[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 30, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-73
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-142 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona, Chair
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JULIA BROWNLEY, California
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas VACANCY
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RANDY WEBER, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
April 30, 2014
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative David Schweikert, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 6
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 6
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
The Honorable Kathryn Sullivan, Undersecretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Discussion....................................................... 22
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Kathryn Sullivan, Undersecretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration................ 34
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
.................................................................
Submitted statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 56
AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David
Schweikert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Schweikert. The Subcommittee on Environment will
come to order.
Good morning, everybody. This should actually be hopefully
an interesting hearing and the doctor has actually been one of
the Committee's favorites because we have considered you to
always be very forthcoming in discussions, so appreciate having
you here.
You know, today's hearing is entitled ``An Overview of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Budget Request
for the 2015 Fiscal Year.'' In front of you are packets
containing the written testimony, biographies, truth-in-
testimony disclosures of today's witness.
I would like to recognize myself for a few minutes here and
we will just get ourselves going.
NOAA's 2015 budget request is $5.5 billion, which is an
increase of, what, 3.3 percent from the 2014. Some of the
questions that I believe you will be hearing today are going to
revolve around the satellite program and continuing to increase
as a percentage of your total budget. My understanding now is
it will consume about 40 percent of NOAA's budget, and in the
2015 budget request, there is $2.2 billion for NOAA's satellite
office. The two main satellite systems are the Joint Polar
System--I think we refer to it as, what, JPSS--and the
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite, the GOES.
Two satellites provide up to 90 percent of the critical data
needed to make our weather forecast.
I would like some discussion, whether it be from questions
or you, Dr. Sullivan. Is there going to be a gap and how will
that gap be fulfilled? And are there--what optionality is
there? Is there a private optionality and how long they expect
a gap in that data?
The second thing that I believe you will have multiple
questions is in regards to the supercomputing power and the
ability to manage the scale and the size of the data you have
considering the current holds that are out there because of the
contract with IBM and the sale to China. And I know many of us
would like to discuss with you what options are there. And Dr.
Sullivan, as you are speaking, I would love for you to go a
little further from our previous conversation of sharing with
us a sort of the mechanics you already have in place with
universities and private industry of management of data, speed
of data, and total bulk time that you have for your
supercomputing and your collection of crowd data.
And with that, I would like to recognize Ms. Bonamici, the
Ranking Member.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this morning's hearing to examine the President's
budget request for NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Welcome back, Dr. Sullivan, and I congratulate you on being
named one of Time magazines 100 most influential people. That
is a very nice article and some very nice words from Senator
Glenn.
As we face--find ourselves facing one of the biggest
environmental challenges of our time, climate change, we are in
need of your national leadership and advocacy on this issue, as
well as other important issues under NOAA's jurisdiction. I
thank you very much for being here and I am looking forward to
today's discussion about NOAA's priorities.
NOAA is a critically important agency with helping our
communities, our economy, and our ecosystems remain healthy and
resilient in the face of an ever-shifting environment. NOAA
conducts state-of-the-art research to understand and predict
changes in weather and climate, as well as of the oceans and
along our coasts. The science used to create products and
services that inform decision-making by a diverse set of
stakeholders, NOAA helps my constituents along the coast of
Oregon decide when it is safe to go out fishing. They aid my
constituents in Yamhill County as they grow grapes that become
Oregon's world-famous Pinot Noir. They assist people in Oregon
and across the country in planning for and responding to
extreme weather and climate events like heavy precipitation,
flooding, and the devastating storms impacting the South and
the Midwest. And NOAA helps all of our constituents in similar
ways.
I am pleased that the President's budget request recognizes
the importance of NOAA and gives the agency a prominent role in
the Administration's efforts to prepare the United States for
the impacts of climate change. The budget makes critical
investments in NOAA's observational infrastructure, which
includes environmental satellites that not only serve as the
foundation for our weather forecast but also provide critical
information about the opening of the Arctic Circle to maritime
commerce and energy development.
The proposed budget also recognizes that the demand for
climate data and other information, especially at the regional
level, is growing. It seeks to address this need for regional
information and tools by expanding NIDIS, the National
Integrated Drought Information System, to include, among other
areas, the Pacific Northwest; by improving our understanding of
ocean acidification, which will help the shellfish industry
adapt and the fishing industry prepare and by operationalizing
ecological forecasting of harmful algal blooms that pose a
threat to human health.
Overall, I am pleased with the President's budget request
for NOAA but do have some concerns I would like to briefly
mention. Specifically, as the Chairman noted, although the
Joint Polar Satellite System, or JPSS, seems to be on track and
in fact it was recently announced that the first of five
instruments that will fly on JPSS-1 is ready for installation,
I do remain concerned about the risks associated with the
likely gap in polar data and NOAA's plans to mitigate the
impact of the gap. I hope to gain a better understanding today
of the agency's efforts to implement a mitigation plan.
Additionally, as you know, off the West Coast lies the
Cascadia Subduction Zone when--unfortunately not if but when--
another earthquake occurs on this fault, it will trigger a
massive tsunami with potentially catastrophic results. I am
sure you can understand my concern and that of my constituents
with the proposed elimination of education and awareness grants
through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, grants
that are designed to help communicate threats to vulnerable
communities and assist in the development of response
strategies.
I would like to hear from you, Dr. Sullivan, about how NOAA
is working to increase resiliency in communities threatened by
tsunamis and I look forward to working with you as we develop
legislation to reauthorize the Tsunami Warning and Education
Act.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I
look forward to working with you and our colleagues to ensure
that NOAA has the resources it needs to fulfill its critical
mission to protect lives and property and to enable commerce
through science, service, and stewardship.
