the United States, allow experts in the forecast centers to know how much rain has fallen, over what period of time it fell, the continuing rate of rainfall, and what stream conditions exist out in the valleys. Models allow forecasters to issue alerts.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
A tool in the Susquehanna Basin allows forecasts by the Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center in State College, PA, to focus and allows the center to focus attention on other basins that they are responsible for. This includes my basin of the Potomac.
During the last several weeks, media attention has focused on flooding in the Midwest. We heard the warnings coming. It has taken several days, weeks, to get to the point that concerns exist. Prompt alerts issued through this integrated data system that is out there is essential to ensuring that lives and property are not lost. Fortunately, time to prepare has allowed sandbagging work by many people, including National Guard members, to help fight these floods.
The terrain in the eastern United States is much different than in the Midwest. For example, in the Susquehanna River Basin, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, steep slopes, rapid runoff occurring from large rain events, and narrow valleys to receive the rain, impact on it. In this situation, emergency managers need more rapid data in a timely manner for flood alerts. They only have hours, not days to issue alerts.
Think of an additional 2 or 3 hours of advanced notice. Think of the damage that can be prevented by allowing that car dealer along the flood-prone area, to move his vehicles from that flood plain up to a higher ground. It saves a lot of inventory. It saves a lot of property damage. It is in the national interest. ICWP has, and is deeply concerned, about where we are. U.S. stream gauges must provide reliable, impartial, and timely information. USGS is known for providing this. Our agencies need this for flood plain management, for water supply planning, for stream flow forecasting.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
I have mentioned the Susquehanna twice. It is an example where Congress has authorized—recognized the needs for a flood warning system. A system has a benefit-to-cost ratio of $12.5 saved in flood damages annually for every dollar expended.
Integration of the rain data, stream gauge data, is vital to these efforts. This Subcommittee does not have direct responsibility for appropriations to the Geologic Survey in the Interior, but members should keep in mind the need for both sets of these data to be available to the forecasters.
Memories in this area are still fresh about the drought event of 1999. Operations of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin to manage the supply of water for metropolitan Washington and its residents and visitors relied upon timely and accurate stream gauge and weather forecasting. We use real time data from the Geologic Survey's gauges to direct releases from reservoirs from storage. It is life-supporting; it is economy-supporting. We don't want to waste tomorrow's water today.
At the same time this hearing is taking place, a media briefing is taking place at Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They are using some of the National Weather Service products and USGS stream gauge products to brief the media about current water supply conditions.
The art of forecasting, ground-truthing is so valuable for us. We need to verify the projections. We need to verify those forecasts so that adjustments can be made. We cannot understate the value of these two systems operating together.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Federally supported stream gauges are valued services that constituents throughout the Nation utilize. The President has made it a hallmark of using good science to derive good water and environmental policy. Good science requires good basic data.
I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. I will be willing to answer questions that the Chairman or the members have. Thank you very much.
TIMESHARE OF NOAA AIRPLANES & FLEET
Chairman EHLERS. And, thank you very much, and, thank you to all of you. We obviously have hosts of questions. We will pursue them as time permits. I will begin with the questioning. And, first of all, something very mundane, Mr. Gudes. I have heard a lot about the discussion of ships in NOAA over the last few years that I have been on this Committee. I suspect that issue is closed now—at least, I hope it is, and I don't plan to resurrect it. But I have a simple question relating to something else, and that is your airplanes. As you well know, the private sector has gone largely to timeshare, which seems to work very, very well. Is that a possibility for NOAA?
Mr. GUDES. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, actually, in—we sort of divide our aircraft fleet into heavy aircraft, the three I was talking about, the G4 and the two P3s, that do hurricane research, surveillance, winter storms, and then our light aircraft, of which I think we have about ten of various levels that do things like the Twin Otters, which do marine mammal surveys and shoreline mapping. We have been moving, working with the private sector, to do more work with the private sector. We had about a $2.5 million, I think, item in our budget last year for more contracting with the private sector, and I think we have another million dollars this year for more contracting for shoreline mapping.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
But we are moving in that area. We have done that in nautical charting. We actually now have about $20 million that we use in private sectorships to do nautical charting. That wasn't true 6 years ago, and we are moving to partner more with the private sector. Yes, sir.
Chairman EHLERS. Okay. You might just look into the time share too, which is cheaper than contracting, depending on your usage. So——
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir. We will do that.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR NOAA PROGRAMS
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Another question—if your budget were to increase and, frankly, I hope it will, where would you put the additional money—into what projects?
