[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
March 16, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-67
__________
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 PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-837PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
STEVE KNIGHT, California PAUL TONKO, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY WEBER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan AMI BERA, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
GARY PALMER, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
March 16, 2016
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Witnesses:
The Honorable Kathryn Sullivan, Undersecretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Discussion....................................................... 38
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................ 60
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 171
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL
FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim
Bridenstine [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. The Subcommittee on Environment will
come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``An Overview of the
Budget Proposal for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration for Fiscal Year 2017.''
I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
I want to thank our witness, Dr. Sullivan, for appearing
today before us to talk about the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's fiscal year 2017 budget request.
As a Representative from Oklahoma, a state hit regularly
with severe weather, it is my responsibility to my constituents
to promote policies that improve our forecasting abilities in
order to save lives and property. My constituents, and the
American people, deserve nothing less.
So I want to say that I am encouraged to see that NOAA has
begun to utilize the growing opportunities that can bring a
paradigm shift to the weather prediction landscape. This year's
budget has a number of initiatives that I support.
First, the budget requests an increase to the Office of
Space Commerce. This office will be the place where private-
sector companies interact with NOAA through requests for
information, proposals, data buys, and other partnerships. A
properly staffed and funded office where the private sector can
engage with NOAA is a vital component in a changing forecasting
paradigm.
Second, I was pleased to see NOAA request funding to
continue the Commercial Weather Data Pilot Program authorized
by H.R. 1561, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation
Act. This pilot program is an important signal to the private
sector that NOAA is interested in new and innovative sources of
data. Yesterday, we received the statutorily required report
from NOAA detailing how the pilot program will be implemented,
and I look forward to discussing that more during my questions.
Third, I am encouraged to see NOAA incorporate a line item
for the purchase of radio occultation data as a potential
alternative to another constellation of COSMIC satellites. This
Committee has conducted several years of oversight on various
weather data sources and technologies, and we have found that
GPS-RO is a very promising technology that has the potential to
revolutionize our forecasts.
I do have some concerns. Before any private-sector
providers can engage with NOAA, it must lay out how these
processes will work. NOAA released its Commercial Space Policy
in January, a document laying out in very broad strokes how
NOAA will utilize data acquisitions and other products from
commercial companies. This policy was supposed to be quickly
followed by a more specific process guide from NESDIS. We
haven't seen that document yet.
Finally, the budget request language for radio occultation
data acquisition seems to call for the purchase of commercial
data only if NOAA fails to acquire data internally first,
meaning through the owning and operating of a government
satellite constellations. In budget language and staff
meetings, it does not appear that NOAA is fully considering all
the alternative sources. I disagree if this is the strategy.
Private providers have already launched some GPS-RO satellites,
and others have plans to launch this year and next. NOAA should
consider this option on an equal playing field, not only after
exhausting all other options. Private-sector companies could
improve our forecasting capabilities while also reducing the
risk of a gap in our satellite data, an issue that has loomed
over the agency for years.
In the absence of action from NOAA, the House of
Representatives continues to work with our Senate counterparts
to bring H.R. 1561 to the finish line. This is bipartisan
legislation which will statutorily compel NOAA to consider
commercial data to augment our currently fragile satellite
systems in orbit. This bill will also increase NOAA's ability
to conduct cutting-edge weather research needed to move to a
day where there are zero deaths from tornados in this country.
I look forward to discussing these issues and more today.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I yield back, and I recognize the
gentlewoman from Oregon, the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this afternoon's hearing, and welcome back, Dr.
Sullivan, and thank you for your service to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and to our country.
I'm looking forward to today's discussion about the
President's fiscal year 2017 budget request and NOAA's
priorities in the coming year.
NOAA is a critically important agency tasked 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 the climate, as well as in the oceans
and our coasts. This science is used to create products and
services that inform decision-making by a diverse set of
stakeholders, including emergency managers, farmers, pilots,
and utility operators. NOAA is an agency that has a direct
effect on the livelihood of all of our constituents.
In Oregon, NOAA helps coastal residents decide when it's
safe to go fishing and if the shellfish they are harvesting or
buying for dinner are free from harmful algal blooms. Their
work supports the wine industry in Yamhill County, for example,
as they grow grapes that become Oregon's world-famous pinot
noir. And NOAA assists people in Oregon, and across the
country, in planning for and responding to extreme weather
events and natural hazards like heavy precipitation, drought,
earthquakes, and tsunami.
Overall, I am pleased that the President's budget request
recognizes the importance of NOAA to the economic security of
our Nation. The budget request also recognizes that NOAA's
critical mission of science, service, and stewardship can only
be accomplished through a robust observational infrastructure.
I'm interested in learning more today about the agency's
progress in developing and launching the next generation of
environmental satellites, its efforts to recapitalize an aging
fleet of survey vessels, and NOAA's plans to speed the
transition of cutting edge-research into operational use.
Earlier this month, Oregon became the first state to enact
legislation that would eliminate the use of coal-fired power.
The law requires that Oregon accomplish this goal by 2035 and
that the State double it renewable energy production by 2040.
Oregonians know that climate change is the biggest
environmental challenge of our time and they want to lead the
way as the Nation and world starts to shift to cleaner energy
sources.
So I am especially pleased that the proposed budget
recognizes the growing demand for climate data, especially at
the regional level. The budget seeks to address this need for
regional information and tools by expanding the Regional
Integrated Sciences and Assessments program into an additional
region and by serving--region and by serving new communities in
regions where the program already exists.
The proposed budget also seeks to improve our understanding
of ocean acidification and the effect ocean health and climate
variability can have specifically on fish stocks, but also on
our economy at large. Many people fish for a living in Oregon,
Washington, and other coastal communities, and this is
something that's causing serious concern. In fact, regional
fishery managers are considering a closure of Oregon and
Washington ocean salmon fisheries north of Cape Falcon. The
warming of the ocean has been devastating for salmon runs. The
predictions for coho returns this year is half of last year's
forecast.
This is a problem for our ocean economy. According to the
World Bank, more than 350 million jobs globally are tied
directly to our oceans. Fisheries alone represent $108 billion
a year in trade. In the United States, 58 percent of the
Nation's GDP, or $8.3 trillion is generated by the counties
that are adjacent to our oceans and our Great Lakes.
Although I am generally pleased with the President's budget
request for NOAA, I will mention a specific concern. The
Cascadia Subduction Zone sits off the coast of Oregon and off
the northwest coast. It is not a matter of if but a matter of
when another earthquake occurs, triggering a massive tsunami
with potentially catastrophic results.
A researcher from Oregon State University, Dr. Chris
Goldfinger, said ``The gap between what we know and what we
should do about it is getting bigger and bigger, and the action
really needs to turn to responding. Otherwise, we're going to
be hammered.''
Therefore, I trust you will understand my concern with the
proposed reduction of the education and awareness grants
through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. These
grants are designed to help communicate threats to vulnerable
communities and assist in the development of response
strategies. We should not and we cannot neglect this critical
last step.
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 missions of
protecting life and property, and to getting some important
legislation like the reauthorization of the Tsunami Warning,
Education, and Research Act and the Weather Research and
Forecasting Innovation Act signed into law.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the Ranking Member
from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for her opening statement, and
recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith.
And before doing so, I'd like to note that everybody on the
Republican side other than me is from Texas. I think this
Committee is not sufficiently balanced appropriately for a guy
from Oklahoma.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, we will get you an application
when this is over.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are here to discuss the President's fiscal year 2017
budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. This year, NOAA's request comes in at $5.8
billion.
While I support elements of NOAA's budget, other parts of
the President's budget request cannot be justified. For
example, the Administration's request continues to increase
funding for climate research at the expense of other important
areas of research. This administration continues to prioritize
climate funding over weather research. The President's budget
requests $190 million for climate research while only $100
million is dedicated to weather research. NOAA should fully
fund weather research as authorized in the House-passed
bipartisan Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. It
is NOAA's job to monitor the climate and disseminate data to
the public.
