[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    ESTABLISHING AN INDEPENDENT NOAA
=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 18, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-7

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                                  

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-793PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------         

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                  HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking 
RANDY WEBER, Texas                       Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California             KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas              JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana                  MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama                 SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio                     JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              TED LIEU, California
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           PAUL TONKO, New York
TOM KEAN, New Jersey
VACANCY
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             April 18, 2023

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..     6
    Written Statement............................................     7

Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................     8
    Written Statement............................................     9

                               Witnesses:

The Honorable Dr. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, VADM USN Ret., NOAA 
  Administrator, 2001-2008.
    Oral Statement...............................................    10
    Written Statement............................................    12

The Honorable Dr. Tim Gallaudet, RDML USN Ret., Acting NOAA 
  Administrator, 2017-2019
    Oral Statement...............................................    18
    Written Statement............................................    20

The Honorable Dr. Neil Jacobs, Acting NOAA Administrator, 2019-
  2021
    Oral Statement...............................................    25
    Written Statement............................................    27

Discussion.......................................................    30

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

The Honorable Dr. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, VADM USN Ret., NOAA 
  Administrator..................................................    68

The Honorable Dr. Tim Gallaudet, RDML USN Ret., Acting NOAA 
  Administrator, 2017-2019.......................................    70

The Honorable Dr. Neil Jacobs, Acting NOAA Administrator, 2019-
  2021...........................................................    72

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Discussion Draft: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
  Act of 2023....................................................    76

Letter submitted by D. James Baker, former Administrator and 
  Under Secretary of Commerce for the National Oceanic and 
  Atmospheric Administration (1993-2001).........................    98

 
                    ESTABLISHING AN INDEPENDENT NOAA

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Lucas 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Lucas. The Committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess of the 
Committee at any time.
    Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Establishing an 
Independent NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration).'' I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.
    Good morning. Today's hearing focuses on a topic of great 
importance to this Committee, the future of NOAA, its mission, 
and its place within the executive branch. NOAA is one of the 
most important agencies within our Committee's jurisdiction. 
Its role in forecasting weather, which protects lives and 
property, cannot be understated. And its cutting-edge research 
helps us better understand our planet and our climate, allowing 
us to make sustainable use of our country's tremendous natural 
resources.
    However, despite the importance of this work, NOAA has a 
curious origin that has prevented the agency from reaching its 
full potential. The agency was created by Executive order under 
President Richard Nixon in 1970 without Congress ever formally 
authorizing the agency's existence. The best location for NOAA 
was the subject of a debate, with some arguing that it should 
be placed within the Department of Interior, others suggesting 
it be created as an independent agency within the executive 
branch. Ultimately, the President chose to combine several 
prior existing administrations, bureaus, and agencies into a 
single entity under the Department of Commerce (DOC).
    In the intervening years, NOAA's responsibilities and 
budgets have grown, while the debate about its proper home has 
continued with no widely accepted solution. NOAA exists through 
a patchwork of roughly 200 statutes that have resulted in an 
agency with complex organizational challenges and at times an 
ill-defined mission. This can be frustrating for NOAA and its 
employees, as well as stakeholders who rely on the work in 
Congress as we attempt to provide oversight and legislation.
    I unveiled the draft bill in December, which would provide 
authorizing legislation, more commonly known as an Organic Act, 
for NOAA. This relatively short bill, only 22 pages long--yes, 
I said 22 pages long--would provide a framework for NOAA to be 
formally established as an independent agency within the 
executive branch. It would elevate NOAA within the executive 
branch to an appropriate level alongside similar science 
agencies like NASA (National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This 
legislation would clearly state NOAA's important mission in 
statute. At the same time, the bill would provide a clean--a 
clear slate for NOAA to reorganize and streamline its 
operations, helping it to adopt and reset in a modern 
structure.
    As a part of this reorganization, the Office of Space 
Commerce would be taken out of NOAA and given greater standing 
within the Department of Commerce. Commercial space is a 
rapidly developing industry that will be a key component in the 
evolution of American competitiveness. It deserves the focus 
and leadership that can come from raising its profile within 
Commerce.
    Importantly, this bill would provide the opportunity for 
greater accountability by allowing Congress to engage in a 
level of oversight which has not been possible new to--due to 
NOAA's unwieldy structure. This lack of cohesive direction has 
prevented us from examining the agency as a whole and has 
forced Congress to authorize its activities on a piecemeal 
basis.
    I understand that the decision to elevate NOAA to an 
independent agency within the executive branch has drawn a fair 
bit of attention. However, my belief is that NOAA's mission and 
its important role in research and development warrant a 
placement outside of the Department of Commerce where, 
oftentimes, the agency can be considered an afterthought in the 
Department's activities.
    In short, this bill streamlines NOAA's operations, it makes 
it easier to carry out critical environmental research and 
weather forecasting, it makes their operations more transparent 
to Congress and the public, and it enables NOAA to be a modern, 
flexible government agency that provides accurate, timely, 
impactful services to Americans. For more reasons than one, the 
time is right for this legislation.
    Today's witnesses, each a former NOAA Administrator, 
represent a range of experiences at the agency and can provide 
firsthand insight into NOAA's operations and how an Organic Act 
can support this mission. They better than anyone can give us 
firsthand accounts of what it's like to run a scientific agency 
while dealing with NOAA's unique organizational challenges. I 
encourage all my colleagues to listen closely as they point out 
the difficulties they faced and how an Organic Act can 
provide--avoid these problems in the future. I look forward to 
working with the Ranking Member, my colleagues, and the 
Committees--other Committees as we move forward with this 
process.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]

    Good morning. Today's hearing focuses on a topic of great 
importance to this committee: the future of NOAA, its mission, 
and its place within the executive branch.
    NOAA is one of the most important agencies within our 
committee's jurisdiction. Its role in forecasting weather, 
which protects lives and property, cannot be understated. And 
its cutting-edge research helps us better understand our planet 
and our climate, allowing us to make sustainable use of our 
country's tremendous natural resources.
    However, despite the importance of this work, NOAA has a 
curious origin that has prevented the agency from reaching its 
full potential.
    The agency was created by executive order under President 
Nixon in 1970, without Congress ever formally authorizing the 
agency's existence.
    The best location for NOAA was the subject of debate, with 
some arguing that it should be placed within the Department of 
Interior, and others suggesting it be created as an independent 
agency within the executive branch.
    Ultimately, the president chose to combine several prior 
existing administrations, bureaus, and agencies into a single 
entity within the Department of Commerce.
    In the intervening years, NOAA's responsibilities and 
budgets have grown, while the debate about its proper home has 
continued with no widely accepted solution. NOAA exists through 
a patchwork of roughly 200 statutes that have resulted in an 
agency with complex organizational challenges and, at times, an 
ill-defined mission.
    This can be frustrating for NOAA and its employees, as well 
as stakeholders who rely on its work and Congress as we attempt 
to provide oversight and legislation.
    I unveiled a draft bill in December which would provide 
authorizing legislation, more commonly known as an organic act, 
for NOAA. This relatively short bill--only 22 pages long--would 
provide a framework for NOAA to be formally established as an 
independent agency within the executive branch.
    It would elevate NOAA within the executive branch to an 
appropriate level alongside similar scientific agencies like 
NASA and the National Science Foundation.
    This legislation would clearly state NOAA's important 
mission in statute. At the same time, this bill would provide a 
clean slate for NOAA to reorganize and streamline its 
operations, helping it to adapt and reset to a modern 
structure.
    As part of this reorganization, the Office of Space 
Commerce would be taken out of NOAA and given greater standing 
within the Department of Commerce. Commercial space is a 
rapidly developing industry that will be a key component in the 
evolution of American competitiveness. It deserves the focus 
and leadership that will come with raising its profile within 
Commerce.
    Importantly, this bill will provide the opportunity for 
greater accountability, by allowing Congress to engage in a 
level of oversight which has not been possible due to NOAA's 
unwieldy structure. This lack of cohesive direction has 
prevented us from examining the agency as a whole and has 
forced Congress to authorize its activities on a piecemeal 
basis.
    I understand that the decision to elevate NOAA to an 
independent agency within the executive branch has drawn a fair 
bit of attention. However, my belief is that NOAA's mission and 
its important role in research and development warrant a 
placement outside of the Department of Commerce, where, often 
times, the agency can be considered an afterthought in the 
department's activities.
    In short: this bill streamlines NOAA's operations. It makes 
it easier to carry out critical environmental research and 
weather forecasting.
    It makes their operations more transparent to Congress and 
the public. And it enables NOAA to be a modern, flexible 
government agency that provides accurate, timely, and impactful 
services to Americans.
    For more reasons than one, the time is right for this 
legislation.
    Today's witnesses, each a former NOAA Administrator, 
represent a range of experiences at the agency and can provide 
first-hand insight into NOAA's operations and how an organic 
act will support its mission.
    They, better than anyone, can give us firsthand accounts of 
what it's like to run a scientific agency while dealing with 
NOAA's unique organizational challenges. I encourage all my 
colleagues to listen closely as they point out the difficulties 
they faced and how an organic act can avoid these problems in 
the future.
    I look forward to working with the Ranking Member, my 
colleagues, and other committees as we move forward in this 
process.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member for her opening 
statement.

    Chairman Lucas. And I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 
gentlewoman from California, for an opening statement.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, for holding this 
important hearing, and thanks to the witnesses for your 
testimony.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better 
known as NOAA, is an important scientific agency that provides 
services to help prepare and protect life and property from 
severe weather and climate events. NOAA is also an important 
research agency for furthering the understanding of the Earth's 
system and its interplay with climate, weather, coasts, oceans, 
and other ecosystems.
    NOAA's products and services are used by all Americans in 
some manner every day, whether they know it or not. This agency 
supports the economic health of our country and is estimated to 
affect more than one-third of America's gross domestic product 
(GDP). These are just a few of the reasons why we should 
continue and even strengthen our support of NOAA.
    An Organic Act mentioned by the Chairman would formally 
establish NOAA and codify its overarching mission. Congress has 
attempted to pass a NOAA Organic Act over a dozen times since 
its establishment by Executive order in the 1970's. The idea of 
a NOAA Organic Act has long had bipartisan support. However, 
differences over the scope and details of what such an act 
would include derailed previous efforts to pass legislation.
    Now, we have a fractious political environment, but I am 
eager to work with the Chairman and my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to elevate NOAA in the public discourse and see 
what we can achieve. And I am mindful that this Committee's 
long history of bipartisanship may help us avoid the pitfalls 
of prior years.
    In the Chairman's draft legislation, as he mentioned, NOAA 
would become an independent agency. And NOAA currently makes up 
more than half of the Department's budget, and that would be a 
major reorganization that requires input not only from our 
colleagues on other Committees, but also the Secretary of 
Commerce and the President, as well as external stakeholders. 
All of the witnesses today support an independent NOAA, and I 
look forward to hearing their--from them, how they formed their 
views, and how the overall mission of NOAA would be affected by 
making it independent.
    It's important to get an understanding of the pros and cons 
of such a shift, and it's important to get a variety of 
perspectives on the question of--pardon me--of independence, as 
well as other key elements of the proposed act. I appreciate 
the Chairman's effort to include a former Administrator 
appointed by a Democratic President, but none of these 
witnesses oppose an independent agency.
    Given the significance of this legislation, I've asked the 
majority to have another hearing that would provide a 
perspective from those who have a different point of view so 
that we can balance all viewpoints as we move forward.
    With that said, I thank Mr. Lucas for his willingness, as 
always, to work with us on a bipartisan basis. And the draft 
we're discussing is a very good start and already reflects some 
bipartisan discussions at the staff level. I commit to 
continuing to work with the Chairman on this.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

    Good morning. Thank you to Chairman Lucas for holding this 
important hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for your 
attendance and testimony.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better 
known as NOAA, is an essential scientific agency that provides 
services that help prepare and protect life and property from 
severe weather and climate events. NOAA is also the lead 
research agency for furthering the understanding of the earth 
system and its interplay with climate, weather, coasts, oceans, 
and other ecosystems. NOAA's products and services are used by 
all Americans in some manner every day. This vital agency 
supports the economic health of the country and is estimated to 
affect more than one-third of America's gross domestic product. 
These are just a few of the reasons why we should continue and 
even strengthen our support for NOAA.
    An Organic Act would formally establish NOAA and codify its 
overarching mission. Congress has attempted to pass a NOAA 
Organic Act over a dozen times since its establishment by 
executive order in the 1970's. The idea of a NOAA Organic Act 
has long had bipartisan support. However, differences over the 
scope and details of what an Organic Ac should include has 
derailed previous efforts to pass such legislation. Today's 
political environment is not going to make our job any easier 
this time around. However, I am happy to work with the Chairman 
and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to elevate NOAA in 
the public discourse and see what we can achieve.
    In the Chairman's draft legislation, NOAA would become an 
independent agency, removing it from within the Department of 
Commerce. NOAA currently makes up more than half of the 
Department's budget. This would be a major reorganization that 
will require input from not only our colleagues on other 
Congressional committees, but also the Secretary of Commerce 
and the President as well as external stakeholders.
    All of the witnesses today support an independent NOAA. I 
look forward to hearing from our witnesses today how they 
formed their views and how the overall mission of NOAA would be 
affected by making it an independent agency. It is important to 
get an understanding of the pros and cons of such a shift. It 
is just as important to get a variety of perspectives on the 
question of independence as well as other key elements of an 
Organic Act. I appreciate the Chairman's effort to include a 
former Administrator appointed by a Democratic president. 
Unfortunately, none of them could participate in today's 
hearing and that is not the Chairman's fault. I look forward to 
learning from the experts who are before us today.
    However, given the significance of this legislation, I am 
strongly encouraging my Majority colleagues to have another 
hearing that will provide a wider range of perspectives--not 
just Democrat or Republican appointees, because this is not 
inherently a partisan debate, but different kinds of 
stakeholders.
    With that said, I thank Mr. Lucas for his willingness to 
work with us toward a bipartisan NOAA Organic Act. The draft we 
are discussing today is a good start--and already reflects some 
bipartisan discussions at the staff level last fall. I commit 
to continuing to work with the Chairman on this.
    Thank you to our committee members and witnesses for 
joining us today to engage in this important discussion.
    I yield back.

    Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back. And, as always, 
I appreciate her thoughtful comments.
    With that, our first witness today is Vice Admiral Conrad 
Lautenbacher, who was the NOAA Administrator through the 
entirety of the George W. Bush Administration from 2001 to 
2008.
    Our second witness is Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, who was 
the Acting Administrator from 2017 to 2019.
    And our final witness is Dr. Neil Jacobs, who was the 
Acting NOAA Administrator from 2019 to 2021.
    All of our witnesses are extremely accomplished but also 
share the honor of having led NOAA at one point or another. So 
welcome, all of you, and thank you for being here today.
    I now recognize Dr. Lautenbacher for 5 minutes to present 
his testimony.

                   TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE

           DR. CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, VADM USN RET.,

                 NOAA ADMINISTRATOR, 2001-2008

    Dr. Lautenbacher. Good morning. Thank you very much for the 
opportunity that I have today and that we all have today.
    Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I very much 
appreciate this opportunity to be part of this hearing 
regarding NOAA's future.
    As background, I served as Undersecretary of Commerce for 
NOAA--for Oceans and Atmosphere from 2001 to 2008, as 
mentioned, a position which included being NOAA Administrator, 
so I had a title and I had, you know, that particular thing. 
Furthermore, a few years after leaving, for the record, leaving 
NOAA I joined GeoOptics, a commercial satellite provider of 
radio occultation data and Earth and space weather observation 
data.
    With the support of Congressman Lucas, Congresswoman 
Bonamici, former Congressman Bridenstine, and many other 
Members of this Committee, GeoOptics advocated for NOAA to be 
able to purchase commercial satellite data. With your 
leadership, this was included in the Weather Research and 
Forecasting Innovation Act that I understand is up for 
reauthorization this year, to which I'm very grateful.
    Commercial weather data purchases are, I am proud to say, 
serving NOAA's observational requirements, and I am, for the 
record, currently GeoOptics' Executive Chairman. That's my 
position.
    It's also a great pleasure to be present today with Tim 
Gallaudet, Rear Admiral USN (United States Navy) retired; and 
Dr. Neil Jacobs, who both recently served as NOAA 
Administrators. We are here, as mentioned, to discuss the 
future of NOAA formed within the Department of Commerce in 1970 
without a congressionally approved Organic Act. Some of you may 
remember when I was NOAA Administrator, securing congressional 
package of an Organic--passage of an Organic Act for NOAA was 
one of my highest priorities. Seventeen years ago, I testified 
before this Committee. It seems like only yesterday. And then 
thanked Chairman Sherwood Boehlert and Ranking Member Bart 
Gordon and told them how much I truly appreciated the 
bipartisan manner in which they conducted the Science Committee 
and their strong support of NOAA. That famous legacy has 
continued with this--within this Committee through the years. I 
thanked them for their leadership and recognized Congressman 
Vern Ehlers for his leadership efforts to pass an Organic NOAA 
Act on the House floor. Sadly, it failed to advance that year. 
But I am back again to press you on this need one more time. 
Thank you.
    The establishment of current major parts of NOAA can be 
traced back to the 1800's--this is not just something that 
happened yesterday--and include the Weather Bureau in 1870, the 
Fisheries Commission in 1871, and the Survey of the Coast 
Office in 1807 by President Thomas Jefferson. As such, NOAA is 
the oldest science-based agency in the United States.
    Please note that I was honored to serve with a highly 
dedicated NOAA workforce during my tenure, and of note, along 
with the two colleagues next to me and every other NOAA leader, 
we witnessed a host of great achievements for the global 
community, as well as the American people. One of those 
achievements is that NOAA remains a world leader in atmospheric 
and ocean science. Remember that more than 70 percent of our 
planet is covered by the ocean. What happens to the oceans and 
atmosphere vastly affects what happens around the entire globe, 
not only the United States.
    The current Administrator Dr. Rick Spinrad, who worked for 
me, leads an equally dedicated and hardworking team of NOAA 
employees. They are tackling many new oceanic and atmospheric 
challenges from the blue economy to the Northwest salmon stocks 
to increased storm impacts, which we've all seen recently. NOAA 
continues to meet the challenges by posting--by--posed by 
atmospheric rivers, droughts, heat waves, increased wildfires, 
and space weather impacts, particularly space weather these 
days, to dealing with the ravages of climate change, managing 
the future of American agriculture, to restoring coral reefs, 
to protecting national marine monuments and the new GeoXO 
satellite. An independent NOAA is needed to address current and 
future challenges without an antiquated, tethered relationship 
with the Department of Commerce.
    From the Sun to the ocean depths, NOAA is needed to provide 
the scientific understanding and action for the increased 
problems we face and to secure our planet's future. My grateful 
thanks again to Chairman Lucas for scheduling this hearing. In 
closing, I urge your consideration and support to establish 
NOAA as a separate and independent scientific research and 
development and action agency. Thank you for your 
consideration. I'm happy to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Lautenbacher follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Doctor.
    I now recognize Dr. Gallaudet for 5 minutes to present his 
testimony.

         TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DR. TIM GALLAUDET,

      RDML USN RET., ACTING NOAA ADMINISTRATOR, 2017-2019.

    Dr. Gallaudet. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today regarding the NOAA Organic Act.
    Having served as the Acting and Deputy NOAA Administrator, 
I witnessed firsthand the world-class science, service, and 
stewardship of America's leading ocean, weather, and 
environmental agency. NOAA's team of top-notch scientists, 
staff, uniformed officers, and contractors positively impact 
every American life every day through lifesaving weather and 
water warnings. NOAA is also a leader in advancing America's 
growing blue economy through management of our Nation's 
fisheries, updates to the nautical charts of our exclusive 
economic zone, precision navigation data for U.S. seaports, and 
supports coastal tourism and recreation, as well as mapping and 
exploring our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.
    I wish to thank the Committee for supporting NOAA, and you, 
Chairman Lucas, for your leadership in drafting a bill to make 
NOAA an independent agency, which I support for two primary 
reasons. The first concerns NOAA's budget, which comprises over 
half of that of the Department of Commerce. This past year, 
millions of dollars of the agency's portfolio were once again 
transferred to the Commerce Department's working capital fund 
for shared services. The Department's own Inspector General 
(IG) found the program to have weaknesses, yet Congress is 
moving forward this year with a massive $353 million 
consolidation of its agency's budget and grant management 
functions that have already experienced numerous delays and 
cost overruns. Commerce's egregious extraction of NOAA funding 
is most evident when the Department falls short on its funding 
for the decennial census. Costs for the 2020 census were over 
$3 billion above initial estimates, while the unreliable cost 
assessments of the 2010 census ultimately caused Commerce to 
send a last-minute congressional request to reprogram funds to 
fill the gap. In these instances, the Commerce Department 
reallocated NOAA funding to the Census Bureau, and the only way 
NOAA could cope with such high budget cuts was to delay 
critical upgrades to environmental satellites and other major 
programs.
    The second reason to make NOAA independent concerns 
management. Paying the Department of Commerce to ineptly 
duplicate NOAA's own management system makes no business sense. 
A central problem is a lack of shared priorities between the 
two layers of government, which has produced chronic conflict 
with NOAA on the receiving end of poorly crafted and sometimes 
damaging decisions.
    There are two lenses through which I see the benefits of 
making NOAA independent. The first is the impact on NOAA's 
weather and climate services, where I see at least two positive 
results. First, stabilizing the management and budget of NOAA's 
satellite programs by eliminating the aforementioned cuts from 
the Commerce Department. This will support the myriad of NOAA 
functions using satellite data, such as the Earth Prediction 
Innovation Center, which we initiated during the last 
Administration to regain American leadership in weather 
modeling.
    Second, accelerating the influx of innovation from the 
private sector. During my tenure with NOAA, we initiated a 
data--data and technology partnerships with leading innovators 
in the private sector to modernize NOAA's weather, satellite, 
and data capabilities in the same way that SpaceX is assisting 
NASA. Erratic and inconsistent budget profiles do not inspire 
confidence in industry, and an independent NOAA will more 
effectively advance initiatives like these.
    The other lens through which I see the benefits of making 
NOAA independent is the agency's maritime missions. Less is 
known about the world's oceans than the surfaces of the Moon 
and Mars. This is concerning because the marine environment is 
as important if not more than space in the everyday lives of 
American citizens. The ocean is a critical conduit for global 
supply chains, the dominant domain of our great power 
competition with China, and a growing source of economic 
security through commercial fishing and offshore energy.
    NOAA is America's top ocean agency, and making it 
independent will have at least two important maritime-related 
impacts. First, it will expand our understanding of America's 
oceans. While I was with NOAA, we initiated and oversaw the 
development of the National Ocean Mapping, Exploration, and 
Characterization Strategy and Implementation Plan. NOAA will be 
even more effective in leading this effort if the agency's 
leadership is freed from the everyday deluge of distracting 
data calls and analysis requested by the Commerce Department.
    Second, Chairman Lucas' bill will accelerate the recovery 
of America's imperiled marine species. Because protection of 
the endangered species and marine mammals is split between NOAA 
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages over 90 
percent of the species, Chairman Lucas' bill--draft bill 
directs a feasibility study on combining them. I recommend, 
however, to modify the legislation to move NOAA's protected 
species responsibilities to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
outright.
    In summary, NOAA is not a good fit in the Commerce 
Department due to the disparate goals of the Department and its 
largest subordinate agency. They have had a demonstrably 
adverse impact on NOAA's budget and management. An independent 
NOAA will not only ensure that America can better weather 
future storms, but it will also put NOAA's ocean missions on 
par with those of NASA for space, and therefore, more 
effectively addressed the dominant role of the maritime domain 
in America's natural, national, and economic security.
    Thank you for supporting NOAA. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Gallaudet follows:]
 [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Doctor.
    I now recognize Dr. Jacobs for 5 minutes to present his 
testimony.

          TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DR. NEIL JACOBS,

             ACTING NOAA ADMINISTRATOR, 2019-2021.