Mr. GUDES. Well, I am afraid to answer that because at the last hearing, when I was asked that by the full Committee Chairman and I pointed out that Secretary Evans had given us a great deal of discretion on what to fund in the budget, he didn't like that answer. I would say that the way we put together the budget, Mr. Chairman, was, we went to all the senior managers in NOAA and really asked them to do what they thought was right, and that is what you see before you. There clearly are areas where we always would—you know, would like more investment, but I do think that actually this—as Dr. Hallgren was pointing out, this is, in many ways, I think, the strongest NOAA budget that has ever been submitted to Congress for—I think for about two or three reasons.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
One is, we have tried to, in areas where we can, come and meet the Congress with programs that you have been telling us for years that you want us to fund, that haven't been showing up in the President's budget. There are a number of areas that is true. Dr. Evans made a big advance last year, finally getting Sea Grant fully funded, for example. And it does, I think, invest in the right things, both in terms of our ability to do the mission in the future, as well as the right kind of science and research initiatives. There are always areas like supercomputing, observational systems, where our people want the tools to do the job, but I do think this is a very strong budget.
GEOS SATELLITES
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you. Dr. Hallgren, the current satellite system—I assume this is—was under your jurisdiction. You have two geosynchronous satellites and two polar satellites. Is that correct?
Mr. HALLGREN. That is correct.
Chairman EHLERS. And is that the normal configuration?
Mr. HALLGREN. Yes. That has been the normal configuration for a long period of time, except whenever we mentioned that we had that catastrophe——
Chairman EHLERS. Right.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. HALLGREN [continuing]. In the mid-'80's on the geostationary satellites. But there has been a lot of cooperation now going on in both those systems and with other countries. The growing cooperation, if you step back and look at the total satellite system around the world. We have five geostationary—six now, geostationary satellites operating—Japan, China has one now, India, and Europe. So there is cooperation in that regard as well.
Chairman EHLERS. Do you trade information back and forth?
Mr. HALLGREN. Yes.
Chairman EHLERS. Satellite information.
Mr. HALLGREN. Yes. That is a very important aspect. One of the most fundamental things in our field is to share data——
Chairman EHLERS. Yeah.
Mr. HALLGREN [continuing]. Internationally.
SHARING SATELLITE INFORMATION
Chairman EHLERS. And the information that you provide to the commercial weather forecasters, such as the Weather Channel and the agricultural forecasters, is that all provided free of charge, or do you have a fee for that?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. HALLGREN. Yes. Basically, I guess, the right word, and I am no economist, is the marginal cost. It is my feeling that the government should only collect the data that is necessary to carry out its mission. In fact, not one bit more. And it should then make those data available to the private sector so that it helps our economy in as many ways as possible. It gives a nice, clean relationship. Collect the data that you need for your mission and share it with the government—share it with the private sector. Therefore, you shouldn't be charging them for it. You collected it because it was for your mission.
Chairman EHLERS. But if they should desire additional information and would be able to be—or would be willing to pay full cost for that, that would also be reasonable. Wouldn't it?
Mr. HALLGREN. That would be a way of doing it. There are other ways. They could collect it themselves is another——
Chairman EHLERS. I know. But it is very expensive for them to put up a satellite, whereas if there were not being much additional costs for you to furnish the information——
Mr. HALLGREN. If that was the situation, yes.
Chairman EHLERS. Yeah. All right. Fine.
Mr. HALLGREN. But I think we ought to keep that relationship as clean as we can so we don't get into big arguments as to you are not paying enough——
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Chairman EHLERS. No. I understand.
Mr. HALLGREN [continuing]. And stuff like that. It becomes chaos.
Chairman EHLERS. I understand. You are used to chaos after dealing with weather for most of your life.
Mr. HALLGREN. Yeah. But we have enough over there. We don't need to create some.
FUNDING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS
Chairman EHLERS. I know. And a quick question for Dr. Barron—at least I hope it is quick, and then we will begin recognizing other members. On climate change—as you know, there are some dissidents about climate change who simply don't believe it is occurring or don't believe it is as serious a problem as you think. There are even a few dissident scientists. And the dissidents I meet say that the reason everyone believes there is climate change is because that is where all the grant money is for those who say that there is going to be climate change. Do you think we should fund a few dissident scientists who disagree with the mainstream thought—and, assuming that they are competent scientists and have good reasons for their questions?
Mr. BARRON. With that assumption, I absolutely think we need to. As a matter of fact, I think we can go—and we are. You can go back and look at the history of this issue and you discover that some of the people that have been very articulate and understand processes who have honed in on a lot of problems and they have led to significant improvements in our abilities. So I think, of course, that is——
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Chairman EHLERS. Yeah.
Mr. HALLGREN [continuing]. Exactly the way things should go.
Chairman EHLERS. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I now recognize Mr. Baca from California.
FORECASTING ENERGY DEMANDS
Mr. BACA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Dr. Barron, you—before I ask additional questions—you mention one of the things that it does is forecast energy demands. Could you explain how it does this?