But under this administration, this usually takes the form
of monthly news releases that that fail to include all relevant
data sources. For example, the agency often ignores satellite
measurements, which are considered by many to be the most
objective. NOAA and NASA both claimed, for example, that 2014
was the hottest year on record. However, scientists at NASA
concluded that they were only 38 percent certain that 2014 was
in fact the hottest on record. NASA buried this statistic in a
footnote to their report.
Similarly, in 2015, NOAA and NASA's joint news release for
the temperature of 2015 did not mention satellite data.
However, a prominent satellite data set from the University of
Alabama at Huntsville showed that 2015 was only the third
warmest year on record and another widely used satellite
dataset showed that 2015 was only the fourth warmest on record,
contrary to NOAA's claims. The truth is that neither 2014 nor
2015 were the hottest year on record. Satellite data, which
NOAA had access to, clearly refutes NOAA's claims.
Likewise, a recent report presented at the American
Geophysical Union and coauthored by the Texas and Alabama state
climatologists has called into question the placement and
quality of many ground stations across the United States. The
report concluded that this may have resulted in inaccurate
temperature readings used by NOAA. Instead of hyping a climate
change agenda, NOAA should focus its efforts on producing sound
science and improving methods of data collection.
NOAA should prioritize areas of research that significantly
impact Americans today, such as ways to improve weather
forecasting. Unfortunately, climate alarmism often takes
priority at NOAA. This was demonstrated by the agency's
decision to prematurely publish the 2015 study that attempted
to make the two-decade halt in global warming disappear. The
study, led by NOAA meteorologist Mr. Thomas Karl, used
controversial new methods to readjust historical temperature
data upward. The goal was clear from the start: remove a
weakness in the administration's climate change agenda.
This Committee began an investigation last July to examine
NOAA's use of data in this study as well as their role in
carrying out the administration's extreme climate agenda. The
Committee heard from whistleblowers that the study was rushed
into publication and that internal debate was stifled before
moving forward. Even more suspicious was the timing of this
study. It was published just as the administration was about to
propose its final Clean Power Plan regulation at the United
Nations' Paris Climate Change Conference. This controversial
study appears to serve only one purpose: to promote the
Administration's drastic and costly regulations.
Well-respected scientists have recently rebutted NOAA's
claims. A new peer-reviewed study, published in the journal
Nature, confirms the halt in global warming. According to one
of the study's lead authors, it ``essentially refutes'' NOAA's
study. The media were quick to cover NOAA's study last year, by
the way, but the many respected scientists who refuted NOAA's
claims were ignored by much of the national media, including
the very same outlets that had previously reported that there
never was a halt in global warming.
To date, NOAA has failed to comply with a lawfully issued
subpoena. Instead of devoting time and resources to misinform
the public, NOAA should give the Committee answers to our valid
questions. NOAA should adhere to the scientific standards of
being objective, independent of political considerations,
timely, and having findings based on all available sources of
information. Instead, NOAA ignores legitimate sources of
objective information, such as satellite data, in order to
promote the administration's biased climate change agenda.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the Chairman of the
full Committee, Mr. Smith, for his opening comments.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee,
Ms. Johnson, for a statement.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'd
like to welcome Dr. Sullivan to the Committee, and thank you
for being here today to testify.
As many of us know, NOAA's research and services play a
critical role in weather forecasting, enhancing our
understanding of the environment, and, ultimately in helping
ensure that the United States' economy remains strong. A key
aspect of those efforts is to work with NOAA does--is the work
that NOAA does to help us understand and address the potential
impacts associated with climate change. Rising temperatures and
sea levels, and changes in ocean chemistry and ecosystems pose
a real threat to public health, the management of our fisheries
and coasts, and the overall resiliency of our communities to
extreme weather changes and events. NOAA's programs and
activities and the tools and information they provide are
central to our ability to understand, adapt to, and mitigate
the impacts of a changing climate.
The proposed budget request contains a number of programs
and activities that will expand NOAA's capabilities and
increase the resiliency of communities, but I'd like to comment
on one new initiative that I find especially promising. NOAA is
proposing to develop and operate the Nation's first integrated
water prediction capability, meaning that NOAA wants to develop
the ability to deliver street-level water forecasts to more
than 100 million Americans. This level of detail and coverage
could significantly improve our capacity to prepare for and
respond to floods, droughts, and water-quality hazards.
Unfortunately, those of us from Texas have seen our fair
share of both flooding and droughts over the last few years and
I'm certain that our local emergency managers and decision
makers would have welcomed this capability.
Overall, I am happy to see that the President's budget
request for NOAA emphasizes the agency's critical roles in
improving weather forecasts and 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.
Before I yield back, I'd like to address the Majority's
ongoing investigation of NOAA's climate scientists. It is clear
to me that this investigation is unfounded and that it is being
driven by ideology and other agendas. The Majority has
asserted, without offering any credible evidence, that NOAA and
the climate science community, at large, are part of some grand
conspiracy to falsify data in support of the significant role
humans play in climate change. However, the overwhelming body
of scientific evidence, across many different fields, has shown
that this is not the case. There may be an ongoing scientific
debate about the rate of warming over the last 15 years, but
that does not change the basic facts according to science: the
world is warming, the warming is caused mostly by humans, and
there are significant risks associated with this warming.
I hope my friends and colleagues on the other side of the
aisle can move past this effort to create scientific
controversy where it does not exist and instead focus on
finding solutions to addressing the threat of climate change.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the Ranking Member
for her opening statement.
Our witness today is the Honorable Kathryn Sullivan,
Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the U.S. Department
of Commerce, and Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Previously, Dr. Sullivan served as Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction, as well
as performing the duties of NOAA's Chief Scientist. She is a
distinguished scientist, renowned astronaut, and intrepid
explorer. Dr. Sullivan earned her doctorate in geology from
Dalhousie University.
I now recognize Administrator Sullivan for five minutes to
present her testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. KATHRYN SULLIVAN,
UNDERSECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking
Member Bonamici, and members of the Subcommittee. I'm very
pleased to be here today to discuss the President's fiscal year
2017 budget proposal for NOAA.
NOAA is one of the most valuable service agencies in the
government. Americans rely upon our information and services
every day, looking to our observations, forecasts and
assessments for the foresight and the reliable information they
need to live well and safely in this dynamic planet. The severe
storms and flooding in the South over this past week remind us
all just how vital these services are.
Our 2017 budget request of $5.9 billion builds on the
foundation established with the support of Congress to put this
critical information into the hands of the public. Each of the
proposed increases is a carefully chosen, targeted investment
designed to meet the growing demand for services. In my remarks
today, I'll highlight just a few points.
First, this budget invests in the observational
infrastructure needed to protect public safety and welfare. To
produce the weather forecasts our citizens, military and the
economy rely upon, we must ensure continuity of our satellite
operations. The successful launches of DSCOVR and Jason-3 and
the upcoming launches of GOES-R and JPSS-1 are major milestones
in this regard. We appreciate Congress's support for the Polar
Follow On program last year, and now request $393 million for
PFO and next-gen technologies that set the stage for improved
forecasts in the decades to come. We must also invest in the
fleet of ships that provide critical ocean-observing
capabilities. Without timely investment, our fleet will decline
by 50 percent by 2028. We appreciate that $80 million Congress
provided in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus to begin
recapitalization, and here request $24 million to complete
design and construction of a regional survey vessel.