    Dr. Jacobs. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify at this hearing on a topic that is not only near and 
dear to me, but also important for the future of our country's 
scientific leadership.
    NOAA has a unique mission that spans the ocean floor to the 
surface of the Sun. They're entrusted with the responsibility 
to provide critical information to the public that enables 
informed decisions on a wide range of phenomenon spanning a 
broad spectrum of temporal and spatial scales. It was a 
tremendous honor to help lead such a distinguished organization 
of scientists and engineers, forecasters, and uniformed 
officers.
    While at NOAA, I developed a deep appreciation for the 
dedication and professionalism of the entire workforce from 
issuing lifesaving forecasts to complex weather events, 
managing fish stocks, mapping our coast, and launching 
satellites into space. Their dedication to the mission is 
unparalleled across government. NOAA's mission impacts every 
American every day.
    While the services NOAA provides arguably offer the 
greatest return on taxpayer investment, it is stunning to know 
that the agency was created by an Executive order and has never 
been officially authorized by Congress. Because NOAA has such a 
diverse set of mission requirements, where it should exist or 
whether it should retain its existing structure has been an 
ongoing discussion. There are valid arguments across the 
spectrum regarding what it should look like, but one thing I 
believe we can all agree on is that NOAA needs an Organic Act.
    When it comes to an Organic Act that creates an independent 
NOAA, there are some tradeoffs that Congress should consider. 
Having a Secretary-level position promoting NOAA equities does 
have some advantages. A Secretary can communicate and amplify 
NOAA's mission and priorities to a wider audience. However, 
this assumes that the Department's priorities are aligned with 
NOAA's mission, and it's not often the case. Likewise, 
balancing budget priorities across all the bureaus in DOC has 
always been a challenge for NOAA.
    Tradeoffs aside, there are many significant, distinct 
advantages. The ability to effectively map budget decisions to 
agency priorities is a crucial aspect of meeting mission 
requirements. This may sound obvious, but the current structure 
results in a process inconsistent with this goal. Having the 
freedom and flexibility to communicate is critical for success. 
That is not unique to a science agency or even the public 
sector. Communication is a fundamental tenet of all aspects of 
leadership. Additional layers of approval and clearance, while 
well-intended, often inhibit leadership's ability to connect 
with the employees at carrying out the public service mission.
    Likewise, the pride of knowing your agency will receive the 
recognition it deserves for the critical services it provides 
cannot be emphasized enough. This is largely related to the 
lack of branding. NOAA is often compared to NASA during 
interagency coordinations, but the public does not see it that 
way. Most everyone has heard of the National Weather Service, 
yet not many people know it's part of NOAA, and they're even 
more surprised to learn that NOAA is part of Department of 
Commerce. Up until the most recent paint jobs on the NOAA 
hurricane hunters, the planes were doing hurricane awareness 
tours with giant words painted on the side that read ``U.S. 
Department of Commerce.''
    While there may be some benefits to being in DOC, branding 
and name recognition will remain a challenge as NOAA will 
continue to struggle to establish an identity apart from 
Department of Commerce. This may seem like a trivial issue, but 
in my opinion, it's the single most important thing driving 
NOAA's future budgets and workforce recruitment.
    Lastly, transparent, objective, and defendable science 
requires autonomy. While tight budgets combined with changing 
priorities will always play a role in any organization, the 
additional layers of bureaucracy in the current structure often 
do not add value to the scientific aspect of NOAA's mission.
    I commend Chairman Lucas for taking on this longstanding 
issue. I would also like to thank the Committee for their 
bipartisan support of NOAA. Finally, I would like to thank all 
the amazing employees of NOAA and the wonderful service they 
provide to the American people. It was truly a privilege to 
work for them.
    Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member Lofgren, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you again for inviting me to participate 
today. I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Jacobs follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. And I again thank the 
witnesses for your testimony.
    And the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
    It should be apparent now that we've done our homework and 
a tremendous amount of historical research when drafting this 
NOAA Organic Act. One sentiment that resonated through this 
process was that, throughout history, even the very best 
Secretary of Commerce has rarely been personally invested in 
NOAA's issues or even its success.
    So I want to ask each of you, during your time as 
Administrator, what if any benefits did you and the entire NOAA 
have from being under the Department of Commerce's umbrella? 
And while you're thinking about that, the follow up will be 
would you say there is more potential downside than benefit to 
being housed within the DOC? And whoever would care to answer 
first.
    You're the senior man with wisdom there, Doctor, so you get 
the call.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. I believe that we should do, as 
has been suggested, to have an independent agency to do this 
and do it under--and I'm not locked into--you know, there are 
things that are possible in the government to pass and things 
that are not possible. So your--you want to work for something 
that you can get and that's going to be--make a difference. So 
I think it's really critical that we have some kind of a, you 
know, a list of things they do and you know what they are and 
that the budgets can meet that. And that's where I am on this. 
I think that's a really critical thing for us to do. And I 
appreciate all the work that's been done to try to reach that 
point. And I see that as a great benefit to the Nation, as well 
as the operation of Commerce and the operation of NOAA. I think 
that kind of would be--would--that kind of change would be 
very, very important.
    Chairman Lucas. Dr. Gallaudet?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Chairman Lucas, I'd be hard-pressed to find 
any benefits of having NOAA under the Department of Commerce, 
and I can give you at least one example of where that impeded 
our progress. In May 2020, the White House released an 
Executive Order 13921 on promoting seafood competitiveness and 
economic growth. That was a project--an effort that NOAA 
initiated and took 2 years to get through the Department. And 
we could have done that at least a year earlier. And it's 
advancing NOAA fisheries in a pretty significant way right now 
with aquaculture opportunity zones. And again, it was delayed 
and actually stalled for some period due to the Commerce 
Department not really understanding and taking the due 
diligence to do that.
    Chairman Lucas. Dr. Jacobs?
    Dr. Jacobs. I can think of one incidence where the 
Secretary did support me on the 5G issue with the 24 gigahertz 
interference, but the downside list would be pretty extensive. 
I'll have to submit that afterwards because it's quite long.
    Chairman Lucas. Fair enough. I know each of you, while at 
the head of NOAA, had to deal with reorganization and 
restructuring plans from higher powers. As written, do you 
think this draft, this Organic Act, encourages cutting, 
eliminating, or repurposing any of the critical functions or 
offices that are currently carried out by NOAA? Because I do no 
harm here when I can.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Chairman Lucas, I believe your bill does a 
great job in preserving the mission for NOAA and I don't see 
any risk or harm. And in fact, as my statement said, I think it 
would be good to move the protected species functions out of 
the agency and create more efficiency in government for those 
functions.
    Dr. Jacobs. I don't see any issues either. In fact, I think 
having it sitting out there under an executive order is more 
risky.
    Chairman Lucas. And I'll finish that up with one last 
coming at this from a slightly different angle. Do you have any 
concerns this legislation would lead to the agency being carved 
up?
    Dr. Jacobs. No.
    Dr. Gallaudet. No concerns, Chairman.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I honestly haven't had a chance to go 
through the whole thing, but I support my colleagues.
    Chairman Lucas. We'll get you a copy.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. OK. Get me a copy. And I--but I was 
delighted to see the whole thing.
    Chairman Lucas. In the final seconds I have, as noted in my 
statement, NOAA's current structure is governed by more than 
200 individual laws. Setting aside the issue of where NOAA 
should be placed within the executive branch, can you explain 
to the Committee, anyone who would take this on, how having an 
Organic Act would allow better congressional oversight and more 
efficient management for future administrations?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Chairman Lucas, I think 200 laws compared to 
one is not a good use of government, so I think better 
housekeeping is in Congress' interest. But also, every one of 
those laws requires some kind of kind of periodic reporting to 
Congress, which requires a lot of staff hours on NOAA and the 
Department of Commerce that could be reduced or even 
eliminated.
    Chairman Lucas. And before I yield back, I would note the 
Ranking Member and I have a long history of doing things that 
seem impossible and are extremely difficult. So the challenge 
is engaged.
    With that, I yield back and recognize the Ranking Member 
for her questions.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Quick question. 
If NOAA becomes an independent agency, its budget would be 
relatively small compared to other independent agencies. NSF 
has a budget of nearly $10 billion, NASA has a budget of more 
than $27 billion. How would NOAA fare in the appropriations 
process here in in Congress relative to the other independent 
agencies? Do you have a concern that if it's an independent 
agency as compared to being part of the Department of Commerce 
might have a little more heft, that we might not do well in the 
appropriations process?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congressman Lofgren. I believe 
that if NOAA were independent, as I said, it would not suffer 
budget cuts that Congress has heretofore made repeatedly. And 
additionally, I think the agency will be on stronger ground to 
find efficiencies across government and possibly boost its 
budget. I see U.S. Geological Service has coastal programs that 
are science programs that are redundant with NOAA's and could--
should be consolidated, I think, in NOAA's--in America's top 
ocean agency. Same goes for the climate modeling in Department 
of Energy and some of the Earth observation missions in NASA.
    Ms. Lofgren. That spurs a follow up question because if you 
talk to other agencies that could be duplicative, USGS (United 
States Geological Survey) will argue strongly that they have 
the expertise for what they do as compared to NOAA. So what 
would be anybody's reaction to that? This is a massive change, 
and change is not easy.
    Dr. Gallaudet. So NOAA, ma'am, is the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, and USGS is the U.S. Geological 
Survey. And so I see many USGS scientists with marine biologist 
in their title. So to me, there's a disconnect.
    Ms. Lofgren. As I mentioned earlier, it's good to hear from 
people who support an independent agency, but I think we need 
to hear from people who might not. You know, I--the Chairman 
and I are working in good faith to do the best thing for our 
country, but we want to be aware of all of the entanglements 
that might arise. On that point, whether we give NOAA 
independence or not, some argue that--I'm not suggesting that 
the Chairman's proposal does this, but some are concerned that 
legislation that is too prescriptive would diminish NOAA's 
ability to pursue new programs or mission areas. And, you know, 
I'm not suggesting the Chairman's draft does that, but there's 
efforts in the Senate, there'll be amendments and the like. 
What would you be concerned about in that area, any of you, 
that would hinder the capacity of NOAA to take on new missions 
as events change?
    Dr. Jacobs. I think the less prescriptive, the better, but 
there's so many other authorizations out there for NOAA mission 
requirements that are fairly prescriptive already. You know, 
consolidating those but giving NOAA the flexibility and 
autonomy to make the decisions on how they execute their 
mission would be ideal.
    Ms. Lofgren. Let me--finally, let me just ask this for 
whoever might be able to answer it. We've had, I mean, 
tremendous severe weather events recently. I believe, and most 
of us do, that they are connected to climate change. Obviously, 
these extreme weather events are not just stopping at our 
borders. Last year, there were $42 billion weather disasters 
with damage totaling more than $360 billion globally. Four 
foreign nations had their most expensive weather disasters on 
record. How would making NOAA independent affect its 
relationships with foreign countries and allies from the 
leadership down to the individual scientist level? How would it 
enhance or detract from collaboration?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you for your question, Ranking Member 
Lofgren. I think that NOAA is the gold standard in terms of the 
science, in terms of prediction and research for the extreme 
events you talk about. And we have proven international 
partnerships for decades. And I don't--I think having an 
independent NOAA would reinforce those and strengthen them 
because they would not have to be required to do the mother-
may-I communication, which is near constant for those kinds of 
programs and partnerships to the Department of Commerce.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I was going say we are very connected to 
these same agencies that mirror us around the world. And the 
world is 70--you know, 70 percent is ocean.
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. And the rest of it--where we are is an 
island with a bunch of hills that go up and down. And you get 
incredible kinds of--we have the worst of the world basically 
if you go and look at the way it's going. So it's--we are very 
well-connected, and we are leaders in this area, and we want to 
stay leaders because it makes sense to us. We have populations 
that are living in this----
    Ms. Lofgren. Right.
    Dr. Lautenbacher [continuing]. And are going to have to 
continue to live--look at the water that came into Florida just 
recently.
    Ms. Lofgren. Or my district in Pajaro.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Right.
    Ms. Lofgren. I see my time is up, and so I'd yield back.
    Mr. Babin [presiding]. Thank you. And I'd like to now 
recognize Mr. Posey from Florida.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you, Chairman. Could you please, Dr. 
Jacobs, speak to how additional layers of bureaucracy have led 
or could lead to avoidable program delays and funding 
reallocations for the GeoXO program and NEON (Near Earth Orbit 
Network) program, for example?
    Dr. Jacobs. Well, in the past--I mean, this is nothing new. 
We've got NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting Operational 
Environmental Satellite System), JPSS (Joint Polar Satellite 
System) that GOES-R (Geostationary Operational Environmental 
Satellite-R) series. All these had cost overruns, delays, and 
mismanagement in part primarily because of the additional 
layers of bureaucracy, and on top of that, other agencies 
adding more mission requirements to the NOAA program.
    Mr. Posey. Yes, how can we learn from the past to better 
ensure that both GeoXO and NEON remain on schedule?
    Dr. Jacobs. I think the key is providing operational 
mission requirements and also, in addition to that, rely more 
heavily on the commercial sector to supplement the government 
backbone.
    Mr. Posey. OK. Thank you. To each of the panelists, how 
will stakeholders be able to appeal decisions by NOAA? You 
know, will stakeholders that have a concern with a decision 
need to appeal to the White House, for example?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Congressman Posey, thank you for your 
question. I believe NOAA has in place already very healthy 
relationships with stakeholders across every mission set from 
satellite operations to coral reef conservation. And having an 
independent NOAA would, again, only reinforce and allow those 
to become stronger.
    Mr. Posey. OK.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Yes, let me second that. NOAA has spent a 
lot of time connecting with the people around and that, you 
know, go with us, so to speak, and need us and we need them. 
And I don't see that ever changing. So I think that's going 
to--well, if it doesn't, we ought to replace the head of NOAA 
if that's not going on because that has been the rule. Thank 
you.
    Dr. Jacobs. I would agree with my colleagues.
    Mr. Posey. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. I'd now like to recognize the 
gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Stevens.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you. Gentlemen, we have something in 
common, which is we all worked at the Department of Commerce. I 
was in the Economic Development Administration and never really 
had the chance to get over to NOAA but have obviously studied 
the agency's work and really respect the conversation we're 
having here today. It's one that's sort of difficult, right? 
How do we reform government to function better?
    If you look at the origin of NOAA, Executive order adopted 