Mr. BARRON. Well, no. It is a matter of—for example, if you have improved seasonal year-in-advance predictions, and you have companies that are willing to take advantage of what they see as—as long as they understand the uncertainties involved—what they see as likely outcomes for temperature for different places in the region, say, associated with El Niño. It gives you an opportunity to, if you are savvy and understand the climate information, to be able to make purchases that beat competitors in other countries. So we actually have a number of case studies of many million dollars savings by U.S. utilities and companies because they were looking at some of the long-term forecasts. So that is the type of thing that you might include there.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY CRISIS
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. BACA. And it sort of like caught my eye because of what is happening in California. And I was wondering if they utilized the service here in the projections of what would happen now in the crisis that we are in right now.
Mr. BARRON. Well, I mean, such things definitely would make a difference. I, unfortunately, believe that part of the issue was that—and I am no economist either—but you—the system was only halfway deregulated. And, as a consequence, it was neither utility nor free market. And I think that is part of the issue. But there is no doubt that advanced information on what demand might be like—if you have individuals that can take advantage of that opportunity, then you can save money——
Mr. BACA. Yeah.
Mr. BARRON [continuing]. And you can be prepared.
Mr. BACA. Right. I am intrigued by it and I was wondering how this department was involved in that aspect of forecasting had they been. Who knows—maybe the situation may have not been the way it is right now in terms of supply and demand.
Mr. BARRON. But I don't know anything about the decisions of the particular department.
Mr. BACA. Okay.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. HALLGREN. Could I just add briefly to it? First of all, for a long period of time, the energy sector has been using shorter range forecasts too. You can use information right from the shortest range to the longest range that is available in enhancing somewhat the efficiency of the way you handle the energy. And I think we should recognize, it is not just long range, but short range forecasts as well.
The second thing is the American Meteorological Society is going to have a policy forum in which we are going to try and bring the producers and users together much on the—in the energy area so we learn how to communicate more effectively on this. We have to do more and more of that in more and more areas in order to maximize the help that can be derived from better environmental predictions. Thank you.
Mr. BARRON. You know, it is also worth pointing out that a major user of weather derivatives that evens out some of the bumps and wiggles in the system, is the energy industry. And they call for better records and more extensive records for which that—to base the weather derivatives market on.
Mr. BACA. Well, I agree with you and I agree with better cooperations and communications effectively. And we probably should have been utilizing the information that was available in any kind of projections that may have been done. But hearsay. But just because I heard the statement, I was sort of like curious and immediately——
Mr. BARRON. Uh-huh.
CLIMATE MONITORING
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. BACA [continuing]. With what was going on in California—energy demands all. Okay. The next question that I have, and this applies to all witnesses—many experts have talked about the importance of climate monitoring and network observation. What specific areas are underfunded and why? Any one of you can——
Mr. PIETRAFESA. I can certainly address the issue related to the coastal ocean, the oceans in general and both the atmosphere and the oceans and the interaction therein of the two fluids. The in situ Observational Network is scant, at best, in spite of the fact that we have this very visionary ARGOS array that is now—which is a—moving floats that travel around the ocean and relay information, data, back in near—at intervals. But our Marine Buoy Network is such that we have undersampled both the atmosphere and the ocean environments in the oceans and the atmosphere above the oceans so that much of the weather that derives from the oceans is not properly sampled, either during the genesis of the weather, nor the intensification or the changes in the weather.
More information is needed. More information is better. There are a couple of examples. For example, the first week of March, where that potential blizzard that shut the government—shut Washington Government down over the weekend and on to Monday, didn't materialize. And more information in the areas off the coast of North Carolina and Virginia would undoubtedly have improved those forecasts. It is not the fault of the forecasters, nor the National Center for Environmental Prediction, when they didn't have proper data coming in to both re-initialize the models and to provide new boundary conditions and updates of the information.
And the—one of the more tragic examples in the recent past was Hurricane Mitch that turned south in the Gulf of Mexico, when all the models had Mitch going north. There is a data void in the southern part of the Gulf of Mexico and then into the Caribbean. And the models had no information to work from. So these are situations which, one was very tragic, one was terribly inconvenient and costly, but nonetheless, they speak to the need for more in situ observational systems, certainly over the oceans and in the oceans. And this is—and even on land, the observational network needs to be upgraded, certainly, and continues to be modernized, in spite of the modernization that occurred. And new systems need to be put in place to help aviation and etcetera.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. BACA. Right. I think Dr. Barron reinforced what you indicated—what you just stated right now. He said the support models. And I believe this is one model of many others in his statement. But——
DATA ASSIMILATION OF SATELLITE INFORMATION
Mr. GUDES. Yeah. If I could just back up what Dr. Pietrafesa said? I think that is probably about observing systems and ARGO floats and really doing a better job of observing the oceans. It is satellite remote sensing, as well, for us. It is about data assimilation, which we touched on before, which is, it is great to get these observations. But there really is a lot of work that needs to be done to get that data into the models in a way that the models are improved.