Dr. Sullivan, thank you again for being here and for your
service to the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you and I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment
Ranking Minority Member Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this morning's hearing to
examine the President's budget request for NOAA, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. I'd like to welcome back Dr. Sullivan
and congratulate her on being named one of Time Magazine's 100 most
influential people. (Those are some very nice words from Senator John
Glenn). As we find ourselves facing one of the biggest environmental
challenges of our time--climate change--we're in need of your national
leadership and advocacy on this issue and I thank you very much for
being here. I'm looking forward to today's discussion about NOAA's
priorities in the proposed budget.
NOAA is a critically important agency tasked with helping our
communities, economy, and ecosystems remain healthy and resilient in
the face of an ever-shifting environment. NOAA conducts state of the
art research to understand and predict changes in weather and climate,
as well as in the oceans and along our coasts. This science is used to
create products and services that inform decision-making by a diverse
set of stakeholders.
NOAA helps my constituents along the coast of Oregon decide when
it's safe to go out fishing; they aid my constituents in Yamhill County
as they grow the grapes that become Oregon's world-famous pinot noir;
and they assist people in Oregon, and across the country in planning
for, and responding to, extreme weather and climate events like heavy
precipitation, flooding, and the devastating storms impacting the south
and Midwest. And NOAA helps all of our constituents in similar ways.
I am pleased that the President's budget request recognizes the
importance of NOAA and gives the agency a prominent role in the
Administration's efforts to prepare the United States for the impacts
of climate change. The budget makes critical investments in NOAA's
observational infrastructure, which includes environmental satellites
that not only serve as the foundation for our weather forecasts, but
also provide critical information about the opening of the Arctic
Circle to maritime commerce and energy development.
The proposed budget also recognizes that the demand for climate
data and other information, especially at the regional level, is
growing. It seeks to address this need for regional information and
tools by expanding the National Integrated Drought Information System
(or NIDIS) to include, among other areas, the Pacific Northwest; by
improving our understanding of ocean acidification, which will help the
shellfish industry adapt and the fishing industry prepare; and by
operationalizing ecological forecasting of harmful algal blooms that
pose a threat to human health.
Overall, I am pleased with the President's budget request for NOAA,
but I do have some concerns that I would like to briefly mention.
Specifically, although the Joint Polar Satellite System or JPSS seems
to be on track--and in fact, it was recently announced that the first
of five instruments that will fly on JPSS-1 is ready for installation--
I remain concerned about the risk associated with a likely gap in polar
data and NOAA's plans to mitigate the impact of this gap. I hope to
gain a better understanding today of the agency's efforts to implement
a mitigation plan.
Additionally, as you know, off the coast of Oregon lies the
Cascadia Subduction Zone. When--unfortunately, not if--another
earthquake occurs on this fault, it will trigger a massive tsunami with
potentially catastrophic results. I am sure you can understand my
concern with the proposed elimination of education and awareness grants
through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, grants that are
designed to help communicate threats to vulnerable communities and
assist in the development of response strategies. I'd like to hear from
Dr. Sullivan about how NOAA is working to increase resiliency in
communities threatened by tsunamis, and I look forward to working with
you as we develop legislation to reauthorization the Tsunami Warning
and Education Act.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing and I look
forward to working with you and our colleagues to ensure that NOAA has
the resources it needs to fulfill its critical mission to protect lives
and property and to enable commerce through science, service, and
stewardship.
Dr. Sullivan, thank you again for being her today and for your
service to the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Ranking Member Bonamici.
Now, we would like to recognize Chairman Smith, the
Chairman of the Full Committee, for unlimited amount of time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Administrator Sullivan, for being with us here today. And let
me congratulate you on being named one of Time magazine's 100
most influential people of 2014.
Our Committee oversees NOAA's more than $5 billion budget.
NOAA is responsible for critical science activities related to
oceans, weather, and climate.
Today, we are here to discuss the President's Fiscal Year
2015 budget request for NOAA of $5.5 billion, a 3.3 percent
increase over 2014 levels. While I support many of these areas
of research and forecasting, other parts of the President's
budget request are harder to justify. For example, the
Administration's request substantially increases funding for
climate research and for some noncritical climate satellite
activities. But funding for the National Weather Service and
weather forecasting research is essentially flat.
Almost $190 million is requested for climate research, more
than twice the amount dedicated to weather research. There are
13 other agencies that are involved in climate change research,
and according to the Congressional Research Service, they have
spent $77 billion between 2008 and 2013.
Unfortunately, NOAA's models do not match up with observed
changes and have not predicted regional climate changes. And
NOAA's website, Climate.gov, includes non-peer reviewed
materials for children that in my view promote climate
alarmism. These misguided priorities are troubling. Instead of
hyping climate alarmism, NOAA should focus its efforts on other
areas such as improving weather forecasting.
America's leadership has slipped in severe weather
forecasting, and European weather models routinely predict
America's weather better than we can.
I am also concerned that NOAA's satellite division now
comprises over 40 percent of the total budget request for the
agency at over $2 billion. In 2008, the satellite budget came
in under $1 billion and was roughly 1/4 of NOAA's overall
spending. The budget for this office has ballooned dramatically
over the last decade. For instance, the Joint Polar Satellite
System program has been plagued with runaway costs and
mismanagement, which raises questions about future funding for
the project and its expected launch dates.
Even NOAA's own optimistic schedule would still leave us
with a gap for critical weather data in the middle part of this
decade. Meanwhile, the chronic cost overruns of NOAA's
satellites have forced significant reductions in funding for
important activities in areas such as oceans, fisheries, and
weather.