by Congress, wasn't really congressional law, under Nixon, who 
created the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), who created 
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and I've 
gone back and studied why and how in the 1970's we were 
creating all these Federal agencies, this notion of good 
governance, streamlining the taxpayer dollar to better serve 
the taxpayer.
    So I really want to applaud our Chair and our Ranking 
Member for bringing us here today to have this discussion. And 
I know we've tried to make it more bipartisan. I know there's 
other NOAA Administrators who maybe would have liked to be here 
alongside you that could inform this.
    It appears to me that there's duplication going on, and I'd 
like to ask you all about that duplication. I come from 
Michigan. I got water. We got fresh water. But scratching my 
head, does NOAA have any, any oversight of our Great Lakes? And 
I believe the answer is no. But perhaps the second question is, 
should it?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I'll take that question. Congresswoman 
Stevens.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you for your leadership here. And 
absolutely, yes, is the answer. I encourage you to delve into 
the many NOAA programs that oversee and touch the Great Lakes, 
that manage and conserve the waters to keep the air--the water 
quality good. In fact, the highlight of I think NOAA's presence 
in the Great Lakes--there are two--is the Great Lakes Research 
Lab, GLERL----
    Ms. Stevens. Is in NOAA?
    Dr. Gallaudet. It's NOAA's lab, and it's in your State.
    Ms. Stevens. But you're working also in coordination with 
EPA.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Stevens. Because some of this is interagency. And so 
when we start to look at duplication, right, and we look at 
this with this species, we have this cited in the Committee 
documents, the freshwater salmon versus the saltwater salmon, 
we need to have a conversation about water, right? And it's 
great that NOAA has this Great Lakes entity. I've traditionally 
worked with the EPA. But how would creating a separate NOAA 
agency then make it such that we could better serve our Great 
Lakes or avoid some of the duplication that exists in the 
Federal Government?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Congresswoman Stevens, I think that there's 
a healthy presence of NOAA in the Great Lakes doing 
nonduplicative work. For example, you have a National Marine 
Sanctuary called the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 
Alpena, Michigan, or off Alpena, Michigan, which conserves over 
100 historic shipwrecks. And that's an important entity also 
for public outreach and education and is world mecca for scuba 
dive tourism in fact. So there's things that NOAA are--is doing 
in the Great Lakes, great work that isn't repetitive or 
duplicative. Now, granted, there are some things like that, and 
this bill is addressing the one with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, but I think it'd be helpful for you to visit the Great 
Lakes Research Lab and the Thunder Bay National Marine 
Sanctuary to understand the good work that's happening there.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes, we want to elevate that. And maybe it's--
you know, as we look at this legislation and this opportunity 
for NOAA, potentially we look at rebranding, right, because we 
see this--you know, we were digging around on this. I knew 
there was some little touchpoints over here. But we need to 
have more interaction with an entity like NOAA and for those of 
us who are Members of, you know, the Great Lakes region because 
it's not being elevated. And when we're looking at species--and 
we've had this conversation here about the carp that's coming 
in, it's not--it's--the intersection is not occurring. And so 
how do we better, you know, work across government or elevate 
the work of NOAA? And potentially, that is taking it out of an 
agency that has traditionally focused on commerce and moving it 
toward--it's a bigger focus that would be--and I know others of 
you probably want to chime in. But scratching at this I think 
might yield some better results.
    Dr. Jacobs. I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. 
I really think that that NOAA's facing a big marketing and 
branding challenge. A lot of people don't know what NOAA is. 
They know what the Hurricane Center is. They know what the 
Weather Service is. They know what the Department of Commerce 
is. They have no idea what NOAA is, and that's a challenge. I 
mean, I can tell you a story that Administrator Bridenstine 
when he was at NASA actually found out that my 7-year-old wore 
a NASA T-shirt to school and was laughing at me because I was 
the head of NOAA.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes. Yes. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. 
Chair.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. And I'd now like to recognize the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I've got some weather related questions for you just for 
this--I guess all three of you, held a hearing last month that 
focused on the private sector's involvement in NOAA and 
National Weather Service. We've talked about that. The question 
is how can we direct NOAA to better identify and resolve 
potential conflicts for competition between the private and the 
government activities? And I want the nexus to be here. I want 
the focus to be specifically. I'm from the Gulf Coast of Texas. 
We've been known to have a little storm, you know, or two on 
the Gulf Coast. Specifically with hurricanes in mind, you know, 
what part will NOAA play in being that liaison if you will 
between private and government activities when there's a 
hurricane out there? Dr. Lautenbacher, we'll start with you.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. You're absolutely correct in 
terms of the ability to be able to deal with the hurricanes 
that we have. And I would say this is a question of ensuring 
that we have the right connection set up. Again, I'm not the 
current head of NOAA, so I don't know exactly----
    Mr. Weber. Have you experienced problems when you were 
there?
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I didn't have those problems when I was 
there.
    Mr. Weber. OK.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. OK. I would get up in the airplane and 
we'd go and look--you know, when we were flying through the 
hurricanes, I would be up there for several of them. And I 
would come back and look at with my folks what's happened and 
what we could do. So I'm a strong believer in working together, 
along with the States, and particularly along the ocean 
coastline, that NOAA and the States need to have that 
connection. And if we can make that stronger in assigning what 
the--what NOAA should be doing to help the----
    Mr. Weber. The predicting.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Yes, what you've just mentioned, I think 
it's important. And that should be an important part of what we 
say when we build that Organic Act or something that says----
    Mr. Weber. Right. I get that.
    Dr. Tim G, we'll go to you.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Congressman, great question. And I think a 
lot of good work is happening already with NOAA partnering in 
the private sector. I happen to be an advisor to a company 
called Tomorrow.IO, who has signed a cooperative research and 
development agreement with NOAA to assimilate data from their 
new satellite constellation into the hurricane models, for 
example, to improve their accuracy for track and intensity. And 
then there's another company I also work with called Sofar 
Ocean. It has a global network of data buoys that NOAA also 
has--is working with a cooperative research and development 
agreement to do the same thing but assimilating the buoy data 
instead of satellite data.
    So NOAA is moving out on this, and thanks to the--this 
Committee's support for the Weather Research and Forecasting 
Innovation Act, that's really enabled great progress.
    Mr. Weber. Dr. Jacobs?
    Dr. Jacobs. I would just add that there's a tremendous 
amount of potential in the commercial sector for public-private 
partnerships with acquiring observations. That's what we use to 
initialize the forecast models, even the hurricane models. And 
then on top of that, I would like to mention that the Fair 
Weather Report turns 20 years old this year, and this was 
looking at the roles of the public sector versus the private 
sector. And the weather-water-climate enterprise has evolved so 
far in this 20 years. I think it's probably time to revisit 
this and see what are the capabilities on offer in the private 
sector, and how can we sort of readjust the public-private 
academic partnerships.
    Mr. Weber. All right. I'm going to go to a different 
subject. Now, we talked earlier about improving satellites. I 
think there was some stress between NOAA and the Department of 
Commerce in somebody's comments earlier. Is NOAA's satellite 
system up to snuff? We'll start back with you, Dr. Jacobs. 
We'll go this way.
    Dr. Jacobs. It's an ongoing challenge. I mean, there's--
it's always--when NOAA has to deal with Department of Commerce, 
it's always competing budget priorities. And a lot of what 
could be put into the satellite programs may end up going to 
support other priorities across the Department of Commerce.
    I would like to point out that I think the satellite 
capability and the instrument capability itself far exceeds 
NOAA's ability to use and extract value from the data. This is 
normally a shocking number, but only a couple of percent of the 
data that's actually collected is used in the models. And 
that's largely just because the files are very large. They need 
a lot of processing. So I think the biggest return on 
investment for optimizing the uses are to satellite data is 
actually with AI (artificial intelligence) or edge computing on 
orbit, a lot of capabilities where you're not necessarily 
focused on a better instrument, but focused on extracting more 
value from the instruments that are already available.
    Mr. Weber. All right. Thank you for that. Unfortunately, 
I'm out of time, so I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. I'd like to recognize the 
gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Salinas.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And thank you to the Chair and our 
Ranking Member for working on this good piece of legislation 
and trying to get to a bipartisan agreement.
    So although the United States has just a handful of wind 
turbines off its coast today, we are on the cusp of an offshore 
wind energy boom that will ramp up clean energy deployment and 
help meet our growing energy demands. And the industry has been 
meeting some key milestones following President Biden's 
establishment of a national goal to install 30 gigawatts of 
offshore wind by 2030, which is--you know is enough electricity 
to power more than 10 million homes for a year. And around a 
dozen States already have more than that amount in their 
combined project pipelines.
    NOAA is set to play a pivotal role in the buildout of 
America's offshore wind, and the agency's science planning and 
regulatory responsibilities will be critical for enabling this 
newer technology of wind energy development that incorporates 
stakeholder engagement with fishing industries and other ocean 
users. And as you all know, permitting, stakeholder engagement, 
and related agency activity really requires immense amounts of 
staff and resources.
    So this question is for you, Dr. Jacobs. Do you have any 
concerns that a significant reorganization of NOAA at this 
time, at this critical juncture, could result in agency delays, 
including any permitting delays for offshore wind?
    Dr. Jacobs. I don't think so. I think that a lot of that 
process that's done in NOAA, they've got a routine. They know 
what they're doing. This is something that they do on a regular 
basis, so I don't see any issue or delays with that.
    Ms. Salinas. OK. And if others would like to contemplate--
--
    Dr. Gallaudet. I think--yes, Congresswoman Salinas. I think 
this act, if modified to move NOAA's protected species 
responsibilities into the Fish and Wildlife Service would be 
very good for the wind energy effort you outlined because under 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), anybody who wants to do work 
and--that affects endangered species or threatened species must 
perform consultations under section 7 with both the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and NOAA potentially. And having two 
organizations to have to permit through is much less efficient 
than having one.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Yes, I would say that we ought to get a 
mutual way to deal with that. There's another problem with this 
when you put the things in the--when you put the water deep 
down enough, you screw up the bottom of the ocean, and that 
eliminates a lot of the fish that we have there. So there's a 
need to understand that and get together and--at the front edge 
and deal with it. I mean, that to me is a leadership and 
management issue that I think we can do if people take a look 
at it closely. But it's very important, and I'm with you. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. All right. So, Dr. Lautenbacher, 
I'd be interested to hear your perspective on the idea of 
moving NOAA's Endangered Species Act responsibilities to the 
Department of Interior in light of NOAA's expertise related to 
marine wildlife and fisheries. Can you outline the potential 
benefits and potentially drawbacks of this idea and how might 
Interior's differing mission and capabilities affect the ESA 
reviews?
    Dr. Lautenbacher. My natural--I think these things belong 
to NOAA, so I do--NOAA is--I look at the world is 70 percent 
water, and in that water lives fish. And one agency working on 
that, having supreme lead on it is an important thing because 
everybody diddling around and doing this and that doesn't make 
any sense to me. So we need to look at a way to do that in a 
way which won't, you know, harm the egos of the other people 
who are currently involved with it.
    I can't sit here and tell you I have a perfect answer to 
that, but I think that we ought to have that mentality is--the 
idea is that the entire atmosphere is over--the atmosphere is 
100 percent NOAA from here, you know, past the Sun, the State 
weather and all of that. And you look at the ocean, you got an 
awful lot of that ocean, 70 percent, and we got this little 
hunk that we stand on our--two-legged mammals with big brains, 
and we stand on this dirt, OK? But around us is a huge amount 
of territory, really, which have--which there's a lot of 
difficulties. And I--in my view that that's leadership, 
leadership and management. And you've got to manage these 
things in a way that you can build this, you know, collective 
and not everybody get their ego out on the table and say, well, 
no, that's mine. I think there's--you know, that requires--I 
don't know--as much help as we can give it. Thank you.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And I'm just about out of time. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. And now I'd like to recognize the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Franklin.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you 
for being here this morning. Appreciate you taking time for 
your testimony. I think--and all I've read on this topic seems 
like an overdue idea. It's something that its time has come, 
probably came a long time in the past, but hopefully, we can 
get it over the goal line now.
    A little by--excuse me. By way of background, I'm from 
Lakeland, Florida, home of the hurricane hunters. I was on our 
city commission when we were able to bring those to Lakeland 
and build out the infrastructure, so appreciate everything that 
they do. Like a couple of you, I'm also a fellow Naval Academy 
graduate, oceanography major. So between that, my time was a 
naval aviator, and then also a general aviation pilot and then 
later as an insurance broker for a number of years in Florida, 
I'm very sensitive to the products that NOAA provides. And 
there's nothing that gets the attention of Floridians more than 
the--excuse me--than the reports that come out every 4 hours 
during hurricane season, very critical. You got 23 million 
people watching those closely.
    One of the things that we've been frustrated about over 
time, you know, everybody wants absolute when it comes to storm 
predictions. And we know we're getting better than we used to 
be. But too often, when we look at the spaghetti models, we 
see, you know, they all diverge. And oftentimes, it was the 
European model that seems to have been more accurate. And I 
don't know if you guys would agree with that. I would like your 
opinion, though, on how the United States is comparing to 
Europe, what we need to do to catch up if we're behind. And 
then, you know, would NOAA being a standalone agency allow you 
to do the investments and the prioritizations that could help 
get us better, more timely forecasts, in whichever order.
    Dr. Jacobs. Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, the 
European Center is still the most accurate modeling system in 
the world, but the National Weather Service UFS (Unified 
Forecasting System) is closing the gap. But there's still some 
things that need to be done, primarily on the optimization of 
data and the data assimilation system. The weather--the model 
that the Weather Service runs uses a data assimilation that is 
substandard compared to what the European Center runs. The 
reason why is the European Center just has a lot more compute 
to do a lot of their research and development. So it's a 
compute issue, and it's a software engineering challenge. But 
we have the best and the----
    Mr. Franklin. Are they--excuse me. Are they also--you'd 
mentioned AI before. Do you feel that they are farther along in 
utilizing AI?
    Dr. Jacobs. No. I actually think private industry is the 
farthest along with AI that I've seen, and I think that the 
United States is uniquely situated through public-private 