And then I do think it is about the supercomputing capacity that I talked about before. One of the things that is in our budget request is an increase for the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, which was really our premier climate modeling lab. And it really does help us catch up with the Japanese and Europeans in terms of supercomputing power. So it—we talk about an integrated ocean observing system. It is really—for us, in a lot of areas, it really is about an integrated system of observations, data assimilation and computing power and model development.
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BACA. Can—but, Mr. Chair, if I may have just one quick question.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Chairman EHLERS. Well, you are 3 minutes over already. We will try to have a second round for you. Mr. Gutknecht.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciated the testimony today and especially some of the last comments about, you know, what we don't know. And there is a Greek word called hubris, and I think we have to always be on guard. And I just want to share a couple of examples. In Rochester, Minnesota, for example—and it is important for the energy companies and others to have some idea of what is going to happen. But I think last year, somebody in the energy companies that we buy our natural gas from missed the call. And, as a result, they did not secure, via long-term contracts, as much natural gas as they had in the past. And, as a result, we had one of the—well, not as a result, but we had a very, very cold winter in the upper Midwest. As a matter of fact, in Rochester, Minnesota, from November 6 until April 1, we did not see 40 degrees.
Now, if global warming be happening, we, in Minnesota, say, let us have more of it, especially during the winter months. The other example of that, where I was very disappointed, was this spring. Because we met—and I am not certain that NOAA had anything to do with this, although I suspect you are a participant in these discussions. We were told, as early or as recently as a month before we had the spring flooding, that the expectation among the hydrologists in the upper Midwest was that flooding—there would be some flooding in the upper Midwest, but not as severe as it had been in the past. Well, I remember when they made that prediction. I said, gee whiz, I look out my backyard and I have got 3 feet of snow on my backyard and there a whole lot of snow out there. And if it stays cold until we finally do get a thaw, we are going to have a whole lot of water trying to get away at one time.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
And as a result, we did have awfully severe flooding along the Mississippi and all of its tributaries in my district. I guess the only point I—and I do agree, and I am glad that we are—that we have NOAA. We hope that it is adequately funded. I guess, if I do have a question, it really is this one. And that is, I recently—oh, and I might just add parenthetically, they can be wrong in Europe, as well. It actually snowed on Good Friday in Berlin. And so they had kind—I don't know if they had a cold winter, but I know it was cold when we were there. But they were very critical of the United States for not living up or moving forward with the Kyoto protocol.
FUNDING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH
And I was curious—the issue came up—how much we spend on global research or climate research here in the United States. And I really would like to get some numbers by comparison between us and our European allies and other countries in the world. My suspicion is—and I would like to either confirm or be able to disprove this—that some of our allies, as is true with some other things, are more than happy to allow the United States to shoulder 90 percent of the burden for some of this research. And if you have those numbers, we would certainly like to have them. Thank you. Please.
Mr. GUDES. Do you want me to answer? Some of that—on the budget amounts in NOAA for climate—and climate is not just long-term global change——
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Right.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. GUDES [continuing]. It is the seasonal sort of drought and issues. We spent about $244 million in our budget of about $3.2 billion. About $46 million is for satellites; about $170 million is categorized as research, and the balance is some in the Weather Service and some other parts of NOAA. That is about what we put into it. We call it interannual, as well as decadal, the centennial change.
RIVER/FLOOD FORECASTING
The only other comment, Congressman, is I was—river forecasting is a big issue to us. Those aircraft that Chairman Ehlers talked about—one of the things we do is snow surveys, which we do out of Minneapolis, as a matter of fact. And we try to measure the water—how much water is in that snow pact, not necessarily how deep it is. And then that is one of the factors that goes into our river forecasting, which, again, for that part of the country, is based in the Minneapolis area.
I was under the impression, actually, that we were forecasting a likelihood of flooding. I don't know if it was as severe as what has happened, but that NOAA actually was putting out forecasts, Weather Service was putting out forecasts. So we thought there was about a—I think an 80 percent probability of having higher than normal flooding.
What we are trying to do in our Advanced Hydrological Prediction Services Program is really move to be able to make that probabilistic forecast and then work with communities where we do better mapping with GIS to really see what parts of those communities would be inundated. Because it is—water and flooding, as some of the Panel members said, is a big issue and it is partly NOAA's responsibility. In terms of river forecasting, it is NOAA's responsibility.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. BARRON. Would it be all right if I made a brief comment?
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Sure.