NOAA is a mission-oriented agency, and this Committee
supports these core priorities. We face fiscal constraints that
force us to make difficult choices about our science and
technology resources. Rather than devoting limited dollars to
duplicative and alarmist climate change activities, NOAA in my
view should focus on research and forecasting capabilities that
do in fact protect lives and property.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back, but on the way
to yielding back, let me apologize to the Administrator. I have
a Judiciary Committee markup that began 25 minutes ago I am
going to have to tend to and I hope to return in time to ask
questions. So I yield back. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Full Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Thank you Chairman Schweikert, and thank you Administrator Sullivan
for being with us here today. Let me congratulate you on being named
one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2014.
Our Committee oversees NOAA's more than five billion dollar budget.
NOAA is responsible for critical science activities related to oceans,
weather and climate.
Today we are here to discuss the President's FY15 budget request
for NOAA of $5.5 billion, a 3.3 percent increase over 2014 levels.
While I support many of these areas of research and forecasting, other
parts of the President's FY15 budget request are harder to justify.
For example, the Administration's request substantially increases
funding for climate research and for some non-critical climate
satellite activities. In comparison, funding for the National Weather
Service and weather forecasting research is essentially flat.
Almost $190 million is requested for climate research, more than
twice the amount dedicated to weather research. There are 13 other
agencies that are involved in climate change research, and according to
the Congressional Research Service, they have spent $77 billion between
2008 and 2013.
For example, in addition to NOAA, NASA, the Department of Energy,
and the National Science Foundation also carry out climate change
modeling.
Unfortunately, NOAA's models do not match up with observed changes
and have not predicted regional climate changes. And NOAA's website,
Climate.Gov, includes non-peer reviewed materials promoting climate
alarmism for children.
These misguided priorities are troubling. Instead of hyping climate
alarmism, NOAA should focus its efforts on other areas such as
improving weather forecasting.
America's leadership has slipped in severe weather forecasting.
European weather models routinely predict America's weather better than
we can.
I am also concerned that NOAA's satellite division now comprises
over 40 percent of the total budget request for the agency, at over $2
billion. In 2008, the satellite budget came in under a billion dollars
and was roughly one-quarter of NOAA's overall spending. The budget for
this office has ballooned dramatically over the last decade.
For instance, the Joint Polar Satellite System program has been
plagued with runaway costs and mismanagement, which raises questions
about future funding for the project and its expected launch dates.
Even NOAA's own optimistic schedule would still leave us with a gap
for critical weather data in the middle part of this decade.
Meanwhile the chronic cost over-runs of NOAA's satellites have
forced significant reductions in funding for important activities in
areas such as oceans, fisheries, and weather.
NOAA is a mission-oriented agency, and this Committee supports
these core priorities. We face fiscal constraints that force us to make
difficult choices about our science and technology resources.
Rather than devoting limited dollars to duplicative and alarmist
climate change activities, NOAA should focus on research and
forecasting capabilities that protect lives and property.
Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our witness today is Hon. Kathryn Sullivan, Undersecretary
of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. And I
want to make sure the Committee also congratulates you on
recently being confirmed as the Administrator for NOAA and also
being named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people
in 2014, which I think all of us have now mentioned. We all
wanted to make sure we got it in. There is no envy there at
all.
Previously, Dr. Sullivan served as Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Environmental Observation and Predictions, as well
as performing the duties of NOAA's Chief Scientist. She is a
distinguished scientist, renowned astronaut, and intrepid
explorer. We will later find out what that is. And, Dr.
Sullivan, you earned your doctorate in geology.
Dr. Sullivan, you have five minutes and I believe you know
the routine, yellow light, talk faster.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KATHRYN SULLIVAN,
UNDERSECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;
AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Bonamici, Members of the Committee.
First, before starting my testimony, I want to express my
condolences to all of those who were touched by the severe
weather that swept through many States over the past 4 days.
Our NOAA forecasters and staff are on the frontlines in such
events providing warnings and information to their neighbors--
your constituents--that help them avoid, cope with, and become
weather-ready in the face of this fearsome power of nature. I
am proud of the work they do.
In recent events, they gave stakeholders accurate outlooks
6 days in advance and timely warnings thanks to reliable
environmental intelligence our Storm Prediction Center in
Norman, Oklahoma, produces. We know there is still more that
can be done and I will need your help with that, as I have
detailed in my written statement.
I am here today to talk about the President's Fiscal Year
2015 proposal for the NOAA budget. I, like you, believe that
NOAA is one of the most important and valuable service agencies
in the United States Government. Our enterprise of observing
systems, forecasts, and assessments is designed to provide the
foresight and information people need to live safely and well
on this dynamic planet, and it works. In NOAA we call this
information ``environmental intelligence'' and producing it is
at the core of our mission.
The environmental intelligence and related decision support
services that NOAA provides are in higher demand today than
ever before. From forecasting short-term extreme weather events
to providing the data that help ensure safe navigation and the
smooth flow of commerce to sustaining and promoting
economically viable fisheries, this budget request makes
disciplined and targeted investments to sustain and advance
these critical missions.
For now, I would like to emphasize just three important
areas--investment areas of the budget. First, NOAA's global
observing systems are the indispensable foundation of our
Nation's environmental intelligence. This budget proposes
disciplined, targeted investments in that infrastructure. And I
would highlight for the moment NOAA's fleet of research
vessels. Without investments now, our fleet will shrink by 50
percent by 2028, which will severely degrade stock assessments,
nautical charting, buoy maintenance, and research. That is why
we request funding for a new multiuse ocean survey vessel that
can work in any ocean with greater data gathering capability
than current NOAA vessels.
Second, communities and businesses are demanding NOAA's
environmental information over many timescales to help them
protect assets and plan for the future. We must keep pace with
this demand. This budget invests in the data and information
services that promote community and economic resilience in
advance of and in the aftermath of severe events. In the Fiscal
Year 2015 budget, we propose targeted increases that will help
build capacity for response and resilience in the critical need
areas of coastal inundation and drought, ecological forecasting
of harmful algal blooms, and the understanding of potential
environmental impacts from increasing commerce in the Arctic.