partnerships to tap into what private industry is doing. And I 
do think that that could potentially allow the United States to 
leapfrog the European Center with some of the capabilities I've 
seen, particularly on how fast they can run the same code.
    Mr. Franklin. OK. Dr. Gallaudet?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I totally concur. I think the innovations in 
the private sector in terms of weather and ocean data 
collection, assimilation, and prediction and modelling are 
equivalent to SpaceX for space and NASA. That's happening right 
now, and NOAA is beginning to understand that and get into 
these public-private partnerships that I mentioned. And I think 
that doing that quicker would be better, and they can do it 
better if they were not having to request permission through 
the Department of Commerce.
    Mr. Franklin. OK. Dr. Lautenbacher?
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Yes, I concur with everything that's been 
said. And I would say that I would think that some of the work 
that's going on in the commercial satellite industry will help 
us to provide better information, more timely information to 
make the models and the AI work even better. So there's--and 
that having an independent NOAA or at least a NOAA that is 
assigned to do those things and then given the funding to do it 
will make a big difference.
    Mr. Franklin. OK.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Thank you.
    Mr. Franklin. Dr. Jacobs, you had referred to the branding, 
and a couple of you have, about being Department of Commerce. I 
was surprised the first time I saw the aircraft that had 
Department of Commerce on the side, so happy to see that 
change. Do you think having a standalone force would assist in 
recruiting and retention of staff? And has that been an issue 
before with all the uncertainty around--or the confusion around 
just exactly who NOAA is and who they belong to?
    Dr. Jacobs. I think, yes, it's not helpful. It would 
definitely help with recruiting. I mean, a lot of times when 
these hurricane hunters do their hurricane awareness tours, 
that's where they're looking for. That's when the public gets 
to go up and touch and see the planes and walk around. And 
that's kind of a--between that and maybe the National Hurricane 
Center what gets the most press, and that's what gets the 
future generations excited. These are the facilities, 
particularly in Lakeland, where, you know, kids will go on 
field trips and visit and see these facilities. I think that's 
really important.
    Mr. Franklin. All right.
    Dr. Gallaudet. And I'd like to chime in there, Congressman, 
and just say that NASA's space mission is important, but NOAA, 
as everyone has acknowledged, is affecting every American life 
every day. So putting NOAA on par with NASA would recognize all 
that it does and give it more positive exposure and therefore 
attract the talent and perform the recruiting function you 
identify.
    Mr. Franklin. Roger that.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. As the gentleman that was there when we 
had to move the airplanes, I want to thank you, first of all, 
for doing that because we--that was a big--you know, a big step 
in our lives. I also have family living in Florida, so I'm very 
interested in what goes on there, and I appreciate your 
interest in it. And I certainly support the things that have 
just been said.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, gentlemen, and I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina, Mrs. Foushee.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 
witnesses, for appearing this morning and for your testimony at 
today's hearing. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss this 
legislation draft, as well as some key considerations affecting 
my district, which is North Carolina's 4th.
    I would like to highlight two NOAA programs in particular: 
the National Sea Grant College Program and the Regional Climate 
Center's Program. Led in partnership with NOAA, the North 
Carolina Sea Grant Program is among 34 sea grant initiatives 
nationwide and operates as an interinstitutional program of the 
University of North Carolina system. For decades, NC Sea Grant 
has been at the forefront of valuable research, education, and 
outreach efforts across the State, helping to build more 
resilient communities by assisting with planning, recovery, 
responding and adapting to coastal and inland hazards, 
supporting sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, and promoting 
healthy coastal ecosystems, all while facilitating workforce 
development through its engagement in undergraduate and 
graduate student fellowships and research. The NC Sea Grant 
generates $4 million in annual economic benefit for the State. 
And the National Sea Grant Program leverages nearly $3 for 
every $1 appropriated by Congress.
    I would also like to mention the Southeast Regional Climate 
Center, based in my district at the University of North 
Carolina at Chapel Hill. It is one of six regional climate 
centers that are administered across the country in partnership 
with NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information 
(NCEI). These centers make up a national network managing and 
operating sophisticated climate information systems and provide 
authoritative expertise on regional and national climate 
matters to Federal, State, and local government agencies, 
businesses, farmers, students, and the general public. These 
centers also monitor regional climate anomalies and extreme 
weather events to assist with planning, mitigation, and 
recovery efforts.
    So my questions are related to the Sea Grant and Regional 
Climate Center's Program because they're both critical to my 
home State and throughout our Nation. So I'm wondering if you 
can speak to concerns that some may have about how existing 
programs within NOAA could be impacted by becoming an 
independent agency. So, Dr. Jacobs, we'll start with you.
    Dr. Jacobs. Those are fantastic programs. I can't say 
enough great stuff about them, particularly with the grants, 
the extramural money, the cooperative institutes. I think an 
independent NOAA would actually be beneficial to them to be 
honest. I think it would be very, very helpful. It would be 
more efficient. We move some of the layers of bureaucracy would 
actually enable NOAA to probably push more money out.
    Dr. Gallaudet. And I have to agree with Dr. Jacobs. I think 
not having to staff requests for either partnership activities 
that you've outlined, it just would make--allow NOAA to be more 
efficient and effective in executing those partnerships. And I 
agree. Sea Grant and the NCEI are two great programs under 
NOAA.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I concur with that. And I would mention 
that I've served on the board of SECOORA (Southeast Coastal 
Ocean Observing Regional Association), which for the--after, 
you know, leaving my job with the government--with the Federal 
Government, and I've served on that board and I--I'm aware of 
those programs, and I support them entirely. And I think that 
having an elevated NOAA presence in terms of people 
understanding what it does and it's laid out that they do this 
kind of operations and support, that would be a great, great 
boon to you, as well as all the other States that have water. I 
keep crashing on them all the time, so thank you.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you. And second, recruiting and 
retaining a diverse and skilled workforce is paramount to NOAA 
meeting its mission. And in this Committee, before we have 
discussed the missing millions of women, Black, Hispanic, and 
indigenous people who have been traditionally underrepresented 
in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) 
workforce, with NOAA projected to have a large proportion of 
this workforce retire within the next few years. Dr. 
Lautenbacher and then Dr. Gallaudet, please, can you elaborate 
on how an independent NOAA could restructure its hiring process 
to be more efficient and address workforce recruitment and 
retention issues?
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I think that's very important. And we--
certainly when I was there, we have tried hard to do that. And 
I think we're continuing with it, but it's not easy to take 
groups of people that have never thought about being scientists 
in the ocean and the water and all that sort of thing. I mean 
it--so you've got to find people that have knowledge that they 
need. And we need to publicize that, and we need to provide 
opportunities for people that are in college. And an 
independent NOAA would have a better way of doing that and 
getting to the place where we could find the talent. The talent 
is always needed and certainly in the areas of our coastal 
regions, it's critical. So I'm a big fan of doing that. Thank 
you.
    Dr. Gallaudet. And I'll just quickly refer to my opening 
statement, Congresswoman, about management. Having two 
different management layers to do the hiring is--doesn't make 
sense to me and doesn't make good business sense. And we could 
address those important issues by making NOAA independent.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you. That's my time. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. I'd like to--the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Collins.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I heard it, sir, said earlier that NOAA affects Americans 
every day. And I think I just want to give you an example of 
what--as a consumer, I guess, in a way, sees an example of 
marketing and branding from NOAA. NOAA is considering a 10 knot 
speed limit that the agency claims would protect the North 
Atlantic right whale. And as I understand it, these whales have 
only been struck by boats five times in the past 15 years. As 
one of countless Americans who enjoy sport fishing and ocean 
recreation and preserving the resource that make them possible, 
it's frustrating that the agency would consider a rule like 
this, despite the impact it would have on an entire industry 
and Americans' access to the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    Dr. Lautenbacher, is this bill going to make NOAA more 
accountable to the American people or less?
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I hope it makes them more accountable. I 
mean, certainly, we want to be sure that we're not--at least--
and again, I'm not the current head of NOAA, so I'm not--I 
can't talk to you directly about it. When I talk where I was 
and where I believe that we need to deal with the entire set of 
issues that go with commercial fishing versus the protection of 
certain species. And half of my day was spent usually trying to 
work on those kinds of problems. But I think it's important to 
have it inside of NOAA so that we can do that in a more, you 
know, quick--quickly and efficiently with the right people at 
the right time. And that's critically important. I think it's 
an important issue for NOAA.
    Mr. Collins. Would anybody else like to comment? Because I 
had something else I wanted to add to that, too.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir. I'd say that it will make NOAA 
more accountable and be more responsive to public interests 
like yours. I'm a recreational boater and former Navy deck 
watch officer. And having--removing the Department from their 
accountability chain would help allow them to be more 
responsive to the public's needs.
    Mr. Collins. Mr. Jacobs--Dr. Jacobs?
    Dr. Jacobs. I completely agree.
    Mr. Collins. Was that a directive from another agency, 
that--was that part of another mission that was brought into 
NOAA that y'all have been talking about earlier? Does that make 
sense?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Sir, Congressman, I think you're referring 
to the speed limit?
    Mr. Collins. That's right, the 10 knot speed limit?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I can't answer for my former agency----
    Mr. Collins. Yes.
    Dr. Gallaudet [continuing]. So I'm not sure--I don't know. 
I think you'll have to go to the----
    Mr. Collins. OK. All right.
    Dr. Gallaudet [continuing]. Department.
    Mr. Collins. All right. Switching gears, and I know y'all 
have talked about this already, but it's my understanding that 
NOAA, like other Federal agencies that y'all have said with 
public-private entities, as this legislation is written, is it 
going to rein in this agency so that things that you're doing 
in-house that are commercially available to be done in private, 
are you going to be able to push more toward the private 
sector?
    Dr. Jacobs. I think so definitely. There's a lot of 
opportunity in the private sector. And it's a matter of NOAA 
doing a lot of outreach, seeing what's available, testing it. 
And at least in the last probably 5, 6, 7 years, there's been a 
tremendous shift to bring the private sector more into public-
private partnerships within the agency, and I only see that 
growing going forward.
    Mr. Collins. Why would it change? I mean, why couldn't you 
do it now?
    Dr. Jacobs. Well, you certainly can do it now. But I 
think--for example, a lot of these instruments are built by 
private industry, even the ones that NOAA buys. It's not a very 
large leap to think that you could, in the future, be buying 
data as a subscription service----
    Mr. Collins. Right.
    Dr. Jacobs [continuing]. Versus actually buying the 
instrument and managing it yourself. It's--to me, it's a better 
business model. It actually puts a liability on industry 
instead of the taxpayer.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Congressman, I'll--there's an example of 
that called the Commercial Weather Data Program, which was 
initiated with the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation 
Act. And that's growing within NOAA. And I concur with Dr. 
Jacobs that the opportunities are expanding. I think making 
NOAA independent will allow them to move faster. I signed and 
supported over a dozen agreements with the private sector and 
philanthropies while I was at NOAA, and each time we had to go 
through the General Counsel at the Department of Commerce, and 
that takes time, some of them excessively so. And so they're 
just doing an independent NOAA would allow them to be more 
agile and accelerate those types of efforts.
    Mr. Collins. I got you. I understand that now. I appreciate 
it.
    Dr. Jacobs. I would like to just mention that NOAA does 
have Other Transaction Authority, OTA, and the reason why it's 
probably not being utilized more is because of a high level of 
risk aversion at the Department of Commerce level.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. My time is up. I appreciate it, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Yes, sir. Thank you. I'd like to recognize 
the gentlewoman from Ohio, Mrs. Sykes.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the 
Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee for bringing forth 
these fantastic witnesses to talk to us about this issue.
    You know, one of the things that I have prioritized in my 
Committee assignments is connecting the work that we do here in 
Committee back to my district and back at home, and science, 
space, and technology isn't always as intuitive as a 
connection. But I want to bring back to our No. 1 industry in 
Ohio, which is agriculture. And in--particularly in northeast 
Ohio, it has the most concentrated amount of farmland in our 
northeastern quadrant of the State. And so farming is a way of 
life in northeast Ohio if you will. And the ability to predict 
weather patterns is pretty significant.
    So, for example, in 2019, weather prevented about 63,000 
acres from being planted. About 15 percent of Ohio's farmland 
across the State went unplanted because of extreme weather 
events that did not allow for it. And I recall my time as a 
legislator and these conversations not being able to understand 
weather patterns appropriately to address the needs and adjust 
quickly. And then the impact on crop insurance and whether or 
not people were able to get--farmers were able to get payouts 
were all very detrimental and harmful to the economy of our 
State.
    And so one of the things that I have come to understand is 
NOAA is under the Department of Commerce, not something that I 
would have known but for being in this position, I'm sure, and 
most others would not either. But looking at a graph that you 
all produced around that 2019 event, those extreme weather 
events, you all were able to produce the economic impact, which 
was upwards to $5 billion of loss that we saw in Ohio. And it 
seems intuitive that because you were in the Department of 
Commerce, you were able to do that type of analysis.
    So if we're going to move NOAA out of the Department of 
Commerce into your own agency, if you could--and anyone can 
answer this question--talk about how you will still be able to 
be nimble, to talk about the economies, scale up those types of 
predictions, while also doing the weather predicting that our 
farmers rely upon not only just to feed us but for our economy.
    Dr. Jacobs. I couldn't agree more. That capability is 
invaluable, particularly at the seasonal to sub-seasonal range, 
which is highly sought after by the agricultural community. I 
think those numbers, those financial estimates are probably on 
the low side. I think that there's been some studies that I've 
seen, at least indirect fluctuations with U.S. GDP is about 4 
percent. And globally, it's probably at least 1 1/2, if not $2 
trillion. But I would like to mention that a lot of these 
studies are done inside of NOAA, so NOAA has their own Chief 
Economist who does a lot of this analysis.
    Mrs. Sykes. So if I could, so the information I got was 
from NOAA. So you're saying that your own study was probably 
underreported of what the actual impact might have been in the 
State of Ohio?
    Dr. Jacobs. Well, a lot of these studies are based on 
money--insurance claims. But that's not--there's a much, much 
broader financial indirect economic impact. And so whatever the 
number is, it's a lot larger than that number, which means that 
the mission services that NOAA provides are financially far 