Second, this budget focuses on community resilience. 2015
saw ten United States weather and climate disaster events with
losses of each one exceeding a billion dollars. Recognizing
this enormous impact, the budget invests in the services and
information the communities need to assess their risks and
minimize losses ahead of, during, and after such extreme
events. And water is at the heart of many environmental
threats. There's either too much or too little, it's in the
wrong place, or it's of poor quality. NOAA is uniquely
positioned to bring both new research insights and the
operational predictions the Nation needs to address the water
challenges ahead.
This budget includes $12.25 million to establish the
Integrated Water Prediction initiative, the heart of which is
an enhanced river flood forecast system that will increase the
number of prediction points nationally 700 times from about
4,000 to nearly 2.7 million, making it possible for us to give
street-level forecasts to 100 million Americans that lack them
today.
Third, this budget makes investments that ensure our
National Weather Services is second to none. Weather and
climate impact approximately a third of the Nation's economy.
They can cost billions of dollars and claim hundreds of lives
per year. We remain firm in our commitment to build a weather-
ready Nation and provide citizens with timely, accurate and
well-communicated forecasts.
Our budget request includes funding to extend the operating
life of two critical ground observing systems: the NEXRAD
radar, which support about 85 percent of all tornado warnings,
and ASOS, which is vital to aviation across the country.
Extending the life of these critical systems for a fraction of
the original cost is a wise investment.
Finally, the budget aims to improve the operational core of
this agency. To meet these national needs and give our
customers the best service possible, we must have an adequate
mission support infrastructure. I believe instead we are near a
critical breaking point. For example, funding for our HR
services has declined steadily since 2008 but the workload has
risen. A result is a backlog of 1,800 vacancies, and the level
of churn in our human resources workforce is twice that of
other agencies. We must act now, and this budget requests $4.4
million to address the most severe mission-support weaknesses.
Finally, transforming the R&D of our world-class scientists
into tangible benefits for the country currently takes far too
long. To speed this up, we've developed a Research Transition
Acceleration program based on proven methods and best practices
from NASA, the Defense Department, and the private sector, and
propose to fund it at $10 million.
In sum, NOAA's fiscal year 2017 budget reflects our
commitment to growing a strong economy that is built to last
while being fiscally responsible and focusing on priority
initiatives.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank Administrator
Sullivan for her opening statement.
I remind members that the rules limit us to five minutes
each for our questioning, and I'd like to recognize myself for
five minutes.
Administrator Sullivan, in December before this Committee,
the head of your satellite office, Dr. Volz, testified that a
more detailed process guide for how commercial companies will
partner with your agency would be produced following the final
Commercial Space Policy. When I asked for a date, he testified
that it would be released in January or February, and of
course, now we're past that date. He recently told my staff
that the document was off his desk and now ``in process.'' I
was just wondering if you might know where that document is
now. If it's within NOAA, maybe it's elsewhere in the
administration. If you could share any information you have on
that?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
It is in final review within NOAA is my understanding. That
was our original target of the January date, and we share your
eagerness to have it out. Our goal with both the the policy and
the process is to provide the private sector with both the
policy clarity and stability that they seek as well as the more
detailed steps they need to follow and the next beyond that
will be specific technical details for different measurement
sets.
Chairman Bridenstine. And would you maybe at this hearing
provide us a date for when we might be able to get that?
Ms. Sullivan. I don't have a date certain at my fingertips,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay.
Ms. Sullivan. But I'll be happy to update my inquiry as
soon as the hearing is over and get back to your staff.
Chairman Bridenstine. That would be great if you could do
that. Thank you.
I'd like some clarification about the process by which NOAA
will look to the private sector for radio occultation data. I'm
encouraged to see the inclusion of private-sector data options,
but I am hopeful that NOAA does not see this only as a
secondary option. Can you share with us how you see this
process working as far as integrating commercial data into the
data assimilation systems?
Ms. Sullivan. We see it as a very promising prospect and
are moving accordingly to have the opportunity and the ability
to test and evaluate it. It is a nascent proposition that the
private sector can indeed provide such data so the process and
the procedures we're laying out here will give us the
opportunity under the pilot programs to do the testing and
evaluating that can confirm whether in fact the data quality
and reliability meet the standards required to sustain the
accuracy and reliability of our forecasts.
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. I've just got a few minutes
here. Hopefully we can do a second round of questions.
Contrary to what we have heard from numerous NOAA officials
that have testified before this Committee, I've heard from
countless weather and data experts that World Meteorological
Organization Resolution 40, WMO 40, does not require the
release of all data to the world. In fact, it lists out
specific types and in some cases amounts of data that is open
for sharing. I do believe weather is a public good, and I
understand the advantages the United States gets from our
partnerships with other countries. However, there is a
burgeoning weather satellite industry sitting on the sidelines
because they are concerned that if they sell data to NOAA, you
will turn around and give it away for free, which completely
destroys the marketplace before it begins.
I am not advocating for getting rid of WMO 40. I want to be
clear about that. All I am asking is for us to actually abide
by it. Will you commit to me that we can work together to craft
rules for the treatment of weather data acquired from
commercial space systems that does not undercut the emergence
of a market while still maintaining that our government keeps
its commitments to WMO 40?
Ms. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, we have been working closely
with your staff over the months that this issue has been
evolving. I promise you, we will continue to do that, and let
me assure you, we're also working very closely with the WMO
itself. I was just over in Geneva last week--the calendar's a
bit of a blur--and met directly with the new Secretary General.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you for that.
I'll yield my time, or I'll yield my time back to myself, I
guess, and recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I just
want to follow up on the Chairman's comments.
I hope that we can continue to work together on the Weather
Research and Forecasting Innovation Act and find a way to get
that through collaboratively, so I appreciate your willingness,
Dr. Sullivan, to keep working on that.
We know that the ocean is becoming more acidic as it takes
up excess carbon dioxide from the air. On the West Coast, it's
been especially difficult for shellfish larvae, and oysters and
clams are vulnerable as well. The budget request proposes an
increase of $11.7 million for NOAA's Ocean Acidification
program. I support this increase. I'm leading a letter asking
the Appropriations Committee to fulfill it.
Can you please explain the need for this program and its
potential benefits, and also how NOAA is translating its ocean
acidification research into practices and strategies that
benefit the industry? And I do want to save time for another
couple questions.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much for the
question. We have heard loud and clear from constituents around
all the coasts, and I would highlight in particular your state
and Washington, about the need to expand monitoring for the
water conditions for ocean acidification conditions. There is
also still a considerable amount of research that needs to be
done to understand the ocean graphic processes and clarify and
better understand the mechanisms by which changing ocean
acidification may affect shellfish and finfish and other
species of key interest.
To your question about translating it to practical benefit,
the increased monitoring and research would allow us to
continue and deepen our work hand in glove with the shellfish
industry, in your state, for example, to make sure that we can
give them the monitoring and early warning technologies that
let them take actions on the farms to protect their larvae.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you.
It needs to be repeated that it isn't just the coastal
communities that are affected because people across the country
buy and eat shellfish that are affected.
There's also been over the last couple of years a
significant number of harmful algal bloom outbreaks at the
Great Lakes and coastal communities, for example. Now, I was
pleased to work with Representative Posey to secure passage of
the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control
Amendments Act in 2014. Now, NOAA is currently requesting an
additional $4 million to continue to develop and operationalize
forecasts of harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and other
pathogens. How will this improved forecasting increase economic
security?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you also for that question. We have
developed through our labs the capabilities now to combine
satellite measurements and in situ measurements in calculations
that give communities such as the Great Lakes and the Gulf
Coast in particular days of warning about when you're going to
have a bloom that is of a toxic species and that will reach a
concentration that could jeopardize municipal water supplies or
fish and shellfish or beachgoers. The time has come. Those
techniques are mature enough now to be sure that we can extend
them to other coastal regions because we are now seeing
increasing frequencies of blooms across all of the United
States coasts.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And finally, in your testimony you
mentioned that NOAA's mission support services are at a
critical breaking point. There's one human resources
professional for every 148 employees, and that is--peer
agencies have nearly three times as much HR staff. You
mentioned that this has impaired the agency's ability to fill
the 1,800 empty positions. Can you explain how NOAA has sought
to address these hiring shortages and what you need to ensure
that our National Marine Fishery Service, our Weather Service,
and other NOAA entities have the employees and the employee
support services they need to serve the American people?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes. It's a critical point, and the vacancies
are concentrated in the National Weather Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. We have looked to separate
the high-touch functions where we really need people talking
directly to our scientists and managers from the more
mechanical things that facetiously, let me say typing up forms,
and wherever possible outsource that mechanical processing to
other parties so that our team can work on the front end of
things.