CLIMATE VARIATIONS
Mr. BARRON. It is interesting to look at climate models and what they project for the future because the system is so variable that even 50 years out with a global warming scenario, you get record colds in some part of the world because of this variability. And if you look at the U.S. national assessment, one of the interesting things is it raises the possibility that one of the effects of global warming on a temporary basis would be more snowfall around the Great Lakes. Because you have an ice-free lake that you still have arctic cold fronts. The arctic cold fronts don't disappear. And so you can actually have what almost seems counterintuitive of more snow with a warming situation on your way to a warmer climate.
The other thing is that we probably shouldn't look at our investment in predictive capability as being tied to one particular issue, no matter how important you think global warming is or don't think global warming is. An ability to predict elements of the future and to make that prediction capability better and better is going to pay dividends all across the arena, not just for one particular issue. So I think that investment that NOAA is making is far stronger and far more important than any one particular issue. Thank you.
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired. Next, we have the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am reminded—and I want to make an initial comment here, that two of the panelists have said, Mr. Chairman, they are not economists, and it reminds me of the feeling I have when somebody says they are not a poker player or a golfer. But I would also say it is a—we are fortunate that our Chairman of the Subcommittee is a scientist and his able leadership is one that we are very grateful to have. Mr. Gudes, it is great to see you and thanks again for the trip you made out to Boulder in the NOAA and NIS laboratories a few short months ago with Secretary Evans. And people really appreciated the interest and time.
Mr. GUDES. Thank you. It is one of our real great centers in NOAA.
NOAA SKAGGS BUILDING
Mr. UDALL. In that spirit, I wanted to acknowledge my pleasure that you had mentioned in your testimony that we have to increase the funds for the Skaggs Building, named after former Congressman Skaggs, in Boulder to pay for rent charges levied by the GSA. And it is a must-pay bill, as you point out. And if we don't do that, then the science programs are going to have to carry the brunt of that charge, I believe.
Mr. GUDES. That is right, Congressman. We have finally signed an agreement with the General Services Administration and part of that building was funded through direct appropriations in NOAA. The majority of it was funded in appropriations in the Treasury bill, the GSA, and they have a cost recovery program, about 7.7 percent, I believe. And so this extra million dollars enables us to fully pay that bill and so that Dave Evans and his people don't have to absorb that cost.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. UDALL. Excellent. Well, if we can help in any other way here in the Committee, please call on us. This——
Mr. GUDES. Thank you.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
Mr. UDALL. Let me pick up on the theme my colleague, Mr. Baca, was addressing and, I think, my colleague, Mr. Gutknecht, as well, and talk a little bit more about energy. We focused for a few minutes on California. I wanted to look at it in a little more broader sense and also ask you what role, Mr. Gudes, that you are playing at NOAA and the Vice President's efforts to develop a national energy policy.
Mr. GUDES. We have—well, I think energy has actually had everybody in the country really focused on this issue, probably more fundamentally than in a long time. And one of the things I think we believe is that a number of our NOAA products actually could be used better by the energy industry now. And we could probably do a better job tailoring our products to the energy industry.
For example, water resource managers in the Northwest. If we could get folks really to focus on the long-term drought forecasts that we have, we could do a much better job in terms of hydropower in the Northwest. It is not just hydropower. It is about salmon management and other areas of NOAA. Air quality predictions—again, trying to help the industry realize what kind of power to be generating at what time. There is an issue of if you really can focus on a long-term forecast, when you can take some of the generating power offline to do maintenance and repairs. The weather derivatives industry was just mentioned a little while ago about giving some assurance.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
There is a number of products, a number of services, that are provided by the energy industry which are very dependent on our weather and climate products at NOAA. And we are—Dr. Evans and others are convening some of the CEO's of energy companies, I think, in July of this summer, to really do a better job going out to our customers and asking them what do you really want from us. And so, yeah, this is an important area.
And we did—we have, through the department, inputted most of what kind of information I was just talking about to the Vice President's task force.
Mr. UDALL. Any other panelists would like to comment on this question? Dr. Hallgren, I think you did touch on this—expressed some disappointment about the budget request for predicting weather and climate not being substantially larger. You gave a good example where such increased funding could be useful when you noted that today energy spot prices shoot up by factors of ten whenever we fail to accurately forecast heating and cooling demand. Could you elaborate a little more on that? I know it is picking up on what Mr. Gudes was talking about, but I wanted to investigate this as deeply as we possibly can today.
Mr. HALLGREN. Well, the sentence caught your attention anyway. Yes. You know, whenever you see—whenever you—if we can use the forecast, even for tomorrow, to be a little bit better on the distribution, they are buying energy at all different times and on out. We can flatten some of those spikes.
Mr. UDALL. Uh-huh.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. HALLGREN. And we can also do better decisions in a local area, encouraging earlier conservation at the right moments, et cetera. So it is not that it is the answer, but what it is, it is a big help or a significant help in a wide variety of ways is what we have been trying to say.