more critical than I think they get credit for.
    Dr. Gallaudet. And to get at your question, ma'am, the--
NOAA has the people that do this, as Dr. Jacobs said, and they 
don't need Commerce to review, approve, or even weigh in. They 
have the expertise in-house, and making NOAA independent would 
not harm or delay that function.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I can't add to that. That's exactly, 
exactly right, and we should continue it. And I think that's 
a--it's the way to connect to things that are important to us.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you for--all three of you for that answer 
and the response because, again, as I go back home and I talk 
about the work that I'm doing and being able to articulate my 
reason of being on this Committee is, in fact, we're being 
underserved by your lack of independence is something that I 
can sell to my community, not just sell, but to communicate and 
why we are going to move forward in the way we are.
    If I could move over to a topic that my colleague from 
North Carolina talked about with increasing the diversity 
within your departments and the ability to be more nimble, to 
encourage more folks--I think part of your rebranding might be 
helpful. People don't know what they don't know. And being able 
to create an agency and promote it so folks do feel like they 
have the opportunity that they could be a part of climate and--
in this capacity that's maybe not in the EPA, maybe not in 
Department of Agriculture, maybe not NASA, but very 
specifically in meteorology or elsewhere. And so I do hope that 
you all think through and continue to encourage the missing 
million to be a part of your agency if you are to spin off and 
become independent.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
    And I have a few questions. First off, I want to say thank 
you for the witnesses for being here. You--all three of you 
have a vast array of expertise, which I'm very impressed with.
    I have the privilege of serving as the Chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics where NASA's 
collaboration with both other agencies like NOAA and commercial 
partners has played a key role in our Nation's space program. 
NASA has historically partnered with industry to design and 
build first-of-a-kind spacecraft and instruments that are then 
picked up by operational agencies like NOAA, USGS, and DOD 
(Department of Defense), as well as the commercial sector.
    Dr. Jacobs, the first question, as NOAA has slowly adopted 
a commercial approach to GPS (Global Positioning System ) radio 
occultation data buys, are there any lessons learned from this 
process? Is there anything Congress should do regarding WMO-40 
(World Meteorological Organization-40) and future legislation 
to better enable innovation and leverage industry innovation?
    Dr. Jacobs. So WMO's resolution 40 presents a pricing 
challenge because the way it's structured, it considers GPS 
radio occultation to be an essential dataset, which requires 
mandatory free and open redistribution. And if you're a private 
company and you sell your data to NOAA and they give it away to 
the rest of the planet for free, you're essentially the only 
customer of that company. And when I was at NOAA, I sort of 
looked at this as my mission was to have the best forecast 
because my budget was the same. And so agreeing to more 
restrictive redistribution rights actually allowed me to buy 
more data because I was able to, you know, pay for not having 
to essentially buy out other potential customers.
    And so I think really thinking about redistribution rights, 
the price point, but then also considering that there is a 
potential for when you share data internationally, there are 
other commercial companies that exist in other countries that 
that data might get shared back. So this is almost a WMO data 
sharing challenge.
    Mr. Babin. OK.
    Dr. Gallaudet. And, Congressman, if I may just add one 
thing----
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Gallaudet [continuing]. That under the Commercial 
Weather Data Program at NOAA, they--they're--they've limited it 
to a few data types. Initially, it started as EO, radio 
occultation--pardon me--RO. And I think expanding that to other 
data types that exist now in the private sector like ocean data 
and other satellite type data would be very good for NOAA's 
capabilities in terms of predicting and produce the lifesaving 
warning.
    Mr. Babin. Great, thank you very much. Many of the 
observations NOAA uses for weather prediction depend on the use 
of electromagnetic spectrum that is bound by physics. If NOAA 
was to become an independent agency, how could it better 
communicate the weather impacts of spectrum decisions in 
interagency and international meetings? Dr. Jacobs, and then 
followed by anyone else who would like to answer that.
    Dr. Jacobs. Well, I had a lot of experience with this 
firsthand with the Department of Commerce. And one of the 
biggest challenges I had was actually with the other bureaus. 
You know, this is NTIA's (National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration's) job really. And so it was really 
incumbent on the folks in NOAA, NASA, and particularly NESDIS 
(National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
Service) to actually do their own potential out-of-bands 
emissions interference studies. And I think NOAA, you know, as 
an independent agency would be able to not have to balance a 
lot of other priorities that the Department of Commerce might 
see because NTIA is getting requests from other spectrum users 
from across the government.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Last question for the two admirals. As you 
two admirals on the panel know, the DOD has a robust resource 
allocation process that aligns agency requirements with 
budgets. Over the years, NOAA has attempted to stand up similar 
capabilities that--such as the strategy, execution, and 
evaluation process, and the program planning and execution 
system in the past. How could NOAA as an independent agency 
better align resources with requirements and limit the funding 
of quote, ``desirements,'' unquote?
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Yes, the idea of having a specific 
program for us, what should NOAA be doing, we can better define 
that. And it can be set up legally or in the law so that it's 
going to be done that way and that it can be inspected and 
looked at and decided, well, we don't like that, we'll change 
it, or whatever. But the point is, you can't just expect the 
agency, which one day is told to do this and the next day is 
told to do something else and then somebody takes the money out 
and then expect it can--programs, it's going to be doing what 
you want it to do. And I think that if we create that in the 
proper way in our, you know, propositions for the laws that we 
put in place that we can do that, and I think we should.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. And how about you, Dr. Gallaudet?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Congressman, I think that, yes, making NOAA 
independent would allow it to be more efficient in its 
budgeting process and not have to have--with competing 
interests of a department that may not have--be aligned in 
terms of their desirements for the budget. Removing that 
conflict would be--would allow NOAA to be more effective and 
efficient in its budgeting.
    Mr. Babin. Absolutely. OK. Thank you. My time is expired, 
and I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, 
Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member 
and our panelists, for your testimony today.
    NOAA has done important work in my district, particularly 
in the areas of weather forecasting and flood risk management. 
NOAA also provides river observations and flood warnings for 
the three major rivers that flow through my district, the 
Allegheny, the Monongahela, and the Ohio. And it helps local 
officials and residents prepare for and respond to floods. NOAA 
also helps to ensure that the water is safe for consumption and 
that any environmental threats are identified and addressed in 
a timely fashion.
    Pittsburgh is part of Pennsylvania's coastal zone, which 
extends along the shores of Lake Erie. NOAA's Office for 
Coastal Management provides tools to help manage the coastal 
zone, including shoreline erosion and water quality issues. I'm 
sure every Member present here today can speak to great 
benefits NOAA has provided to our constituents in our 
districts. We need to continue to highlight the crucial science 
NOAA supports and how this works--how this work changes the 
lives for the better. But as we review this bill, we need to 
ensure that independent NOAA will support the needs and 
concerns of the American people in the most efficient way.
    So my questions are for Dr. Lautenbacher. If NOAA were to 
become an independent agency, as prescribed by this draft bill, 
how can we ensure that inherent governmental functions of NOAA 
can't be outsourced or contracted to private organizations?
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I think it's important to decide what--
how you want to do that. And I think that should be part of 
what we do when we have this new bill or whatever it's going to 
be for determining the comments that you've talked about. It is 
important--everything you said has to be done, and it has to be 
done right, and it has to continue to be done right. And it 
should be managed properly. And NOAA should be, you know, 
stated for NOAA to do that and to make it as feasible as 
possible.
    And the other thing that's important is that we--NOAA has 
never had any money to really advertise what they do so they 
can get hold of people and explain what it is. If you have that 
kind of connection, there are many other agencies that have 
that ability. NOAA needs that ability as well so that you can 
figure out are you getting what--you know, you can--you have 
someone you can go to and say, you know, where--can you help me 
with this or what whatever piece is not missing. So the 
connection with the public is very important, and that ought to 
be in the Organic Act in some way. That's my feeling.
    Ms. Lee. Sorry. Thank you, Maxwell.
    Similarly to that end, in your opinion, as a former NOAA 
Administrator, how can Congress help to support NOAA 
administratively to support the scientific research and 
development that countless Americans benefit from on a daily 
basis beyond what's entailed in this legislation?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Appropriating NOAA's mission to the fullest 
extent will help achieve that end, ma'am.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Similarly, as a NOAA Administrator, 
what oversight lapses occurred as a result of NOAA having both 
cross-agency and disjointed jurisdiction over issue areas that 
would be changed with this bill?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Congresswoman, I think I laid out in my 
testimony quite well that we were impeded in different areas by 
the Department of Commerce. And so, for example, that seafood 
Executive order that took 2 years to get through the White 
House when it could have been in less than 1, that is just one 
of numerous examples.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I'll yield back my time.
    Mr. Babin. I'd like to recognize the--who's next? The 
gentleman from California, Mr. Obernolte.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Jacobs, you said something in your testimony that 
really struck me. You said that the additional layers of 
bureaucracy that exist because of the way that NOAA is seated 
under Commerce do not add value to NOAA's scientific mission. 
And I think that that--the truth of that is probably self-
evident. I would also observe that the additional layers of 
bureaucracy around Congress do not add value to Congress' 
mission. But I know Congressman Posey asked you about this as 
well. A cynic would say that spinning off NOAA as its own 
department would actually add bureaucracy rather than subtract 
it. Can you explain why that's not the case?
    Dr. Jacobs. Well, there are things that Department of 
Commerce does for NOAA, for example, like payroll, retirement, 
stuff like that, that if NOAA was an independent agency, they 
would have to do that themselves. But it's more of this level 
of just clearance. Everything we did from a potential all-hands 
email to a spin plan to budget approval had to go through 
several different layers in the Department of Commerce. And 
it's usually being reviewed by people that don't really 
understand NOAA's mission, and they don't really have the 
scientific expertise. That's not their job. And so to me, it 
just felt very unnecessary, and we'd have to spend a lot of 
time rewriting and explaining stuff that was just, you know, 
honestly, kind of just a waste of resources.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right, I understand.
    Dr. Gallaudet, in your testimony, you related some really 
poignant examples of ways in which NOAA's budget had been 
raided by Commerce to address other pressing budgetary needs 
that Commerce had that detracted from NOAA's scientific 
mission. And I think that's something that everyone on this 
dais is interested in helping you avoid in the future. However, 
we are also really intensely focused on governmental efficiency 
right now. As you know, we have one of the largest budget 
deficits in the history of our country that we're grappling 
with, so we're also not interested in increasing Federal 
spending. Would NOAA as its own agency be able to exist with 
the existing budget that it has under commerce?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Congressman, thank you for your question. I 
cannot speak for the agency, but I believe it would not need 
more resources if it were to become independent if that's your 
question.
    Mr. Obernolte. That was my question, yes, whether or not 
this would increase Federal spending. And while I've got you, 
I'd like to ask you something else about your testimony because 
you also related some--what I found to be really fascinating 
examples of the way that private innovation was helping NOAA 
fulfill its mission and some of the public-private partnerships 
that you had entered into. And your comment was that an 
independent NOAA would be more effective at catalyzing those 
relationships. Could you take a minute and explain why that is?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, sir. Dr. Jacobs mentioned this, and I 
did as well, that we've entered into--when we were with NOAA 
many--well over a dozen--probably several of these partnerships 
with the private sector and philanthropies, and each of those 
to get approval to move forward required staffing that's 
through the Department of Commerce as Dr. Jacobs mentioned, who 
often did not know or understand the purpose. And I think a 
good way to sort of address that is if you look at he and I, 
Ph.D. in atmospheric science, Ph.D. in oceanography, also 
certification as a meteorologist and forecaster, leading the 
agency that does that and having to get Commerce--a Commerce 
Department with mostly who are educated in law and political 
science to approve the work we were doing really didn't make 
sense and added no value.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. OK. So you're arguing that there's a 
bureaucratic delay involved.
    Dr. Gallaudet. It is.
    Mr. Obernolte. Are there examples where Commerce refused to 
approve programs that you thought were worthwhile?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Congressman, I'll have to get back you on 
that. I'll have to give it some thought.
    Mr. Obernolte. All right. Do you think that it has deterred 
potential partners in the private sector to have these layers 
of bureaucracy above you?
    Dr. Jacobs. Yes, I think so. I heard quite often from 
private sector companies that had a capability that NOAA 
actually needed and wanted and just the hurdles of getting 
through the process, whether it was, you know, the commercial 
remote sensing license agreements or things like that. It 
almost--to--some of them just threw up their hands and said, 
you know, it's not worth it. We can't deal with this.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. Well, I'm not surprised to hear that. 
We're certainly looking forward to helping you solve that 
problem in the future and want to thank you for your testimony 
today.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. And I'd like to recognize the 
gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Chair Babin. Also I 
don't see Mr. Lucas, but thank you to Chair Lucas and Ranking 
Member Lofgren. Thank you to the witnesses. I'm glad you're 
here today. This is a critical conversation, and it really has 
to do with the future of NOAA, an agency that's so critical to 
providing vital services for our Nation.
    This NOAA Organic Act establishes, as we've discussed, a 
separate authorization for NOAA--excuse me--making it 
independent from the Department of Commerce. I know it's aiming 
to enhance the agency's responsibilities by promoting 
scientific integrity and strategic research. Those are laudable 
goals, but I'm hoping for more clarity and clear intent in a 
few areas. NOAA has helped lead the Nation's efforts in 
observing, measuring, assessing, protecting, and managing 
coastal ocean and Great Lakes areas and their natural 
resources. Their work is timely in the face of climate change 
and resulting challenges to coastal communities.
    And although I respect the Chairman and do not question his 
motivation, I'm concerned that the legislation we're 
discussing, omits NOAA's ocean conservation, protection, and 
sustainable fisheries management work, making the future of 
these efforts uncertain or at least unclear. I'm specifically 
concerned about the possibility of moving NOAA's Office of 
Protected Resources, or OPR, endangered species and marine 
mammal protection to the Department of Interior. I find the 
intent of this legislative language unclear. For example, would 
this push the OPR out in favor of industry-led management? 
Would it clarify that commercial fishing and other interests 
would not overlap with ocean protections of an agency?