Third, we must be able to attract and retain the best
talent to ensure that NOAA can effectively engage with our
partners and efficiently deliver environmental intelligence. To
do this, we must invest in our people and the administrative
services that support them. I am keenly focused on achieving
organizational excellence within NOAA. No business can succeed
if its essential support services fall behind the pace and the
demand of the outside world. But that is just what has begun to
happen at NOAA.
One point to illustrate, as of Fiscal Year 2012, NOAA has
one human resources representative serving 150 employees.
Looking at comparable agencies like NIST, the Coast Guard, and
NASA, NOAA is underfunded by almost 1/3. And our capacity is
some--only about--is 40 percent below that of the average U.S.
company, according to data recently published in the Wall
Street Journal. We must reverse this trend if the agency is to
function at the level that our citizens, the Congress, and our
customers and partners demand. I look forward to working with
the members of this committee and our partners and constituents
to achieve the goals we articulate through the implementation
of our Fiscal Year 2015 budget.
And I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Schweikert. I want to thank our witness. And reminding
all members that our rules limit us to 5 minutes, I am going to
give myself five minutes here.
And a couple of the questions I touched with you in regards
to the opening statement, let's sort of walk through them.
Explain to me and help me understand what has been referred to
as sort of the satellite coverage gap and what is being done to
mitigate that and what optionality do you have.
Dr. Sullivan. The prospect of the gap, Mr. Chairman, arises
from the recasting of satellite programs back in 2009 and
regaining a smooth production cadence, budget control, schedule
control, and cost control. We have those now well in hand on
the polar program.
When you look at the projected lifetimes of the current
assets in orbit and the time to deliver the new ones, the
statistical analyses with different assumptions say, gee, you
might not get there in time. So we are laser-focused on four
key things. We are managing the current on-orbit assets to
maximize the livelihood. We are going to stick the JPSS-1
launch date, and the past 18 to 20 months of schedule and
budget performance I believe indicate we are on the right track
to do that.
Chairman Schweikert. Now, Doctor, within that point what do
you think the gap will be?
Dr. Sullivan. Well, we can spend probably this whole
hearing block and many others, Mr. Schweikert, debating
statistical assumptions that would give you different analysis
of that.
Chairman Schweikert. Just your best guess.
Dr. Sullivan. I am not even focusing on what the best guess
is because it is all so fluid. Statistical analyses can be
slanted or come up with all sorts of answers. I am focusing on
manage the asset we have to protract its life and stick the
launch date.
In addition, we are focused on the mitigation plans that we
have discussed with this committee and other Members of the
Congress in the past year, and that is to understand what if
any additional data sources could be brought online as a hedge
against a gap, what improvements to our forecast enterprise
could we make to lessen the impact of a gap, should we have
one, and a whole plethora of other activities that we have
detailed in a prior testimony.
Chairman Schweikert. That pleases me to hear that within
your optionality, we will use that word again, you will also
look at what other sources might be out there, what other data
could be purchased or even short-term satellite coverage.
Dr. Sullivan. We are looking at that. Our criteria of
course would be viable, proven capability to deliver in the
time frame required.
Chairman Schweikert. Okay. Doctor, just because it is an
area of interest and being down to two minutes and 40 seconds,
I wanted to talk about what you believe the future of data
gathering is, particularly as you and I have already started to
discuss sort of the crowdsourcing of data and all the
instruments that we all now carry in our lives, whether it be
our cars, our handheld computers, those who have home weather
stations. What does that mean to you and what does it bring to
you?
Dr. Sullivan. That is a trend that is overtaking all of us
and we are watching very carefully. My own view is it is going
to play out on a number of different fronts. If you look at
during severe weather events, NOAA and other partners already
do crowdsource data. We get rain reports, snow reports, tornado
reports from people on the ground, through social media. The
delivery of a measurement directly from a cell phone into the
production weather model I think will take a longer time to
attain. There is work yet to be done to really be sure we
understand how to handle the various reliabilities, the various
precisions that that menagerie of instrumentation might have. I
think the progress in solution we may eventually make to that
will come through a combination of both government, academic,
and private sector efforts. And it is afoot right now. We are
watching it all around us and it is already affecting real-time
weather forecasting both for NOAA forecasters and for our
value-added partners in the broadcast and weather enterprise--
commercial weather enterprise.
Chairman Schweikert. Okay. Can you share with us and the
committee difficulties that are out there because of the IBM
sale and your access to large data crunching and management?
Dr. Sullivan. The potential sale by IBM of their Lenovo
unit is something that the Treasury Department is tracking
closely and I have to defer all questions about that particular
sale to them.
In terms of large data handling, we had challenges on a
couple of fronts. Our operational supercomputing that produces
the production runs every three hours is one that we are on
good track to come up to par with the Europeans on. We have--
our performance has lagged behind them on certain weather
events, certainly not on all weather events over the past few
years predominately because our operational supercomputer lags
behind theirs. So that one is catching up.
When it comes to--I am sorry. I just lost my train of
thought.
Chairman Schweikert. No, it is okay. I know some of this
you do not control and actually in many ways with my fixation
on crowdsourcing of access you may actually need substantially
more capability in your computer side.
I am holding an article that was written by a researcher I
believe in New York and I haven't had--I am sorry, University
of Washington. Forgive me. And it was only given to me as I was
literally walking in the meeting, but the author of this is
actually sort of claiming that we have moved sort of down to
fourth place in weather forecasting accuracy, data collection.
Any thoughts, any comments? Is it even something you have seen?