We've engaged OPM, we've engaged the Small Business, and in
parallel with those actions, because they've not been
sufficient to begin to reduce the backlog, we've been working
with the Department of Commercial on the development of a more
robust shared services model that promises tremendous
improvement going forward provided we can make the transition
to that model.
The funding that we request for NOAA in this budget is
really essential to continuing the contract services we have
now in place and beginning that transition to the broader
shared services model. It is our one pathway that offers the
potential to get past this hurdle and back to where we have the
full complement of expertise needed to do our mission.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I know and appreciate, as I'm
sure my colleagues do, the importance of having dollars in the
field and in the research. However, that being said, for you to
be able to do the work that you need, you must have those
support services. So I look forward to working with you on
that, and I'm out of time and yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the Ranking Member,
and I recognize the chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith,
for five minutes.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Sullivan,
thank you for being with us today.
My first question goes to RICO, and it is this. Have you or
anyone you know been a part of any discussions about using the
RICO statutes against anyone who might question some aspects of
climate change?
Ms. Sullivan. I have been part of no such conversations,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Okay. The Attorney General testified before
the Senate last week that she had in fact been part of such
discussions and had referred it to the FBI but she did not
consult with you nor has anyone at this point?
Ms. Sullivan. I have been part of no such conversations.
Chairman Smith. Okay. That's reassuring to hear because I
happen to believe that you shouldn't be prosecuted for
disagreeing about climate change.
My next question is this. You're familiar with NOAA's
study, sometimes called the Karl study, that found that--or
allegedly found that there had been an increase in global
warming over the last 18 years. That study was refused by some
well-respected scientists in an article that appeared in the
publication Nature. I assume you've read the Nature article?
Ms. Sullivan. I'm familiar with that paper.
Chairman Smith. Do you still stand by the Karl study's
conclusions or do you now recognize that those conclusions
might have been weak and agree with the Nature scientists?
Ms. Sullivan. I welcome the debate in the scientific
literature that the full publication of the data and
information in the Karl paper has enabled. That is precisely
what the scientific process------
Chairman Smith. Right, but both can't be------
Ms. Sullivan. --designed to do.
Chairman Smith. Both can't be correct. Do you feel that the
NOAA study is still correct or do you think the Nature article
is correct?
Ms. Sullivan. If I recall correctly from the Nature paper,
the authors of that study themselves say that the Karl study is
a valuable scientific contribution.
Chairman Smith. That wasn't my question. My question goes
to the 18-year halt in global warming. The NOAA study said that
there had been an increase in warming during that period. The
Nature article said there had not been. With which do you
agree?
Ms. Sullivan. If I recall the original IPCC report from
years ago that first used the word ``hiatus,'' that study also
said that that did not contradict the fact that the linear
trend of temperature continued------
Chairman Smith. Again, I'm not talking about the linear
trend. I'm taking about the 18 years. Do you agree that there
was global warming or do you not agree that there was global
warming?
Ms. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, I don't study the kinks and
bumps in temperature curves at that level of detail and------
Chairman Smith. The 18 years is important because a lot of
studies said that there was no increase in global warming. You
were one of the few that said there was. Again, I'll ask you
the same question. Do you agree with the NOAA Karl study or do
you agree with the Nature scientists?
Ms. Sullivan. I stand by the quality and integrity of the
scientific analysis that was published for all to challenge,
confirm or verify in the Karl study, and I would be interested
to follow the scientific debate as it goes forward.
Chairman Smith. Okay. So you still say that the Karl study
was accurate and you disagree with the nature scientists?
Ms. Sullivan. I stand by the integrity and quality of the
Karl study.
Chairman Smith. Okay. I wasn't asking you about the
integrity and quality. I assume that by that, though, you meant
their conclusions as well?
Ms. Sullivan. I believe they did a valid job of analyzing
new data sets. They proffered analysis------
Chairman Smith. Then that does answer my question. If you
consider their conclusions to be valid, you agree with them;
you disagree with the Nature scientists. If you want to be in
the minority, that's fine. I just wanted to see what you felt
on the record.
My next question is this. To my knowledge, NOAA has not
fully complied with our subpoena dated February 22nd. We did
get some production two days ago but it was not the full
comprehensive production that we requested. Do you intend to
comply with our subpoena?
Ms. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, my staff continues to work on
the details of these matters with your staff on an almost daily
basis, and I assure you, we will continue to move forward on
the path that they have agreed to make sure that we satisfy
your needs.
Chairman Smith. And so you do intend to comply in a timely
manner?
Ms. Sullivan. We fully respect the Committee's oversight
responsibilities and have been working diligently since your
very first letter to do precisely that.
Chairman Smith. And so is it fair for me to say that you do
intend to comply with the subpoena?
Ms. Sullivan. We intend to continue working with your team
to fulfill the requests that you've expressed.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you for that, and yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. The Chairman yields back.
I recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, Ms.
Johnson, for five minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Sullivan, as you know, the various regions of the
Nation including my own have been plagued with flooding and
drought over the last several years. Therefore, I was pleased
to see that the budget request included $12.2 million for a new
water prediction initiative. As I understand it, NOAA plans to
build up and leverage interagency efforts at the National Water
Center in Alabama to create new and improved water predictions,
forecasts, and warnings that will help local communities
respond to and prepare for floods and droughts. Can you please
provide me with a little bit more detail to this initiative?
Specifically, how will the capabilities provided by this
proposed initiative be different than the current service NOAA
provides?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman,
and maybe the simplest way for me to make that clear--I said
some statistics in my commentary and my testimony about times
700 of the number of points and a hundred million Americans,
but, you know, a picture is often worth 10,000 words, and this
is a map that shows the numbers of points that we currently put
forecasts out for across the United States, those red
triangles. That's the 4,000 points. Many of them are miles away
from a downtown. They're on some run of a stream. The new model
capability that we propose to launch provided we receive the
fiscal year 2017 request turns that 2.7 million points. Well,
what does that look like? It looks like that. It turns the map
blue. It is almost contiguous coverage like dropping a net, a
mesh over the country, and this means that in, you know,
communities such as the ones in your area that were hit so bad
just recently, the information about what will the water level
be won't be a mile or two upstream or some main branch
tributary comes in, it'll be in the neighborhood. It'll be
right here where it matters to you.
We have heard vividly from emergency managers across the
country how powerfully important this would be to them in terms
of their ability to better protect their citizens.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
As you know, the Majority has been investigating the peer-
reviewed climate research paper published by NOAA's scientists
in the magazine Science last year, and I understand that the
paper adds to the scientific body of work examining the concept
of a slowdown or hiatus in the rate of global warming over the
last 15 years or so.
The Majority has alleged that the publication of the
research paper was in some way rushed and that NOAA did not
adhere to the Data Quality Act or the agency's scientific
integrity process. I know that you have commented some but I'd
like to also note that a separate scientific paper that
included climate scientist Michael Mann published last month
found that this hiatus was real but was temporarily masked by
natural factors. Dr. Mann in a story about the paper stated the
temporary slowdown in no way implies that human-caused warming
has ceased or slowed down.