    Under the legislation, the National Academy of Sciences is 
tasked with conducting the feasibility study. I'm not convinced 
this is the correct entity to determine how to move this work 
across agencies. And additionally, if the intent is to prevent 
cuts to unauthorized NOAA programs, the Committee should 
consider a clean authorization of the structure and mission of 
NOAA as an agency under Commerce. We must consider the risk of 
removing NOAA from a Cabinet-level department, a move that 
could diminish its ability to direct and influence critical 
policy decisions and, most concerningly, its ability to 
maintain reliable funding.
    I know you've addressed these issues in your testimony, but 
many of us have been debating, as you know, similar proposals 
for several years. That goes back far before I joined this 
Committee more than 11 years ago. It's essential that we keep 
in mind and discuss all of the ramifications of this 
legislation, for example, with research integrity, foreign 
contracts, lack of authorization of NOAA programs under the 
purview of other House Committees, and others.
    So that's all to say that today's conversation should be 
the first of many. I know and trust the Chairman to go forward 
with due diligence. And as we consider authorizing NOAA, we 
must take the time to consider all areas, not just focus on a 
few while leaving other questions unanswered.
    NOAA is more than a weather and satellite agency. They say 
it best themselves our reach goes from the surface of the Sun 
to the depths of the ocean floor. We must do our part to 
maintain their critical work.
    So I want to--excuse me--ask a question particularly to Dr. 
Jacobs and Dr. Gallaudet because I appreciated your work on 
this. I've done a lot of work over the years regarding sexual 
harassment at NOAA, particularly on research vessels. Dr. 
Sullivan was a leader on the issue and I know both of you, Dr. 
Gallaudet and Dr. Jacobs, pledged to carry out that work, and I 
appreciate that.
    Sexual harassment and assault creates a hostile environment 
for women in science. It affects their ability to achieve their 
full potential. And as we have discussed in this Committee, 
these problems are exacerbated in complex, remote environments, 
as detailed in a recent NSF-commissioned report on the U.S. 
Antarctic Program. Many NOAA research sites share 
characteristics with the environment described in that report, 
remote locations with onsite living quarters, and military 
presence.
    So how did NOAA interact with the Department of Commerce in 
investigating and adjudicating allegations of sexual 
harassment? And what must an independent NOAA consider when 
standing up its capability to intake and investigate claims of 
sexual harassment and assault? And, Dr. Gallaudet and Dr. 
Jacobs, please.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, I think that 
we together established NOAA's first office to address sexual 
assault and harassment and prevention. And we moved forward in 
advancing that program with your great help. Thank you very 
much. And so I think an independent NOAA will only allow the 
agency to be--to continue those efforts and to focus and be 
more efficient in them.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Dr. Jacobs?
    Dr. Jacobs. Yes, I would agree. I mean, we didn't have an 
opportunity to have a lot of new starts, but the Workplace 
Violence Prevention Program was one of them, and thank you for 
the support on that.
    I think it's great at NOAA. I think it's showing a lot of 
promise. And when you're able to have that internal to the 
agency and bring in your own investigators and do everything 
in-house, it's a lot more effective and a lot more efficient.
    Ms. Bonamici. Well, was their interaction with the 
Department of Commerce during that process, or was it really an 
inside-NOAA effort?
    Dr. Jacobs. Once we stood up the Workplace Violence 
Prevention Program inside of NOAA, they pretty much stayed away 
from it. That was one of the things that they actually didn't 
bother us with.
    Dr. Gallaudet. There was information sharing, but--which 
takes time----
    Ms. Bonamici. Right. Right.
    Dr. Gallaudet [continuing]. Of course, data calls, et 
cetera, but it didn't necessarily--it didn't interfere with the 
work of the office, but it created extra work.
    Ms. Bonamici. Understood. Thank you. And I'm out of time. I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. I'd like to recognize the gentleman 
from Alabama, Mr. Strong.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Chairman Lucas. I'd also like to 
thank our witnesses for sharing their expertise with us today.
    As my colleagues had mentioned today, NOAA's use of space-
based technology such as Earth observation satellites protect 
our communities from natural disasters and serve--and severe 
weather. NOAA's services provide critical data and analysis to 
keep our Nation safe and enables a thriving space-based 
economy.
    As mentioned, NOAA's plan to leverage commercial 
technologies to support research and development, my colleagues 
have talked a little bit about this already. Specifically, what 
would this change allow NOAA to better collaborate with NASA's 
office such as Marshall Space Flight Center?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I think NOAA 
has done good work, which we continued in terms of partnering 
with the commercial space sector. And in fact, there was an 
architecture study that we pushed forward and supported to 
diversify NOAA's satellite architecture to include a range of 
purpose-built and--or shared, potentially, sensors and 
platforms with the private sector, and that's advancing and 
moving forward.
    And so I think a good statement of NOAA's performance is 
important in terms of satellite program management. During--in 
2020, we announced that we saved the polar follow-on program 
over $735 million from earlier cost estimates. And, in 
addition, we gave the DOD a weather satellite. We had a spare, 
the GOES-13. They had a critical gap in Indo Paycom. And 
because of our superior performance and environmental satellite 
program management, we were able to afford them a capability 
that would have taken millions of dollars and tens of years.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. If NOAA supports the participation 
of scientific community in research and development for 
including the private sector and academia, what kind of subject 
matter experts would be appointed to the Science Advisory 
Board?
    Dr. Jacobs. Well, the Science Advisory Board, when members 
roll off, it's usually up to the Administrator to appoint 
whatever subject matter experts are key to their particular 
priorities. Right now, there's a very good mix on there. And I 
think that from what I've seen with the recent PWR (Priorities 
for Weather Research) report that came out, a lot of really 
good suggestions, particularly on ways to advance numerical 
weather prediction and better utilize computational resources.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. How will NOAA collect input provided 
by external stakeholders in the national, regional, and State 
level?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congressman. Already, NOAA has 
processes in place to do this at every level nationally with 
this fine body, as well as at the local level. And I don't see 
a need necessarily to replace them, only reinforce and adding 
them. And as I mentioned previously, we could reinforce those 
relationships by being independent and having the agency have 
more freedom and less burdens in terms of data reporting and 
permissions requesting.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. I thank each of you for coming 
before us. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. And thank you. And now I'd like to 
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sorensen.
    Mr. Sorensen. Good morning, everyone. I would like to thank 
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee for holding this 
important hearing.
    The question of NOAA independence has a long history, as 
we've heard today. The agency does a tremendous service not 
only to the people of my district in Illinois 17, but the 
American public. As the first meteorologist in Congress in 
nearly 50 years, I'd like to take my questions down a 
meteorological path. First, for the whole panel, we have 
millions of data observations that are used to produce a 
weather forecast. We know that more good data that goes into an 
equation yields a more accurate conclusion. What observing 
systems should we invest in for the future and how?
    Dr. Jacobs. I'll take that. Thank you for the question. I 
think it's got to be a mix of space-based remotely sense 
observing systems and in situ observing systems. I think that 
you can never have enough observations because numerical 
weather prediction is an initial value problem. But the 
interesting aspect of this is through the algorithms in the 
data assimilation system, you can calculate what's known as a 
forecast sensitivity to observation impact, and it tells you 
exactly how much impact each observation has in the model, 
whether it's positive or negative. That's a very convenient 
metric if you want to do a cost-benefit analysis to then go 
look at which observing systems should you invest more in or 
which aren't providing as much impact as you thought they 
would?
    Mr. Sorensen. And again, for the whole panel, as 
probabilistic weather forecasts improve, what are the final 
steps that are needed to translate these forecasts into 
actionable information so the public will learn to and find 
ways to protect their life and property?
    Dr. Jacobs. The missing thing here, in my opinion, is what 
I would call the last mile. The National Weather Service needs 
a mobile, flexible, agile workforce that's really embedded in 
the emergency management community. And having the mobile 
support is going to require an investment in moving AWIPS 
(Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System) to the cloud. 
But the trick is, once you have cloud-based AWIPS, the 
forecasters can have laptops, they can embed amongst the 
emergency management community, and you almost eliminate that 
concern about how do you translate this forecast information to 
the end user.
    Mr. Sorensen. And finally, there's been a big push over 
recent years in NOAA--within NOAA to incorporate social science 
research into some of the National Weather Service products. 
How is the research being transitioned into operations, and how 
should advancements be verified? And specifically, I was at the 
Quad Cities National Weather Service office just this past 
week. As we look at the probability of major flood on the 
Mississippi River, how can we get people to react to the 
forecasts as we see them?
    Dr. Jacobs. Thank you again for the question. The National 
Weather Service is--it's a physical science agency, but it 
really has a behavioral mission. And it's a social science 
challenge. I think that a lot of it's been in the research and 
development in OAR (Oceanic and Atmospheric Research) , and it 
needs to be shifted into the operations at the National Weather 
Service. But the real problem there is verification. There's no 
verification data. What's needed are routine data collections 
of how the public received and understood and reacted to the 
warning information. That information doesn't exist right now.
    And particularly, and unfortunately with the circumstances 
of fatalities, the National Weather Service needs to know how 
did these fatalities occur? What were the circumstances? Was 
the person trying to evacuate? Did they understand the warning 
and act accordingly and just--it was just bad luck? Or did they 
not understand the warning? Or did they not have the means to 
evacuate? We don't--we're not able to differentiate those 
metrics. And without that type of verification, the social 
scientists are going to have a really hard time deciding 
whether or not what they're implementing is effective.
    Mr. Sorensen. Finally, do you all--and I'll pose this to 
all of you. Do you believe that we are investing enough in our 
weather modeling so that we can best serve the people and keep 
them safe?
    Dr. Jacobs. No, it needs a lot more.
    Mr. Sorensen. And to the rest of you, too?
    Dr. Gallaudet. I concur. We--NOAA could use more funding 
and for its program, like I mentioned, the Earth Prediction 
Innovation Center and the Unified Forecast System.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I agree completely.
    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate that. And 
I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman 
from Virginia, Mrs. McClellan.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Lofgren, for planning this hearing on NOAA today.
    I would say as an 18-year State legislator who served on 
the Agriculture Natural Resources and Conservation Committee, I 
relied heavily on NOAA both to inform my constituents on 
different weather events hitting Virginia, but also in our work 
on that Committee particularly around marine life. And I'll 
have to say I'm very disappointed at NOAA's decision to move 
the Marine Operation Center from Norfolk to Rhode Island, but I 
will save those questions for another hearing.
    But I do want to focus on the fact that the 4th District of 
Virginia is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed where there 
are ongoing environmental restoration efforts. And the NOAA's 
Chesapeake Bay office formally established by Congress in 1992 
partners with Federal agencies, State and local governments, 
nonprofits, academic institutions, and others to improve the 
health of the Chesapeake Bay, which is critically important not 
only to Virginia, but the entire bay watershed area.
    Could you speak to how such efforts and partnerships may be 
impacted if NOAA were to become an independent scientific 
agency?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congresswoman. Having property on 
the Chesapeake Bay western shore in Maryland, that--your 
question is near and dear to my heart. I think NOAA would be 
able to improve its partnerships and conservation mission for 
the Chesapeake Bay and everywhere in the U.S. exclusive 
economic zone because being independent would allow them to 
manage their programs more independently, autonomously, and 
efficiently.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you. We've recently seen the 
consequences of the rejection of scientific evidence in favor 
of partisanship, and it's imperative that the science produced 
at NOAA be free from political interference. How would an 
independent NOAA safeguard that process?
    Dr. Jacobs. Well, one of the things that I did while I was 
there was revisit the scientific integrity policy with the help 
of the staff office and line offices. And I think it's the gold 
standard in government agencies. But the challenge is, as good 
as it is, it's only enforceable downward. It's not enforceable 
upward. There's absolutely nothing NOAA can do, even--no matter 
how great their scientific integrity policy is to enforce it 
upwards to Department of Commerce. And I think an independent 
agency would have full control over that policy, and they 
wouldn't have to worry about levels above them that can change 
that.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you for that. And the NOAA Organic 
Act includes climate as part of NOAA's mission, but doesn't 
specify NOAA's role in providing climate services. Could you 
speak to the impact of codifying the significant work NOAA is 
currently doing in climate services?
    Dr. Jacobs. As far as--I mean, NOAA is the lead agency when 
it comes to the mission of climate, I mean, everything they do 
from observing the Earth to doing the forecast to running the 
models, the research and development, particularly some of the 
model work coming out at GFDL (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics 
Laboratory). It's phenomenal. I mean, they are the gold 
standard when it comes to climate analysis and projections. And 
I think that this is obviously going to be something that is 
going to be--more challenges coming forward in the future and 
something that they're going to have to more heavily invest in. 
Looking forward to that.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you. And finally, you know, one of 
the National Weather Service's forecast offices is in my 
district in Wakefield. And could you discuss any impact that 
the--that any changes to the NOAA Organic Act could have on the 
National Weather Service's operations, particularly during 
weather emergencies?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think because of 
the operational nature of the National Weather Service and 
language in the draft bill, that none of their missions or 
functions would be affected.
    Mrs. McClellan. Great. Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize the 
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I always appreciate 
the expert witnesses that we have for these Committee meetings 
and the value that you add for sharing with us what you think 
is important, but--so appreciate all of you being here, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to be here.
    But as we already know, the National Centers for 
Environmental Information, NCEI, manage six different regional 
climate centers across the United States. My district is 
fortunate enough, which is west central Indiana, to be home to 
one of these centers. And the Midwest Regional Climate Center, 
also known as MRCC, serves the nine Midwestern States and 
provides critical climate data and climate summaries of the 
region. In fact, right now, we're planting corn in that area. 
But this data and research helped develop climate information 
for practices for agriculture and many other areas when looking 
at future weather prediction and preparation. So my question 
is, how will the NOAA Organic effect have on regional climate 
centers across the MRCC? And how will that impact their 
function? And will it impact their research? And would these--
would there be other benefits? And this question is for all the 
witnesses.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I would hope there isn't much of a 