Mr. UDALL. Uh-huh.
Mr. HALLGREN. If everybody knows how to use them and recognizes that you are dealing, as people have mentioned, both Eric and Scott, that we will get probabilistic forecasts as to what is going to be a season in advance. You are playing the odds. And that is what we have to all get comfortable with in trying to gain the maximum from it.
Mr. UDALL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NOAA BUDGET PRIORITIES
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired. We will now begin a second round of questions. And, perhaps, Mr. Barcia will return in time to ask a question also, although we are expecting a vote very soon—very shortly. Several—a couple of budget questions for Mr. Gudes. While it seems that NOAA's budget request is well-structured for next year, I notice that you are proposing increases of hundreds of millions of dollars in the out years for the National Weather Service and especially for satellites. If your budget is likely to grow at only 4 percent a year for the foreseeable future, then what programs are most likely to be reduced in order to make up for this increase in spending? What is your strategic planning on that?
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. GUDES. The—we tend to—there was—we tend to put together NOAA's budget on an asset capitalization budget, if you will, procurement assets construction—acquisition and construction, where most of our major systems reside. NPOESS Program, for example. We talked about geostationary satellites, radars. We have tended to look at what the cost is of a current service policy and argue that each year within the budget process and not look at it just as you do operations where you might say, okay, a pay raise is this, current services. So in the case of the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System, for example, NPOESS, the increase in this year's budget is $83 million. And it actually was one of the few items that President Bush highlighted in the Commerce Department when—about a month before the budget was released, he said what is in there.
We have tended to carry those and evaluate those as the cost of maintaining those systems. The United States has two geostationary satellites. It currently has two civil polar, two military polar, and we are moving to a constellation of three military-converged civilian polar satellites. And we have looked at what really the cost is of doing that capability and come forward. And so far, I think every Administration, on a bipartisan basis, going back as far as I have been working with NOAA, which goes back to about 1983, when I was at the Office of Management and Budget, has—once it has decided on what the level is for current services, has funded those satellite requirements or Weather Service requirements.
And I think supercomputing in that account is similar to that. So I think, Mr. Chairman, we will just have to take those each year, in terms of the costs of those real capital assets.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
GREAT LAKES RESTORATION GRANT
Chairman EHLERS. Another budget question. The NOS budget eliminates about $180 million in funding for two specific programs—$150 million for coastal impact assistance; $30 million in Great Lakes restoration grants. If Congress decides to fund these programs again in Fiscal Year '02, which I think is likely, where should the money come from? What—in other words, where do you—where would you recommend the offsets come from?
Mr. GUDES. Well, maybe I can answer that one since I couldn't—I can't answer what I would like as additional add-ons. I hope they are not going to come out of NOAA, Mr. Chairman, because if you did that, you would basically have NPOESS and you would have those two programs and everything we have talked about from supercomputers, the data assimilation, to river forecasting—we would have the—we wouldn't have the funding to be able to do that.
I would point out on coastal impact assistance and on the Great Lakes Program, while we weren't able to get those in the President's budget, or they are not in the President's budget, we did get an increase in for general coastal zone management. And over 2 years, actually, that program, which funds every state in the Great Lakes, other than, I think, Illinois, has gone up by about 20-something percent. So it is not as though we are not addressing those coastal management needs. But you are absolutely right—last year was the first year that those two programs appeared. They partly came out of the CARA negotiations, our discussion on the Hill, and they are not in the President's request.
Chairman EHLERS. Yeah. And I was giving you the likely result of Congress's deliberations as——
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir.
NOAA CHIEF SCIENTIST
Chairman EHLERS. Dr. Pietrafesa, you mentioned in your testimony that the Science Board recommends that NOAA make the chief scientist a merit-based career appointment. I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on that, and, in particular, why should this be a career appointment? You could—couldn't you make an argument that the chief scientist, you want someone who has been active in some other area and every once in a while you need a new shot of energy, so you want to get a new person in, perhaps, every eight years or so? I would just like your opinion on this.
Mr. PIETRAFESA. Well, the Board discussed that fairly thoroughly and the consensus—in fact, it was unanimous, feeling was that a chief scientist, who was a merit-based appointment, would provide the intellectual, integrative, and interactive leadership that would allow for the Administrator of NOAA to work more closely with the partners out in the university communities, certainly, to leverage the vast intellectual resources that are available out in that community, but also to work within NOAA internally between and amongst the line offices to give the best recommendations regarding the scientific programs that need to be brought forward.