I point this out to show that it is part of the scientific
process. Different scientists examine different parts of
similar issues and rarely come to identical conclusions. This
does not mean that scientists or others were involved in some
grand conspiracy or for political reasons as the Majority
believes.
With that in mind, Dr. Sullivan, can you please describe
the agency's scientific integrity process, and can you please
respond to the allegations which I think you just heard
recently just now.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you. NOAA has a very strong and
rigorous scientific integrity process that is very widely
admired called by many a gold standard. We uphold it very
strongly, very firmly, myself, my Chief Scientist, our research
council, and it insists upon integrity and independence of
science throughout the agency. It includes clear protections to
prevent political interference, and in this matter,
Congresswoman, let me assure you there has been no political
interference.
I had nothing to do with the timing of the report so I
can't speak in detail to that. The final timing of the
appearance of any publication is of course at the discretion of
the publication itself. I do know in this instance the journal
Science is one of the most highly respected journals globally,
renowned for a very rigorous peer-review process, and
recognizing the interest in this matter, in fact, scrubbed this
paper with extra diligence, but at the end, when a paper comes
out is dependent on the journal.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. I now recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Neugebauer.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Sullivan, thank you. Could you hold up that
last map that you had a while ago? Yeah. And so--and you're
trying to turn the map blue. Is that right? Or are you trying
to------
Ms. Sullivan. The blue color on this side shows the new
density of points compared to just the red triangles.
Mr. Neugebauer. Okay. Because I like maps that we try to
turn red, so in the future if you want to------
Ms. Sullivan. You're asking that I reverse those colors?
Mr. Neugebauer. Would you reverse the colors for me? Thank
you.
Thank you for being here. One of the things since I've been
on this Committee, and I had brown hair, I think, when I first
got on this Committee, but you know, the satellite program
has--you know, it's had its problems: cost overruns, you know,
delays in getting those satellites flying. And you know, it's
consuming a fairly substantial portion of the budget, and
you've asked for increases over the years. Can you--and I want
to associate myself with Chairman Bridenstine in that I think
it's to our benefit, the taxpayers' benefit, especially with
the fact that the private sector has, you know, really enhanced
since I've been on this Committee their participation in space
and now we're using, you know, private companies to launch, I
think, to take supplies to the station and so forth. What's
your vision about the future? Sometimes, you know, we have--
quite honestly, the agencies are resistant to, you know,
bringing the private sector into that turf. NASA wasn't--hasn't
been overly excited, as you know, in the past about, you know,
transitioning some of the programs to the private sector.
But to me, it makes a whole lot of sense because one of
things that the private sector has the opportunity to do is get
some cost recovery, you know, from commercial opportunities
with the data that they receive from the satellites. So could
you kind of give me your Administrator Sullivan position on
that?
Ms. Sullivan. We are quite intrigued. I mean, we watch the
space sector evolve, as anybody does that's dependent on space-
related data. In the weather domain, we believe it is a
promising but still quite nascent prospect to actually have
data flows from private-sector satellites. There have been a
number of claims there is some hardware in orbit from at least
one company that I'm aware of, but really nothing proven to the
level that we require for ingesting something into the National
Weather Service, because if we make a mistake on that, we then
degrade the forecasts that in fact Americans are depending on
every single day.
So our posture and our engagement with the private sector
in this regard is just tempered by that concern to make sure we
work together to define the best path forward that doesn't
jeopardize the quality of American weather forecasting.
I might just add, you know, we work hand in glove with the
private sector in the design, development, launching, and
flight operations of our satellites today. Those are primarily
private-sector companies doing that work on our behalf, and
across many NOAA mission areas from weather sensors to tsunami
warning sensors, technologies pioneered in NOAA labs, we
willingly and eagerly transitioned to the private sector. So if
another country wants to install a tsunami warning buoy today,
they actually buy it from the SCIC Company for just the reasons
you've said.
Mr. Neugebauer. I think one of the things that I would
caution you, and it's again, sometimes the requirements that we
require of the private sector exceed those that we require of
ourselves internally, and that's designed, you know, to make it
difficult to create any space for the private sector with
``space'' not being a pun intended, but--so I would encourage
you as you move forward is that, you know, we have to bring
those people into the collaboration. I don't think it
compromises the mission at what's going on at NOAA, and I think
it actually has an opportunity to expand that mission and to
free up, you know, very precious dollars that we don't have,
you know, of your budget. I think we're going to have to go
borrow about 20 percent of that, you know, and charge it to my
children and my grandchildren, and they won't even be flying
the same satellites, you know, when it comes time for them to
be utilizing that data.
So I would just say from my perspective and from a fiscal
standpoint is that I would encourage you to make opportunities
for the private sector to do that and work on that red map for
me too while you're doing it.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back.
I would like to just add, I think his points are right on
point. When you think about data from the commercial sector,
though, we don't have any way of knowing whether or not that
data is as good or better than NOAA's data until we get that
process guide so that we have the standards necessary to
validate the data. So--and I know we're working on that, and
thank you for that.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera,
for five minutes.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the Ranking
Member.
Thank you, Dr. Sullivan, for your service to our country
and your service at NOAA.
I often hear my colleagues say well, you know, they can't
determine whether the climate's changing or not because they're
not scientists. Now, I'm a physician by training. I am a
scientist, not a climate scientist, but certainly trained in
the scientific method and how you collect data, and at the
surface if we just think about it, 2015 was the hottest year on
record by quite a bit. You know, that's just objective data.
And folks may say well, that's not a trend, but 2014 was the
second most hottest year, again, objective data. 2010 was the
third hottest year on record in recent memory. 2013 was the
fourth. So, you know, as a trend, it doesn't take a scientist
to realize that the climate's changing and we are experiencing,
you know, record heat wave after record heat wave.
Let's drill that down to what it means to the people. You
know, in my own district in California and our state, we're
going through severe drought-like conditions that are impacting
everyone, you know, from our farmers to our consumers.
Everyone's chipping in. In my own district, Folsom Lake, which
serves, you know, close to half a million people in my
community rely on Folsom Lake for drinking water, for surface
drinking water. It's been at record lows. And yes, we are
having a wetter winter. We are having some snow. But what we
realized, you know, over the last 4 or five years is, when we
look up at the Sierra Nevadas, our snowpack has been
disappearing, and much of that precipitation when we get it is
coming down as rain, not as snow. This is a crisis situation.
In my district, we rely on Folsom Lake and Folsom Dam to
help manage both flood risk as well as drought risk, and as we
go through a joint federal project that will give us much more
flexibility to manage both these conditions, weather
forecasting becomes increasingly important, and the investments
NOAA is making in better forecasting so we can better manage
our water in the lake, knowing when we need to increase flows
to create more capacity and also when we should hold back on
water knowing that, you know, those storms aren't coming. So I
appreciate the work you're doing.
I was reading about the Cray supercomputer, and just
managing the big data and all the points of data, and I'd be
curious about the Cray supercomputer as well as other resources
that NOAA has to help us better predict and forecast weather.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you very much for that question, Mr.
Bera.
The supercomputing is indispensable to this work. As you
can imagine, you have to measure the entire globe and ingest
the data and then run the calculations that let us have the
kind of foresight that you're speaking about.
One of the exciting projects to me, very specific to your
interest, is something called Forecast-Informed Reservoir
Operations, which our Weather Service with our research teams
and our fisheries teams actually are pioneering out in the
Russian River basin for just the reason you said. If we can
tell a dam manager with the Corps of Engineers there's not so
more rain coming for at least X amount of time, then they could
hold the water that comes in a wave and an atmospheric river
instead of letting water go downstream to make room in the
reservoir. That has great potential to help add some precision
and some greater margin to the water management in your state.