Dr. Sullivan. I haven't seen it so I wouldn't wish to
comment on it.
Chairman Schweikert. Okay. My very last question, I know I
am slightly over time. As an agency, you produce lots of
rigorous scientific data, proposals, mechanics. How do you do
sort of your peer-review on your methodology? Do you continue
with what you are doing sort of a very open access to
information? I am just sort of curious if that is something
that has hit your desk.
Dr. Sullivan. It hits my desk and is on my radar screen
very much because it goes to the heart of our commitment to
scientific integrity and proper methods for assuring that. In
the weather and the climate domain, which, by the way, are just
different timescales of the phenomena of this planet, we are
tightly interlaced with the best researchers globally, not just
in the United States. The development of models nowadays is
quite commonly--to use a loose term--a community playpen where
various models are rigorously tested and compared by everybody
looking----
Chairman Schweikert. I am not even sure you would say
loosely. My impression is it is all over the world now.
Dr. Sullivan. Oh, it definitely is all over the world and
it is a very robust, vibrant, challenging cross comparison of
models, of methods, of techniques.
Chairman Schweikert. Do you believe NOAA continues to sort
of adhere to that openness where it is a community of thought
that is vetted back-and-forth but accepts lots of inputs in,
you know, accepts and rejects, but is open to the debate?
Dr. Sullivan. I believe we are very open to the debate
around quality rigorous scientific data and findings and
judgments, absolutely.
Chairman Schweikert. And forgive me for asking the question
a bit ethereally.
All right. And with that, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr.
Sullivan, for being here.
I want to talk about disaster preparedness and the
importance of that and focus on the coastal environment where
there is such enormous and potentially grave consequences, so I
wanted to talk about two specific topics that you raised in
your testimony, ocean acidification. The ocean is becoming more
acidic as it absorbs excess carbon dioxide from the air, and
this change has the potential to, among other things, disrupt
aquatic food webs.
And in Oregon the shellfish industry has already seen the
harmful effects and I want to point out that even for
Representatives who don't represent coastal communities, their
constituents eat shellfish and restaurants need it and it is an
important industry. The fishermen really dread what they might
learn about damage to the food chain from ocean acidification.
The budget request proposes an increase of $8.9 million for the
ocean acidification program, so can you please discuss the need
for that program and especially how NOAA is translating its
research into practices and strategies that benefit the
industry?
Dr. Sullivan. Thank you for that question. This is really
one of the silent creeping hazards of our changing planet. NOAA
seeks to better understand the processes and causes behind
ocean acidification and in particular, as you point out, to
develop methods that can translate our understanding and our
monitoring of the natural environment into this thing I keep
calling environmental intelligence, actionable and action-
oriented timely information that, as you know from your State,
enables your constituents to manage the water intakes to their
shellfish farm and protect their brood stock. So that is very
much one of our key focal points in coastal resiliency
generally.
The Northwest Coast acidification is one of the principal
risks. The Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, harmful algal
blooms are also of concern. So how do we help coastal
communities? How do we help provide them the information that
beach managers, fishing managers, shellfish processors can
actually apply to keep their communities, their businesses,
their families safe?
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And also I wanted to talk about
the Tsunami Warming and Education Act, which we will likely be
considering and I am glad we are going to take that up.
For constituents up and down the coasts who grew up
memorizing tsunami evacuation routes, this can't come soon
enough. In that regard, I was concerned to see that the
President's budget includes a reduction to education and
awareness program grants under the National Tsunami Hazard
Mitigation Program. How does NOAA intend to ensure our regional
decision-makers are able to develop and execute effective
tsunami response plans without that grant program in place?
Dr. Sullivan. Well, first of all, let me thank you for your
support for the reauthorization of the Tsunami Warning and
Education Act. That is a valuable piece of legislation that we
do appreciate.
With respect to the Fiscal Year 2015 budget, I also want to
assure you that this in no way affects our principal
responsibility, which is to provide those warnings and alerts
that enable communities to take prompt action and get out of
harm's way in the case of the tsunami. It does not affect the
operability and the maintenance of the DART buoys, the key
monitoring systems on the seafloor that feed that, does not
affect our monitoring and collaboration with the U.S.
Geological Survey that can access their seismic monitoring. It
does not affect the ongoing relationships and education and
connections between our National Weather Service folks and
communities along the coast.
Regrettably, in the tight fiscal climate we are in where we
cannot--we don't have the means to advance all of the things we
would wish to advance, we had slowed--we proposed in this
budget to slow down to curtail the added grants that could
expand the education footprint, but we are not curtailing the
tsunami-ready community program that exists with existing
communities. So our core responsibilities aren't changed. The
rate--some rate of progress has slowed down.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I look forward to having the
conversation where we take up that legislation.
And on a related note, I often discuss the importance of
NOAA's research and outreach activities in the community, and
our constituents understand that NOAA is doing its best with
limited resources. But as you explained, there is unmet need.
But as you also acknowledge, there are fiscal challenges. So I
was pleased to see the budget request that proposed a three
percent increase, but I was also dismayed that the House
Appropriations Committee is proposing a one percent cut to the
budget. So considering the unmet need for your agency's work,
can you give the Committee a brief idea of what a one percent
funding cut compared to a three percent increase might mean for
the work that you do for our constituents?
Dr. Sullivan. It would take me more time that we have left
to enumerate all the different service needs, drought
information, water planning information, El Niino--refining the
El Niino forecasts so we can do a better job helping California
and the Western States know in advance if the drought will
break, when the pattern might shift, bringing our high-
performance computing up to par and keeping on the pace that we
are currently on, which will put us back on par with the
Europeans and anybody else and remove the bulk of whatever I
suspect underlies the ranking you have in that article.