Now, one could argue that every four years, perhaps, there should be a new appointment. But the continuity of the individual and the position, in building the infrastructure, the scientific infrastructure of NOAA, through that individual, was believed to be really important for this science-based agency. The appointment in the past has been on a political basis and it just doesn't allow for the continuity of the scientific leadership within NOAA flowing through one individual to allow for bringing all the scientific elements of NOAA together.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
I can say that Dr. Al Beaton from Michigan has served not as the chief scientist, but certainly as a science advisor to the Administrator for the last several years and is still acting in that capacity, and has provided an invaluable service, I believe, both within NOAA, but certainly to outside NOAA as well, connecting NOAA to its scientific university partners.
Chairman EHLERS. Well, I have a bill to provide—would provide a chief scientist for EPA and maybe we can extend the concept.
Mr. PIETRAFESA. Yeah. Thank you.
OCEAN OBSERVATIONS
Chairman EHLERS. Just an observation on your previous testimony in response to Mr. Baca's question. I think it is absolutely essential, and I am looking at this as a scientist now, you can't develop systems and models without data and you can't do it without good data broadly representing the areas that you need your model to apply. I think it has to become a very high priority for this Nation and, of course, for NOAA, to get better observations in the oceans, particularly in those waters surrounding the United States. You mentioned the Gulf—also the Atlantic, particularly the Atlantic, between the Caribbean and Africa where the hurricanes are born.
We also, I think, have to do a better job of air observations too, but that is—both of these are very expensive. But I think we have to face the problem. If we are going to be serious about making good predictions and do good modeling, you have to have the data to provide it and we might as well face up to it.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. PIETRAFESA. Thank you.
STREAM GAUGES
Chairman EHLERS. And, Mr. Hoffman, just a quick question to wrap this up. On the stream gauges, a number of them are placed by USGS. Correct?
Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes, sir.
Chairman EHLERS. And are some placed by NOAA as well?
Mr. HOFFMAN. The way the break out has gone traditionally is that the stream gauges are done through and with USGS and they are done with some Federal direct funding and then others are cooperative funding where they bring a state or another partner into play. I am not aware of any direct funding that NOAA has on stream gauges. Rain gauges have been assigned to NOAA. They pick up that portion of the data collection networks.
Chairman EHLERS. I see. Okay. Fine. Mr. Gutknecht has no further questions. Mr. Udall, do you have any?
Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I do have a question if I might ask it?
Chairman EHLERS. Yeah. The gentleman is recognized.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM
Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The U.S. Global Change Research Program—long acronym—USGCRP, is a collaborative effort between many agencies. There has been talk of making change to the 1990 USGCRP Act. What suggestions would you, on the Panel, make to policy makers looking to improve the '90 Act?
Mr. GUDES. I would—I don't know that I have changes to suggest for you, Congressman. But I would say that the work of that USGCRP has been very important, actually, to address some of the questions that were raised before by Congressman Gutknecht of just how much is the Federal Government spending on climate. Dr. Evans pointed out to me that in total we spend, federal-wide, about $1,600,000,000 per year on climate programs. And we get a sense then of what we are spending overall and what different agencies are doing.
I think when we were talking about ocean exploration, actually, in a different committee here on the House side, the issue is raised about what other agencies are doing, ocean exploration, and how we are coordinating. And we talked about that. Well, in this case, in terms of climate spending, we have a formal mechanism. And currently I think it is being chaired by Dr. Margaret Leinen of NSF, and NSF is a major player. NOAA is obviously a major player. And each of the agencies have strengths that they bring to the climate issue. As we have talked about today, everybody on the Panel, NOAA's strength is in terms of the observational systems, forecasting systems, in terms of the long-term monitoring. NSF funds a lot of the basic research at NCAR, for example, in Boulder, and we do a lot of climate research, obviously, in Boulder. Anybody else want to comment?
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. UDALL. Dr. Barron.
Mr. BARRON. Well, I was going to say that it has been an extraordinarily successful program. And one of the things you see that is really exciting is how much work is beginning to occur that intersects different disciplines. And that often makes the success and the results really explosive and exciting because you take great leaps forward.
At the same time, it presents to us the challenge of dealing with multiple agencies that have specific missions. So one element, to me, that I think is extremely important, is that we really need to foster the interaction between agencies so that we can tackle some of the issue about observing systems across so many different arenas, for example. So that we can see that if we have a program in one particular area that it is not weakened by the fact that one agency is supported in their endeavors and it turns out another agency is not. If we can cross that boundary of integration——
Mr. UDALL. Uh-huh.
Mr. BARRON [continuing]. We will make a great step forward. The other thing I think we have discovered is that more and more the connection we make to society is place-based. The problems and issues that people want to solve are the problems of a specific region. And I think taking that step to begin to do the integration of our science and couple it with humans, human activities, at a regional level and then a national level, is also something that is extremely important.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. UDALL. Dr. Hallgren, you were eager to respond as well.