Mr. Bera. Thank you. And anything we can do to help better
manage that, provide the funding, make sure when we're writing
the manuals that help us manage these reservoirs we're not
relying on data from 30 years ago or 40 years ago; we're
relying on the instruments that we have today, the tools that
we have today, and again, in a state like mine, in a region
like mine where we have the dual risk of both flood and
droughts, we have to have those tools.
So we very much appreciate the work that NOAA is doing. We
want to make sure as we update the manual for Folsom Lake and
the management of Folsom Dam we incorporate all that data and
the forecasting data, and you know, again, from my perspective,
this is a reality that we'll have to deal with. The climate is
changing. Managing these resources has incredible impact on
individual lives, on our economy, and the more we can recognize
that, the quicker we can recognize that the climate's changing
and we've got to manage this lifesaving asset and water. The
sooner we do that, the better off we'll be. So thank you for
your work.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you.
Mr. Bera. I'll yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Sullivan, are you a fisher person? I guess--is that----
--
Ms. Sullivan. I was a fisher person of sorts when I was a
little girl going with my dad, bass and trout fishing.
Mr. Weber. Freshwater lakes?
Ms. Sullivan. Mainly freshwater lakes, very occasionally
offshore.
Mr. Weber. Good. I get some questions on red snappers being
from the Texas Gulf Coast. There's been some complaints about
the data that's being collected, and your own testimony on page
three says that the actual red snapper population has improved
30 percent. Generally across the board most all the
stakeholders agree--believe the data to be flawed. What steps
have you all taken to improve that data?
Ms. Sullivan. Mr. Weber, I don't have specifics about
recent data improvement actions pertaining to Gulf snapper
fishery right at my fingertips but I'd be happy to get back to
you on that.
Mr. Weber. Okay. That would be good.
And then I was curious about one of the exchanges, I think
between you and Ms. Bonamici, that there was salmon fisheries
going to be closed off the West Coast because the water
temperature had raised. Is that right? Are you aware of that?
Ms. Sullivan. I'm not aware of the detailed parameters
involved.
Mr. Weber. Okay. All right. Fair enough.
Changing gears on you a little bit. Last year, NOAA
requested money to start the Polar Follow On program, which you
received most of the funding, $370 million. Again this year
you're requesting funding for $393 million. In the out years
you will be requesting about half a billion dollars annually.
JPSS and the GOES-R programs have experienced cost overruns and
launch delays in addition to inclusion on the last two editions
of the GAO's High Risk Report. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Sullivan. I am aware of that.
Mr. Weber. How can we be assured that NOAA has taken
actions to prevent these next Battlestar Galactica satellites
you're planning from experiencing those same problems?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for the question. We did have some
schedule and budget difficulties on both programs a number of
years ago and have worked hand in glove with the contractors,
redone schedules, redefined the budgets, improved our internal
program and process management, and substantially strengthened
our satellite team. Both the GOES-R and the JPSS programs have
now been running on time, on budget, and holding their margins
for 30, 36 months each. The programs are sound. They are
stable, and we have now management capacity and program plans
in place to be sure, for me to be confident that we will
execute well on PFO.
Mr. Weber. Do you anticipate them winding back up on the
next High Risk Report?
Ms. Sullivan. I can't speak for the General Accounting
Office. It is certainly a risk. A gap in satellite data for
weather forecasting is certainly a risk to the country that we
are all keeping our eyes on. How GAO might classify either that
risk or program management risks, we'll have to wait and see.
But I have heard from our GAO examiners personally that they
now regard the programs as well run and well managed.
Mr. Weber. Well, I thought the term ``Battlestar
Galactica'' was an interesting term, so may the force be with
you as you continue.
Does the Polar Follow On allow for any flexibility to take
advantage of rapidly changing technologies and capabilities, or
will the satellites we will be flying in the 2030s era, will
they be using this old technology?
Ms. Sullivan. The Polar Follow On program does two things,
Congressman. It locks in some economic advantage to carrying
forward existing instrument designs, which are very complex,
and in a component of the program called EON-Microwave--EON-
MW--it does propose exactly what you're thinking of to put a
small down payment on an investment that other parties have
done the first investment in, a technology that offers the
potential to substantially change the cost parameters on our
most important microwave sounding instrument so that we do have
new capabilities that are more cost-effective in the future.
Mr. Weber. Is that the EON--are those the microwave
sounders you're talking about?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, they are.
Mr. Weber. Aren't there some private companies that are
developing those?
Ms. Sullivan. I know of no private company that's
developing the kind of radiometer that makes these precise
vertical measurements to the depth of the atmosphere that these
specific instruments do.
Mr. Weber. But you do know of companies that develop the
microwave sounders?
Ms. Sullivan. Not sounders--microwave receivers that do
things like the GPS radio occultation.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And are you--have you checked with them to
see if there's a plan and process for them to begin developing?
Are you working with them hand in hand?
Ms. Sullivan. We are. We scout that sector actively. We
stay engaged with the space community widely. The pilot
programs that I've been discussing with the Chairman give both
us and the companies the opportunity to really explore and for
us to co-invest in helping them actually demonstrate that they
have the capabilities they've said to us they aim to provide.
Mr. Weber. Well, according to the National Space Policy of
2010, NOAA is not supposed--doesn't need to develop that
technology. So the more you could do it from a private
standpoint I think it's kind of like what Congressman
Neugebauer was talking about, the more tax dollars we save.
Would you agree with that?
Ms. Sullivan. If a technology exists and has been proven, I
would certainly agree with that, but that is not currently the
case in the microwave sounding arena.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back.
The idea, of course, behind the commercial interest on this
Committee is sharing costs among the different commercial
actors that want to buy that data--energy companies,
transportation companies, agricultural companies--and
ultimately then the government becomes one of many customers
and that reduces the cost for the taxpayer.
I'd now like to recognize Mr. Babin for five minutes.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Sullivan, NOAA Independent Review Team recommended a
gap filler mission as a way to help mitigate potential gaps in
the afternoon polar orbit and make NOAA's Polar Satellite
program more robust. What is NOAA doing to address this
recommendation, and how are those plans reflected in fiscal
year 2017 budget request? And are there any other options that
NOAA is examining that can enhance the robustness and
resiliency of the Polar Satellite Programs?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that question, Mr. Babin. We
have done a number of things flowing directly from the IRT's
report. For one, we structured the Polar Follow On program in a
fashion that allows us to shift directions on that if need be
and launch a gap-filler satellite in the early 2020s time
frame. That was not the direction we were heading prior to the
IRT's report so they were very helpful input in that regard.
The EON-Microwave request that is embedded within the Polar
Follow On budget line is another one of those examples. As I
have indicated, it is an existing technology. We propose to
benefit from investments other parties have made in bringing it
to its current stage, but to apply some NOAA investment to take
it the next steps and really determine and confirm that it
could meet the microwave sounding needs that we have. Should
that prove true, and we're fairly confident that it would, then
EON-Microwave has the prospect to serve as a gap filler as
well.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you.
And then also, what are the key risks that can affect
NOAA's costs and schedule commitments for the polar and
geostationary satellites, and what is NOAA doing to address
these risks?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that question also. Some of the
big risks that we had been prone to or vulnerable to in that in
fact we've retired a little bit with the first-year funding for
the Polar Follow On program because one of the biggest risks
when you need multiple satellites to provide the kind of
continuity that we need in the weather arena is that you break
production, and the companies, the private-sector companies
that are working on producing these, release their workforce,
lose the tooling, lose the engineering expertise, so as the IRT
also pointed out, we had basically been buying a satellite at a
time, which is the least cost-effective way to do it. The Polar
Follow On program moves us back in a direction of a robust
constellation by the 2020s and gets back some of that
obsolescence and workforce and engineering risk that happens
when you start and stop complex--any complex program. So that
is certainly one thing.