Weather, climate, understanding the ocean, keeping pace and
understanding fish stocks so that our coastal fishing
communities have vital economies all across the front, there
already are unmet needs.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I am going to just ask will
you please focus on the importance of climate research to the
work that you do?
Dr. Sullivan. I would be delighted to focus on that. NOAA
exists to understand this planet and how it works and turn that
information into useful actionable information. That really
requires us to understand across all of the timescales that the
planet actually has. So in NOAA, weather is phenomena and the
ocean in the atmosphere up to about two weeks in length and
climate is assembling those same phenomena over longer
timescales. So our ability, for example, to help those water
managers that I was referring to in California or ranchers in
the Southwest, help them know what is their outlook for the
next season for drought, that comes from understanding how the
tropical Pacific climate system works on seasonal scales, that
thing called El Niino or scientifically the El Niino southern
oscillation, being able to give these six-day outlooks that we
gave to the South Central States in this most recent set of
severe storms, it doesn't come from focusing harder on weather;
it comes from having focused more richly on oceans and coupling
that understanding with our understanding of the atmosphere.
The range of information needs that American citizens and
business have--businesses have is across a huge range of
timescales. And if we aspire, as NOAA is chartered to do, to
respond to those demands, to those really urgent needs across
the whole range of scales, we have to be able to investigate
and study and understand the many different timescales that are
natural to this planet. To use a metaphor, we have to be able
to play the whole keyboard if we are going to play the symphony
that our communities are really asking us to play.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Sullivan.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to----
Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Chairman Schweikert. And, Vice Chairman, Mr. Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here, Dr. Sullivan. It is always a
privilege to get a chance to talk to you. I wanted to delve
into the Ocean and Atmospheric Research office, OAR, of course
the research arm of NOAA. And it looks like the budget request
suggests a request for an additional $31 million over last
year, is that correct?
Dr. Sullivan. I believe that is a correct figure.
Mr. Bridenstine. And about $31 million, the request--the
President's budget request has a climate research subprogram
increase of about $30.5 million. So the majority of OAR's
budget request, the majority of the increase, in fact the vast
majority, $30.5 million out of $31 million, is for climate
research, is that correct?
Dr. Sullivan. Yes, specifically for improving the drought
information products that we are providing to Western States. I
think about 11 of the States represented on this committee in
fact are in something between severe and extreme drought right
now. So again that label ``climate'' in the NOAA budget means a
certain thing. It means the information products that are
pertinent to those longer timescales.
Mr. Bridenstine. The National Weather Service in this
budget request under OAR is being cut by about $4 million, is
that correct?
Dr. Sullivan. I don't have that detailed figure just in
front of me.
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, I have it here and it is about $4
million.
Dr. Sullivan. Okay.
Mr. Bridenstine. The challenge is, and you are probably
aware we have had a number of deaths in Oklahoma and Arkansas
over the last few days, and as you can imagine, when the
priority of NOAA is to save lives and property, which is what
you have told us the priority is, and yet the research elements
are going to climate research as opposed to what we know we can
do, which is save lives and property today, we are doing this
in the State of Oklahoma, which is the State I represent.
At the University of Oklahoma, the National Severe Storms
Laboratory, we are able to prove that we can predict tornadoes
over an hour in advance now and not just predict but we can
warn people based on the forecast of a tornado over an hour in
advance, and yet still this week people have died with less
than a minute of lead time of warning and all the research
increases going toward climate change research and not toward
weather forecasting and warning, which is where we know we can
save lives and property. Would you address for the Committee
your commitment to saving lives and property and explain how
this budget request might do that?
Dr. Sullivan. Commitment to protecting lives and property
runs across the entire scale of phenomena that pose hazards to
the lives and property of Americans from the chronic conditions
of the drought that are devastating families and businesses
across California and the Southwest right now to the acute----
Mr. Bridenstine. Real quick, I am going to interrupt here
for a second, we have people that died this week that should
have had more lead time than 1 minute. Do you agree with that?
Dr. Sullivan. The statistics I have, sir, say that they had
20 to 29 minutes.
Mr. Bridenstine. There are people that did. There are
people that got less. And if we were able to move the
technologies in the direction where we could get over an hour
of lead time, guess what, the people would have more heads up
before the tornado hit their vehicle driving on the highway.
Dr. Sullivan. Mr. Bridenstine, I completely share your
desire to have greater lead time for people in Tornado Alley.
There are a number of things that we can and should do to
achieve that. One of them I would highlight for this committee
and that we have requested support for in this budget as well
is to help us put the Weather Service on a path where it can in
fact--it has the flexibility to evolve and change and move
forward more rapidly with technology changes and research
advances. So helping us evolve the National Weather Service
should be right up on top of that list if we want to really
improve the services that we are giving to our people, and we
certainly do.
Mr. Bridenstine. Roger that. I yield back.
Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
Ms. Edwards, 5 minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Dr. Sullivan, for being here, and thanks again for
reminding us of the important work that the researchers,
scientists, engineers, all of the staff at NOAA, all the work
that they do that keeps us all safe. Obviously all of us would
like to be safer and there has been no more stark reminder of
the need for NOAA than the experiences of the last week-and-a-
half to two weeks. And since everybody else did it,
congratulations again on the Time magazine designation. I want
to make sure that is across the board here.
I want to ask you about COSMIC-2. The budget request
includes an increase of $4.8 million for ground reception and
processing of COSMIC-2 satellite data provided by Taiwan and
the United States Air Force. My understanding is that these
data are not available from any other source. Can you just
describe the value of the data and the impact that would happen
for losing this capability?
Dr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mrs. Edwards. We are very much
committed to the COSMIC-2 project. Studies by the European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts that have looked at
the relative contribution to forecast accuracy and reliability
of different kinds of data have demonstrated the value of
COSMIC-2 data.