Mr. HALLGREN. Yeah. Just one addition. Eric is exactly right. We all have to pay more attention to the plan that is being put together on interagency basis and all the agencies have to respond. But that is also true up here in the Congress. The various committees have to note and follow closely what is going on so that one committee doesn't fund part of a program and it fails in another committee. So everybody has to come together in this.
Mr. UDALL. That never happens here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HALLGREN. Oh. Well, I just—I mention it just in case it would happen for the first time. But this is the way we are going to have to do business in more and more areas in the future——
Mr. UDALL. Uh-huh.
Mr. HALLGREN [continuing]. Because what we have learned is everything is interconnected with everything else. And we still try to treat it as neat little packages and it just won't work in the future.
Mr. UDALL. I would be happy to follow the Chairman's lead when he forms the interdisciplinary caucus in the House so that we would work more effectively together. Well, I thank you for those comments. I would just add a couple of other comments. My colleague, Mr. Baca, was eager to—and maybe, Mr. Chairman, we could give a few days for the panelists to answer—he was eager to get some explanation of why the major storm and—that was forecasted in early March was off by so much. And he was half-serious, half-facetious. But if we could get that information, that would be appreciated.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
And then I wanted to just add to Dr. Barron's comments about excessive snowfall in the Great Lakes. It—we certainly have many scientists forecasting that the earth's climate will—the atmosphere will, through the process of more greenhouse gases being emitted, warm up, but really what we are talking about is climate change, which can be variable and could have enormous impacts on human behavior and human activity. And I see my time is expired and I yield back what I don't have left. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMERCIAL SECTOR WEATHER SPENDING
Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman's time has expired and I would certainly appreciate that last comment because I have been telling my colleagues and the world for 2 years now, normally when you talk about climate change, global warming is only one part of the climate, and it is a very tough message to get across and I appreciate your comment on that.
The—another one that occurred to me, Mr. Gudes, when you mentioned your 1.6 billion spent, basically on weather issues—would any of you be able to give me a good guess as to what this Nation spends in addition to that, through the private sector, whether it is for the Weather Channel or agricultural forecasting? What does this all add up to outside of your effort——
Mr. GUDES. Chairman, we could get back to you. The $1.6 billion that I mentioned is specifically the U.S. Global Change Research——
Chairman EHLERS. Yes.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. GUDES [continuing]. Program.
Chairman EHLERS. Right.
Mr. GUDES. In terms of weather overall, we do have a Federal coordinator for meteorology, which is housed at NOAA, but serves as a coordinator for all Federal agencies, and there is a cross-cut that his office does. The private sector question—that is a little tougher. We will try to get back to you with an estimate.(see footnote 1) We do have some pretty close partnerships and a really great relationship with the private sector, but I don't know that they tell us exactly how much, for example, the Weather Channel is spending——
Chairman EHLERS. No. I am only looking for an estimate.
Mr. GUDES. Okay. Yes.
Chairman EHLERS. It is just useful to have that sort of information when you are talking to the public. I——
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir.
Chairman EHLERS [continuing]. Still remember the Congressman who thought that we could get rid of the Department of Commerce because he got all his weather from TV.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
Mr. GUDES. Yes, sir. I remember that too.
Chairman EHLERS. And I would like to be able to set the record straight. And, Dr. Hallgren.
Mr. HALLGREN. Well, I don't have the answer, but one of the things that I did do when I was—didn't have the Emeritus on the end of my title, I spent some time in connection with our companies informally that are corporate members of the society as to sort of what is your gross revenue a year and kept a little track in my hip pocket as to what the answer was. And when I not—I hadn't picked up all of it, but they were over a half billion whenever I had added them up. And I think I was getting reasonable answers from them.
Chairman EHLERS. Yeah. That doesn't surprise me and that is roughly what I would have expected. Well, thank you very much. It has been an outstanding Panel and we have been very fortunate to conclude before the vote demanded our presence on the Floor. I very much appreciate your testimony and your comments will be very useful as we continue our deliberations. Thank you very much for appearing. And with that, I will declare the hearing adjourned.
Mr. GUDES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Footnote 1
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 1 Of 7
73332u.eps
GENERAL QUESTION FOR THE RECORD
Representative Ehlers:
Question: Mr. Gudes. when you mentioned your $1.6 billion spent, basically on weather issues—would any of you be able to give me a good guess as to what this Nation spends in addition to that, through the private sector, whether it is for the Weather Channel or agricultural forecasting?
Answer: NOAA does not have an estimate on how much the private sector spends on weather information.
Based on information from weather related associations and published research, we understand approximately 400 private meteorology firms currently operate within the United States. The Wall Street Journal reported these firms are estimated to have revenues of approximately $500 million annually. However, these companies are not publicly-traded corporations and their balance sheets are not open to the public. As a result, the government only has limited information on what they pay for weather information.
Next Hearing Segment(2)
(Footnote 1 return)
See Footnote 1 attached at end of transcript.