We also internally have done a tremendous number of things
to strengthen our internal processes and our management
structure. We've worked very diligently with our colleagues at
NASA, who actually run the contracts and do the procurement for
us and with the contractors that they engage, and I think that
the team now clearly has demonstrated by several years
consecutive strong budget and schedule performance the team now
is clearly well in hand and functioning in all cylinders.
Mr. Babin. Okay, and then what is the lifecycle cost of the
GOES-R program, and similarly, what is the lifecycle cost of
JPSS's program? How do these costs of these programs compare to
the costs of our partners you were mentioning? Specifically,
does the Department of Defense and our European partners, do
they incur similar high costs?
Ms. Sullivan. I don't have all of those lifecycle costs
right at my fingertips, Congressman Babin. I do know the JPSS
program lifecycle cost remains steady at $11.3 billion, and
again, I don't have Defense Department or European figures.
I can tell you that they certainly are of the same order,
as witness the European Union's recent launch of their
Copernicus and Sentinel series satellites.
Mr. Babin. Well, I was just wondering if they have dealt
with the same number of delays and cost overruns that NOAA has
had. Do you know?
Ms. Sullivan. We are not out of family with agencies that
produce large, complex space systems.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Then over the last few days, and you even
mentioned this in your opening statement, we've seen
devastating floods in the southern United States. In fact, I
have five of my nine counties that are in an emergency
situation right now with an all-time record flooding of the
Sabine River and flooding in the Neches and in the Trinity
Rivers in Texas.
As spring starts up this year, I'm concerned that severe
weather outbreaks and tornados will again put American lives
and property at risk, and I wonder, is it smart when we look at
the President's budget to be cutting NESDIS, NOS, MOAO, and the
National Weather Service? What do you think?
Ms. Sullivan. I'm confident that this budget makes sound
investments in the targeted places that are most central to
public safety and the public welfare and will not be leaving us
short on those hazards.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the gentleman from
Texas.
Regarding the distributed architectures that you talk about
to mitigate risks, we fully support that. Polar Follow On is
what you were describing. You could also do that through taking
advantage of various commercial operators. The National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency is doing that with remote
sensing and imagery, and of course, communications. The
Department of Defense is using distributed architectures with
communications by leveraging commercial as well.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairman Bridenstine.
Administrator Sullivan, the changing climate is already
having visible impacts around the country. Perhaps nowhere is
this change more apparent than among our coastal communities,
which remain vulnerable to increasingly severe storms, rising
sea levels, and altered marine ecosystems. I am pleased to see
that the budget request reflects NOAA's commitment to enhancing
the resiliency of our coastal communities.
Can you please describe in more detail how the budget
request will improve the resiliency of coastal communities
including the $15 million increase NOAA is requesting to expand
its Regional Coastal Resilience Grant program?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you very much for that question. I can
perhaps best illustrate the vital need that you're referring to
by the experience we had with the $10 million we were given for
Regional Coastal Resilience Grants in fiscal year 2015. We
received 196 proposals from communities across the country for
that--for those dollars for a total amount of $151 million. We
were able to fund only six programs, six proposals, out of that
entire set, but those six proposals are enabling some 100
communities to look at their vulnerabilities, the hazards that
they are exposed to, and really begin to lay in concrete plans
and take concrete actions from habitat restoration to shoreline
protection, to natural infrastructure, to put themselves in a
better footing with respect to the changing conditions that you
cite, and that's why we're asking for an increase in that
funding line this year.
Mr. Takano. And these communities are--well, they're on the
coast, of course, but the------
Ms. Sullivan. They're all across the country.
Mr. Takano. Yeah. Well, the budget request--I want to talk
about polar orbiting for a moment. The budget request includes
an increase of $8.1 million to explore options for the
acquisition of radio occultation data from the polar orbit.
This includes sustaining the international partnership with
Taiwan to build the second set of sensors and evaluating the
possibility of purchasing commercially available data.
Can you begin by describing the value of this data and what
the impact would be of losing this capability?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that question. This radio
occultation data is a very valuable augmentation of the high-
precision sounding that we get from the instruments aboard our
weather satellites. It helps calibrate and take out bias and
inaccuracies that sometimes get into those other data sets.
We've kept the door open to possibly going with the government
solution, the COSMIC solution, for the simple reason that as I
sit here today, that is a technically proven, known system. We
know the data quality characteristics of that system. It would
be what we've seen in orbit now with the predecessor. So that
is a bird in the hand that we know the quality and
characteristics of.
As the Chairman has noted, and as we are committed to, we
do propose in this budget to proceed with pilot studies,
working collaboratively with the private sector, co-investing
in the test and evaluation needed to see, to confirm whether
the data sources that they propose to offer do in fact live up
to those same quality standards.
Mr. Takano. But would there be a significant--how can I say
this? I mean, the fact that the uncertainty about whether the
private data sources are reliable, what would that pose in
terms of if they were not reliable? What would that present to
us?
Ms. Sullivan. If you look at all of the data streams that
go into contributing to the quality and reliability of weather
forecasts today, the radio occultation measurements rank quite
high, in the top six or so of those data sets. They are
valuable. We would not want to lose radio occultation.
Mr. Takano. So an interruption in reliability would be a
significant problem for us?
Ms. Sullivan. It would be a concern.
Mr. Takano. And then you describe how the evaluation of
purchasing commercial radio occultation data through this
request--or can you describe how the evaluation of purchasing
commercial radio occultation data through this request will
work in comparison to the Commercial Weather Data pilot
program? Will this effort be distinct?
Ms. Sullivan. It will follow the ground rules and
guidelines that we--that come from our policy down to the
process that is soon to come out and into the detailed
technical specifications about particular data types, so about
the GPS-RO, so the industry knows they have a stable governance
environment for working with us but they also know what the
particulars are that they're aiming at in terms of
specifications.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you, Administrator. I appreciate
your answers.
I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back.
We're going to go for a second round of questions. If it's
okay, I'll recognize myself for five minutes and then the
Ranking Member for five minutes.
Real quick. The stage that I think needs to be set is one
of national security. In the last Congress, Chairman Wolf
mentioned from the Floor of the House that the National Weather
Service got hacked into. He attributed it to the Chinese, and
it compelled NOAA to shut down some satellites for a period of
time. It wasn't too long ago, I think it was in 2007, the
Chinese used a direct ascent anti-satellite missile to shoot
down one of their own satellites in low Earth orbit.
The reason I think it is important for us to take advantage
of commercial is quite frankly to very quickly disaggregate and
distribute the architecture as you have rightly identified as
one of our goals. One of the challenges to rapidly distribute
the architecture is being able to buy data from commercial.
It's why we are doing it in the Department of Defense. I'm also
on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on the Armed Services
Committee, and we deal a lot with communication architecture as
well as remote sensing and imagery. This is why this is
important, taking advantage of commercial. It not only
complicates the targeting solution for the enemy but also they
have to invest a whole lot more money to jam or hack into
numerous different ground architectures as well. So it changes
their calculation for how much they have to invest and those
kind of things, and it could actually deter them from making
those investments to begin with.
This is why it is so important that we correctly interpret
WMO 40, and--because if the commercial industry believes that
the data purchased by NOAA is going to be given away to the
world for free, then they won't create that data to begin with,
and if they don't create the data, then it's not a global
public good because it's not a good at all, which is a concern
of mine.
One of the areas we've been looking at is, how do we comply
with WMO 40 and at the same time make sure that we're not
destroying a market that would otherwise exist. Some of the
areas we've talked about are resolution restrictions. If
commercial operators are going to invest in new instruments and
technologies and capabilities that are of higher resolution
than what the government is building itself, then maybe we can
protect that data and not give it away for free to the world
and prevent that market from forming.