This is, as you know, radio occultation data collected
using GPS satellite signals. This is very high-quality data.
Its reliability is very high. It is valuable in its own right,
but interestingly, it actually also improves the value of the
more precise-sounding data from our workhorse instruments on
the polar satellites. NOAA, as you point out, proposes and
requests funding in this budget to install the ground system
that would let us process COSMIC-2 data, now will be designed
in a way that should there eventually ever be a decision made
and a viable provider to acquire radio occultation data in a
different manner could take those data as well.
So I would say two things. We are very supportive of
COSMIC-2. It is a tremendously cost-efficient way to go
forward. It is right now the only proven viable capability in
hand to attain radio occultation data in the 2016 time frame.
And to the Chairman's--whip it back to the Chairman's earlier
question about actions that might help us if we did have a gap
in the polar satellites, having COSMIC-2 on orbit providing
those data was highlighted in our independent report as one of
the most effective things we could do to lessen the damage,
lessen the degradation in forecasts----
Ms. Edwards. Right.
Dr. Sullivan. --that such a gap would create.
Ms. Edwards. Excellent. Thank you very much. And then I
want to go to the workforce a minute. NOAA is proposing a
reduction of $10 million in the elimination of the nine full-
time employees within the National Weather Service as part of a
consolidation effort of technology support and services in six
facilities.
And, you know, there was a recommendation in the 2014
budget that was essentially rejected by--the Senate was very
specific in the report language that the Committee did not
possess the evidence that the National Weather Service has its
workforce plan completely under control at this time, certainly
not enough to propose further reductions without NOAA
addressing why some positions remain unfilled or articulating
what the proper staffing level is for field offices. I tend to
agree with that sentiment expressed by Senate appropriators,
especially in light of the proposed $3 million increase to
support analysis of NWS workforce and infrastructure.
Also, I noticed that there is an increase of $12 million
for corporate services. I don't even know what that is so I
want you to--if you would, to explain that, but then
particularly explain how you are going to complete a timeline
for filling the vacant weather forecasting positions and why do
we need to eliminate 98 FTEs in the National Weather Service.
Dr. Sullivan. I am not sure I can do that in 48 seconds.
Ms. Edwards. Well, try.
Chairman Schweikert. We will give you 50.
Ms. Edwards. There you go.
Dr. Sullivan. No, you are a gentleman and a scholar, sir.
First, with respect to the information technology officers
in the capital is that, that proposal is not about the people.
The IPOs are valuable employees. It is about improving the
National Weather Service service delivery model and ensuring
that we are making best use of government resources. I have led
technology-based businesses before. So has my boss, Secretary
Pritzker. We both know that you are dead in the water if you
stop innovating and evolving and keeping pace with the world.
The fact is that our IT delivery model was developed in the
age before the internet and has been stagnant since then.
Regional IT service delivery is just plain out proven industry
and government best practice. Our current model is
unsophisticated, outdated, and is not keeping up with the pace
of technology change. National Academy of Public Administration
told us plain and simple that we need to provide more robust,
consistent nationwide services with regional teams, and
regional teams are a more appropriate way to do that. So that
is on the ITO.
We have backlogs of vacancies in many parts of NOAA due
largely to the unfortunate consequences of sequestration in the
extreme responses, the extreme consequences and actions that
that forced all agencies to take, NOAA included. One of them
that we were forced to obtain was an agency-wide hiring freeze,
which throttled us back to only the most critical hiring
positions for the better part of a year. I was delighted to be
able to lift that freeze at the end of January this year, but
we still have to work our way out of that backlog.
And that brings me slightly over the Chairman's time to
your third point, why an increase in corporate services? That
is the budget label for what I would call NOAA's back house
functions, administrative services, grants, contracts,
acquisition, and our human resources processing. So I am 1/3
the capacity of many sister agencies. I am 40 percent below the
capacity of the average United States company on the
fundamental capacity to make the cranks turn and perform the
core functions of this organization. That is why I need to
fortify my corporate services functions. That is what it will
take to ensure that we can work through hiring actions like the
ones we need to work through for the Weather Service and the
fishery service and the ocean service.
So it all does link together. It all is about letting this
organization move forward, achieve organizational excellence,
and be flexible and adaptable to keep pace with the times and
the urgently growing and changing needs of our public.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence.
Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
You know, we have found that contracting out can actually
save money for the government and thus we have more funds to
accomplish the missions of government if we let the private
sector get involved. And, for example, I mean SpaceX has saved
us already hundreds of millions of dollars by utilizing that
approach rather than just having the government have launches.
NOAA is not exempt from this rule. I mean that perhaps NOAA
could be saving some money by purchasing, for example,
satellite data to be used by NOAA and government users. And has
NOAA done some evaluation of that? And where do you stand in
terms of achieving the actual acquisition of private satellite
data that would help us determine and reach your goals?
Dr. Sullivan. It is a very important question, Mr.
Rohrabacher, and as I am sure you know, we do purchase data
from commercial vendors in a number of arenas, including the
weather arena right now. We are not opposed categorically to
commercial data from satellites, but I would make a few points.
One is because of the criticality, the daily everyday
criticality of the weather enterprise to the safety of this
Nation, we believe we need to adopt the mountain climbers' rule
with respect to making switches, and that is let go of the
current handhold only when you really have a firm grasp on the
next handhold. As you know, that is also--that mimics the
astronauts' rule of never let go of one tether until you have
got that other one attached.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Sullivan. Right now, there are no proven viable
commercial entities. And I talk about I mean people who can
show proof positive, not a really spiffy PowerPoint
presentation about their ability to deliver----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Have we provided any incentives for the
private sector to invest in this area?