Also, we've talked about data tiers. Maybe the first 20,000
radio occultations can come from COSMIC and beyond that there'd
be another tier of data where we can augment our systems with
even more radio occultations, and of course, we've had
testimony on this Committee indicating that more occultation--
there is no limit to the benefit of more occultations. We need
more and more and more, and it gets the models better and
better and better and in some cases we can actually lose some
of the primary sensors when you have that much radio
occultation data. And then of course, time delays. Certainly
the data doesn't have to be shared to the world immediately but
maybe if we delay it for 24 or 48 hours, we can create the
market and be in compliance with WMO 40.
So I wanted to talk--you mentioned that you had talked to
folks in Geneva regarding WMO 40. Can you share with us what
their thoughts were on it and kind of the direction they're
thinking about going?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
I've not been in discussion at this level of detail about
particular tactics or methods with the Secretary General. He
doesn't operate at that level either.
But to the point of confirming that the world is changing,
there are interesting and different prospects emerging. You
know, the arrow of time only goes in one direction. We all know
that. And it's important that we find ways forward that engage
with and understand and explore these new prospects, and also
that we do that in a way, to use an engineering term I know--
you'll understand from your pilot background--let's make sure
that we do a make before break connection, like an astronaut
with a tether or a mountaineer. These data are valuable to
forecasts today as I know you appreciate very well. Let's make
sure we've got our hand firmly on a real replacement that we
know brings the same or better value before we let go of this
one.
In the policy framework, we've set out the process we hope
to bring to you shortly and the specifications that we'll set
up. The conversations we've had with industry on the subject
have all been with that motivation.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you for that. And just so you
know, on the Armed Services side we're working with the
Department of Defense. They're looking at commercial data buys
as well to help accelerate this process again for national
security reasons, which is a good thing.
I want to switch gears real quick. I want to talk about
spectrum. As I understand it, the administration has asked
federal agencies to identify areas of spectrum that could be
utilized for other purposes. There's a slide up. I just want
everybody to look at it. It is also my understanding that
weather data streaming from settlements to ground stations
could be severely impacted if required to move or share
spectrum with other users. Obviously when we open up spectrum
and we share spectrum, we can jam ourselves, and I think NOAA
and this Committee are going to be in agreement that the last
thing we want to do is release spectrum to be used by other
operators that would hinder our ability to predict severe
weather.
[Slide.]
When you look at this slide here, you can see the areas
that have been blacked out because of interference from other
people using the same spectrum.
Does NOAA advocate for moving or sharing spectrum when it
comes to our weather satellites?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say at
the outset how much we appreciate your keen understanding of
this interest and its potential impact on our mission.
We support the President's policy to recognize the growing
arena of broadband in the world that we live in these days, but
we do support ensuring that there is a clear and established
process, realistic timelines, and that we, NOAA, are provided
the means and the time that might be needed to provide what
adjustments or protections to prevent this sort of interference
happening.
I know you have heard we're seeing interference even at one
of the test sites where there is a pilot test of an
exclusionary zone. We're still seeing that kind of interference
from sources that are up to 100 miles away.
Chairman Bridenstine. Over the horizon communications for
the Department of Defense these days overwhelmingly is
commercial. About 80 percent of it is commercial. That's
within--a lot of it is within the Ka frequency spectrum, and in
fact, the 5G networks are looking at maybe not cannibalizing
but sharing more of that 5G, or more of that Ka spectrum, and
it's very dangerous for the war fighters because ultimately
they're the ones that need the information and they need it
complete and they need it when they need it, and we don't need
to be worrying about interference.
With that, I will yield back the negative two minutes that
I've taken and recognize Ms. Bonamici for as much time as she
may consume.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to
follow up on your last two minutes that you yielded back
because I think that this challenge of spectrum is something
that we can work together on on a bipartisan basis with NOAA to
make sure that that challenge is met because we certainly don't
want interference, and there does need to be a process.
I do, even though Mr. Weber's no longer here, want to
respond to his comment for the record. I did mention in my
opening statement that there are some regional fisheries'
managers in the Northwest considering closure of Oregon and
Washington ocean salmon fisheries in certain areas in large
part because of the weak forecast for coastal coho salmon, to
which is attributed warm water in the ocean. So I want to thank
you, Administrator, for including in the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research section climate competitive research on
the impacts of climate on fish stocks. I think that research
will be very helpful to the industry.
I did want to follow up as well, Dr. Sullivan, on the
comment that I made in my opening statement about the concern
about the reduction of the education and awareness grants
through the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program. We found that
different coastal communities are not only different in their
topography but also have different communication needs,
different awareness needs depending on how far it is to get out
of the Tsunami Inundation Zone or, you know, how flat the
ground is. There's lots of factors, and the grants are really
designed to help communicate threats, especially to vulnerable
communities.
So can you talk a little bit about why that reduction is
included in the budget?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Congresswoman. That budget does--
that request or that proposed change does request some of the
hard choices we have to make to try to live within our means.
We have many such programs that we know provide valuable
information the communities use to address their resiliency and
their protection from the specific hazards that they're facing.
In this particular case, our judgment is that the TsunamiReady
programs that runs in each community through our Weather
Forecast Office provides an avenue to meet that need.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I hope so. It is really a serious
issue with the coastal area, and it's hard--this will be hard
to explain to my constituents but I will look forward to
working with you on that other program and hope that that is
sufficient to meet the needs.
The Committee's also been interested in increasing the
transition of research conducted in the Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research Office to the National Weather Service. This is
something that the Chairman and I spoke about when working on
the weather forecasting bill. It appears that some real
progress has been made between those line offices, and I'm
pleased that the budget request includes $10 million to
accelerate the transition of research to operations across
NOAA. So can you please describe how NOAA plans to accomplish
this goal, and will this address the need to accelerate the
transition of research from the academic community and the
private sector into NOAA operations, and if so, how?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for that question. We've seen some
great advances in our operational products in recent years. The
High Resolution Rapid Refresh Model, which gives four times the
resolution the ground, is one example. But that took almost ten
years to get into operations, and there are a couple of factors
in play that this budget proposes to address. One is shifting
our high-performance computing models from stepwise acquisition
to lease structures, which is one of our proposals, lets that
capability evolve more seamlessly and more smoothly. But this
program, the RTAP program, addresses the other problem.
What we learned as we canvassed NASA and DOD, DARPA and
private-sector entities is, good work that sits here on the
research bench or in the journal ready to go and pertinent to
certain needs doesn't get transferred across on its own. Magic
does not happen. It takes a dedicated funding line and an
intentionally built program structure such as the Defense
Department has to reach into the research arena knowing what a
need and unmet need is and help co-invest in the transition of
that work, to refine it and tune it precisely to the
operational needs so it can pay that dividend to the war
fighter or to the citizens.
We've worked carefully. My Chief Scientists has a
background at the Office of Naval Research as well as earlier
experience in NOAA. We have laid out the administrative
structure. We have laid out the competitive guidelines. We've
adopted the technology readiness levels, all of the structure
needed to make sure that our researchers see how to move things
along and our operators see where to reach, and with this
budget we propose to start exercising those mechanisms at the
$10 million level. The first round of the Congress give us this
appropriation, we would focus internally to make sure we get
the training wheels really running, but it is absolutely then
our intent that this is the technique we can use to harvest
from NSF or DOD or anywhere else where there's promising work
that we could put to the benefit of the American people.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the Ranking Member,
and of course, everything you just mentioned from my
constituency perspective, moving from a day where we have warn-
on detection to warn-on forecasts are critically important to
my state of Oklahoma so we can get higher lead times for
tornados and other things, so thank you for that.
I'd like to thank the witness for her valuable testimony
and the members for their questions. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional comments and written
questions from the members. The hearing is adjourned. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Hon. Kathryn Sullivan
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Subcommittee Chairmain Jim Bridenstine
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]