Dr. Sullivan. I am not aware of any commercial incentives
that we have provided but we don't have the kind of budget
structures or accounts that would really let us do that. We
have clear policies, clear ground rules. The National Weather
Service has 16 long-standing criteria for data quality. We buy
instrumentation and data from vendors that can demonstrate that
they can meet those constraints.
I would add one other point, though. I think there is
another dimension that is very important for us to keep in mind
in this specific case. Your general point about public-private
interaction I take, but in this specific case, the United
States commercial weather enterprise is founded on the premise
that the foundational data that produce--that are the feedstock
for NOAA's forecasts are public good. The downstream economic
benefits garnered off of those data are very, very real and
quite considerable. There are over 300 private weather
companies today that use those data as feedstock. There is no
other weather enterprise on the planet that takes that model of
a private innovation platform in the data as a public good----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
Dr. Sullivan. --and produces the private sector value-added
economic activity on the downstream.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Um-hum.
Dr. Sullivan. I would urge before we rush to commercial
data sources just in particular to ease short-term funding
pressures that we--and I mean NOAA and this committee, other
relevant bodies of the Congress and stakeholders--that we
evaluate carefully and really think through the impacts, the
intended and the unintended impacts----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Um-hum.
Dr. Sullivan. --that might come from monetizing the data
stream, which I think might well constrict that rich innovation
we have in 300 private sector companies currently rather than
continuing to treat it as a public good.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is an interesting admonition and I
think that we should be working on that concept to see if we
can come up with a formula that meets the criteria that you
just mentioned.
Another area, then this goes back to some of the
fundamental differences that we have here on fundamental
issues, and Vice President Al Gore, former Vice President Al
Gore, recently said in an interview that extreme weather events
are 100 times more common today than they were 30 years ago due
to global warming and also stated that these events are getting
more frequent. Are extreme weather events 100 times more common
today than 30 years ago due to global warming and are they
getting to be more frequent? It seems that we have had other
people testifying and other experts suggesting that that is not
true.
Dr. Sullivan. I don't--Mr. Rohrabacher, I am not conversant
enough with those statistics off the top of my head to want to
attempt to give you detailed answers. I will certainly get back
to you on that. I do know that our best scientists within NOAA
are very cautious and leery about attributing specific extreme
weather events to climate change per se. There is----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Sullivan. --I have been referring to so many patterns
and so many timescales interacting to produce the phenomena
that we experience on Earth. The challenge of attribution is a
very difficult one.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. You know, I sat through Hurricane
Hazel back in 1956, and I lived in North Carolina; my father
was a Marine. We lived at Camp Lejeune.
Dr. Sullivan. Um-hum.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I remember that event very vividly and
I was surprised to find out that--am I correct that Hurricane
Hazel was actually more powerful than Hurricane Sandy, although
the actual damage that was caused was less because Sandy
happened to have come with a number of factors rather than just
the one weather factor?
Dr. Sullivan. Well, I will get back to you on the actual
recorded hurricane intensity of Hazel because you don't want me
saying how old I was at that time. But, you know, the damages
caused are certainly changing as a population density and the
built infrastructure in coastal zones changes over time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Sullivan. So----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much, and thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Schweikert. Thank you, Dana--or, Mr. Rohrabacher.
And we would never ask that but we are going to tease Dana
about 1956, so just plan on that.
And I want to thank Dr. Sullivan for her valuable testimony
and the members for their questions and comments. The members
of the committee may have additional questions for you and we
will provide those to you in writing. The record will remain
open for two weeks for those additional comments and questions
from the members.
And with that, the witness is excused and the hearing is
closed.
Dr. Sullivan. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Kathryn Sullivan
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted Statement of Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would first like to take this
opportunity to congratulate Dr. Sullivan. She has appeared
before our Committee several times, and I am pleased that the
Senate has confirmed her as Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I look forward to a
productive discussion of the Administration's FY15 budget
request for NOAA at today's hearing.
As we all know, NOAA's scientific research conducted in
support of weather forecasting, fishery management, and coastal
resiliency plays a critical role in enhancing our understanding
of the environment and ensuring a strong economy. Underpinning
many of these efforts are programs that focus on addressing the
challenges of climate change, such as rising sea levels,
changes in ocean chemistry and ecosystems, and more severe
weather. Cutting edge research conducted by the agency is
necessary to ensure our communities are prepared for the very
real challenges brought on by a changing climate.
In fact, many of my colleagues on this Committee come from
States which are now facing the impacts of our changing
climate. Droughts in Texas and California have put an
increased, and in some instances unparalleled, strain on local
and regional economies, and on the overall public health and
welfare of our citizens. Our coastal communities face pressing
challenges presented by rising sea-levels, to say nothing of
the enormous threat posed by more severe hurricanes.
Sadly, even this week, dozens of people have lost their
lives as a result of tornados in the Midwest and South, and
more than 75 million people were dealing with the threat of
severe weather in States like Alabama, Mississippi, and
Oklahoma.
One of the agencies the American people turn to is NOAA for
critical information before, during, and after these severe
events. Whether it is providing forecasts and warnings of
pending storms, working with state or local decision makers to
develop effective response strategies, or conducting research
that improves our understanding of severe weather to enhance
the resiliency of our communities, it is essential that we
maintain our commitment to the science done at NOAA.
Mr. Chairman, the list of industries, local agencies,
States, and Nations that take climate change seriously is
growing rapidly and without end. It is long past time that we--
in Congress--take it seriously too. I am happy to see that the
President's budget request for NOAA emphasizes the agency's
critical role in helping the United States act on climate
change. I look forward to discussing these efforts, as well as
the other important initiatives and programs that are contained
in NOAA's proposed budget. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I yield
back the balance of my time.
[all]