change, and if there's any change, it's going to be improved. 
We need--there needs to be more interest in defining NOAA's--my 
view--requirements of things they ought to do. And what you've 
just discussed is important. And it's not only important to do 
it, it's important to advertise it, to get it through to the 
public. So we need more informational, say, ducks to feed the 
areas that require this kind of information. It's very 
important. I'm not a current member, so I don't know if there's 
any plans--I will leave that to the other two gentlemen here--
to create new centers or to change--do any basic work through 
them. But I'm strongly in support of having a way to get the 
information and to advertise it in a way that people understand 
the value of it.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. You know, there's so much 
information that it does require a continual effort to make 
sure we educate people, so thank you.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I agree with that. It does take continued 
education. And that ought to be into the process as we go 
forward.
    Mr. Baird. I'm going to take that into account. I agree.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Thank you.
    Mr. Baird. Next?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman, really consistent with my 
previous statements, the draft bill would not interfere with 
any of NOAA's missions, climate or weather or otherwise. And in 
fact it would only allow the agency and its leadership to be 
more efficient and effective.
    Dr. Jacobs. I would agree with the other witnesses. I don't 
see this changing that at all.
    Mr. Baird. My next question is more of a general nature, 
but I'd like to have a response from all three of you as well. 
And, you know, as your experiences as Administrators, are there 
any specific areas within NOAA that have been falling behind 
due to bureaucratic processes put in place by the Department of 
Commerce? So I guess my real question is, are there areas that 
we can do and we can do as this Committee to help improve the 
specific areas of NOAA?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you, Congressman. I'll begin and just 
say that the--no specific mission set would be rapidly 
advanced, if you will, by making it independent. It'd be--it'd 
really be across the board. And it's by having not to do all--
limit it--or freeing NOAA from all of the administrative 
reviews and data calls and analyses, which slow the agency's 
ability to make changes and advances and conduct initiatives 
like those that we've done. For example, we did establish a new 
NOAA uncrewed systems program and office that is operating 
autonomous vessels and aircraft and underwater vehicles. And 
that, again, like the seafood competitive order I referred to--
competitiveness executive order that I referred to earlier took 
much longer than it needed to because of having to staff these 
through the Department of Commerce. NOAA has the expertise and 
knowledge to move forward, as it should, and I don't think 
having a layer of bureaucracy that doesn't understand it as 
well as the agency does isn't helpful.
    Mr. Baird. I see I'm out of time, so I appreciate that. And 
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you. And now I'd like to 
recognize the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. Caraveo.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our 
witnesses for joining us today.
    NOAA has a significant presence in Colorado, so I 
appreciate Chairman Lucas' leadership on this subject and 
openness to making this legislation a bipartisan effort. Like 
many people, I have benefited and rely on work that happens 
under NOAA. And in Colorado and across the country, we have 
experienced an increased amount of severe weather events. These 
events are not only displacing families, but are also 
exacerbating an already limited health facilities and resources 
the disadvantaged and rural communities in particular have 
access to. Disadvantaged communities already face the biggest 
challenge of evacuating and getting back into safe housing 
post-disaster, all of which contribute to long-term health 
disparities.
    So for the panel, how does a codified NOAA help support a 
mission of more localized forecasting granularity and midterm 
seasonal forecasting?
    Dr. Jacobs. Well, I think the--when you're looking at the 
mission requirements, particularly with--this was what I was 
saying earlier with the National Weather Service. It's really 
the final mile, so you're going from the forecast offices, to 
the actual emergency management community, to the stakeholders 
in the community and getting that information to them in a more 
distributed, flexible way. And I think it's going to be very, 
very beneficial, but there are some technical challenges that 
need to be overcome before that can happen. But I really think 
that that's the future, particularly when it comes to rapid 
response, severe warnings, things like that.
    Dr. Gallaudet. And, Congressman, also, as I've mentioned 
previously, the--NOAA is able to make some of these advances in 
partnerships with the private sector, and having--and being 
independent and not having to staff those partnership requests 
through another layer of legal review at the Department would 
allow them to occur faster and do more for the agency and for 
the public that they serve.
    Ms. Caraveo. Can you all speak as to what messaging needs 
to happen? I remember when I was little, there was constant 
focus on tornado warnings, right, in Colorado. And so what 
messaging do you think is necessary for people to understand 
the risks that we're facing and to be able to respond?
    Dr. Jacobs. So that's really a challenge for the social 
scientist community. They are the ones--and right now they are 
situated on the research side of NOAA. The information that 
they're studying, how to properly message so that you get a 
desired response from someone when it comes to a watch or a 
warning, that's a behavioral challenge. And that--the research 
they're doing is phenomenal, but at this point, it needs to be 
transitioned into operations. The forecasters need to be 
implementing this. And one of the things I mentioned earlier 
was we're still lacking verification of this. We know that 
there are fatalities. We don't know the circumstances of the 
fatality. Did the person understand what to do with the warning 
and just not--just ignored it, or did they try to respond, and 
it was just an unfortunate situation? There are different 
circumstances. Without that feedback, the social scientist 
community is still missing the ability to tailor their 
messages.
    Ms. Caraveo. Great, thank you. You know, just kind of 
finish up, I learned a lot about NOAA while preparing for this 
hearing, and I don't think that a lot of people know that it's 
the oldest science agency in the United States. With that in 
mind, I just kind of wanted to generally give you an 
opportunity to speak about some of the programs and research 
that happens under NOAA, anything that would be good for people 
to know about or that you want to highlight that hasn't been 
touched upon.
    Dr. Jacobs. I could go on for hours. I often tell people to 
really understand NOAA's capability, you probably need a Ph.D. 
in 12 different disciplines. Just from my own personal 
background and experience, the forecasting, the climate, the 
weather, the impacts, the observing systems, the planes that 
fly into the hurricanes to sample the air, all that capability, 
high-performance computing, it's just a tremendous amount of 
work, launching rockets into space with satellites to observe 
the Earth, it's phenomenal.
    Dr. Gallaudet. And my perspective also is a focus on the 
maritime missions of NOAA and, for example, as I mentioned in 
my statement, we know more about the surface of Mars and the 
Moon than we do the oceans in the world and the oceans in the 
United States. We have not even mapped 50 percent of our 
exclusive economic zone, and NOAA is continuing the effort. We 
started to do that with the National Ocean Mapping, 
Exploration, and Characterization Strategy and Plan. And 
that's--there's a part of America that's totally unknown, and 
that's our oceans. And NOAA is the lead agency in advancing 
that. And again, if they--if we can make NOAA independent and 
put NOAA on par with NASA, they'll be able to do more good for 
all of American citizens.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you all so much. My time has expired.
    Mr. Baird [presiding]. Thank you. The gentlelady yields 
back. And next, we have Representative Mullin from California.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our 
witnesses for your testimony.
    As you well know, NOAA is a critical player in helping 
communities prepare for extreme weather events, which are more 
frequent in my part of coastal California. We've got 
atmospheric rivers. We're being buffeted by those routinely. I 
hail from San Mateo County. We've got ocean on one side, we've 
got the San Francisco Bay on the other, so sea level rise is a 
crucial concern. Just my county alone has the most property 
value at risk in the tens of billions of dollars.
    So my question is simply specific to sea level rise, how an 
independent NOAA would better address these huge challenges we 
have around climate generally but specific to sea level rise 
and some natural solutions that we need to execute to deal with 
that challenge. And open for anybody who wants a shot at that. 
But how would that better position us to deal with this--the 
enormity of the challenge.
    Dr. Jacobs. I think the--really the scientists in NOAA are 
doing a phenomenal job with analyzing that. Of course, there's 
a range of scenarios, and there's some uncertainty around that. 
And I think pinning down where--what the risk is. We know it's 
rising; we just don't know by how much. But you have a window 
of probability that you need to be prepared for. In almost any 
scenario, it's going to be problematic, so people are going to 
have to start planning about what to do. So the best thing that 
NOAA can do--and, you know, I think as an independent agency, 
there's nothing that's going to slow this down, is them 
actually putting this information out there, getting the data 
out there in the public domain and having folks from the other, 
you know, like reinsurance companies, disaster preparedness 
folks, access to that data and then understand how to properly 
interpret it. It's incredibly important. And particularly for 
your district, I mean, there's a lot of work going on at 
Scripps with the Center for Weather and Water Extremes. 
Atmospheric rivers are a huge issue out there obviously. And 
it's--there's a lot of stuff that they would be doing 
particularly with that. And I think as we go forward and we see 
these more extreme events, that capability is going to be 
growing in importance.
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, I'll second what Dr. Jacobs said. For 
example, NOAA has a partnership with Scripps Institution of 
Oceanography, my alma mater, and--to do research on atmospheric 
rivers in order to improve our ability to predict them and 
their impacts. So making NOAA independent will only allow that 
kind of work, as mentioned previously, and other work to be--to 
occur more efficiently, to not take--be at risk for budget cuts 
from the Department, and therefore serve your citizens.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Yes, let me add just another dimension to 
this. Having watched the atmospheric rivers this year from my 
home in Menlo Park and putting sandbags in front of the garage 
door and then looking at our phones to see how far has that 
lever--level come up in the stream that goes by the house area 
and looking at the rest of the neighborhood, I'm very, very 
sensitive to this. And what the--what's missing here is we've 
told you all the things that we can do and are doing, but 
there's not enough funding to really take care of the levels 
we're talking about. The country doesn't understand what--the 
importance of our planet and the water, the 70 percent of it is 
ocean. We need to work on all of those things, and the public 
has to understand it's not a partisan issue. This is, you know, 
a large-brain, two-mammal problem to deal with. And believe me, 
I'm there. We want to do that. And NOAA has a--you know, things 
like this to do and this much money to do it, OK? So there 
needs to be more understanding from the public and the people 
of--just what our planet is doing and the things we can do if 
we're properly set up to do it.
    Mr. Mullen. I certainly second that sentiment. Thank you 
all. I yield back.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And next, 
we have Representative Frost from Florida.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 
hearing.
    NOAA was established in the 1970's to understand and 
predict changes in the climate, weather, ocean, and coasts, to 
share that knowledge and information with others, and to 
conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and 
resources, very important to me, as I am from the great State 
of Florida.
    The last part of NOAA's mission statement, to conserve our 
marine ecosystems, has never been more important. Ocean 
temperatures rising causing coral bleaching and the loss of 
entire ecosystems, higher temperatures that are also forcing 
and causing fish to migrate away from their normal habitats, 
and those temperatures are also making the ocean more acidic, 
challenging species up and down the food chain.
    At the same time, while NOAA has had great success in 
managing our fisheries under many pressures, we're starting to 
see a rise in fish stocks that are overfished. And while we are 
facing these issues, I do not see much about the conversation 
in this draft legislation, and that's concerning to me.
    In your testimony today, Dr. Lautenbacher, you had brought 
up the Northwestern Hawaii Islands Marine Conservation Area and 
the fight against ocean acidification. I consider such 
accomplishments central to the functions of NOAA and would love 
to give you an opportunity to highlight some of the other 
conservation wins at your time at NOAA.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Yes, I think conservation is very 
important. We have to--as I said before, we have to understand 
where we live and what's around us, and we can't ignore that. 
We're not smart enough to ignore it. I mean, we need to be able 
to deliver the kinds of support, if you want to call it that, 
and understanding to deal with the problems rather than to kiss 
them off and say, well, I'll take that--take care of that next 
week or I got more important--I want to get my new car out and 
all that. I mean, there's just--there's not enough 
understanding of what we need to do to continue the way we want 
to live as the public sector, as real people. So I'm all 
supportive of kind of deal with that kind of a--and I think 
that the more that we can collectively in this audience pass 
the words on that we've heard--I've heard from everybody here, 
I think that will help----
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Dr. Lautenbacher [continuing]. Get the public to 
understand. We need more public understanding of the positions 
that we're in today. But we are taking a lot. We are doing 
almost everything we can with the money that's there inside of 
NOAA today to do our best. And you've heard these two gentlemen 
who have been working, you know, right now at it. I've----
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. I'm retired from it, but----
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Dr. Lautenbacher [continuing]. That's what needs to be 
done.
    Mr. Frost. No, 100 percent. And looking at NOAA's fisheries 
2023 priorities, I saw projects like restocking salmon off of 
Maine, reef conservation in the great State of Florida, and 
developing new strains of oyster especially suited for Alaska. 
Dr. Gallaudet, you support transferring NOAA's protected 
species responsibilities to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
I'm worried about the possibility of important conservation 
projects being lost in such a transition. If Congress approved 
that, how could we ensure that it's done in a way that keeps 
NOAA's many long-term conservation projects active and on 
track?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Thank you for your question, Congressman. 
First of all, the percent of species that NOAA manages compared 
to all those in the United States is 10 percent, so it's a 
small amount. And by virtue of law, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, for example, that--it will not slip by because 
oversight will ensure it won't. So the agency--and we're not 
even asking for NOAA to not do it. We're asking for that part 
of the agency to move so the fine people who are doing that 
will still continue to do their mission, just organized under a 
structure that will make the job more efficient with less 
overhead.
    But it's important to know that NOAA has done a great--has 
a great track record in ocean conservation over the last few 
years. Just under our watch, for example, we expanded the 
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. We conducted--or 
we established the Mission: Iconic Reefs in the Florida Keys 
National Marine Sanctuary. We helped start the--a new sanctuary 
in Lake Michigan off Wisconsin, and we started the ball rolling 
on a new one that will be in Lake Ontario probably approved 
next year, in addition to the Coral Reef Conservation Program 
advances and a new strategy to address stony coral tissue loss 
disease in your great State, a big effort that we initiated and 
is continuing now. So the conservation wins at NOAA are many, 
and I don't see this bill interfering with any of them.
    Mr. Frost. Got you. Thank you so much for the witnesses and 
their time and your service at NOAA. This is no sleight to you 
three gentlemen, but I also hope in future hearings on this 
subject we'll also be able to hear from other stakeholder 
groups and members of the scientific community, many questions 
that still need to be answered. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. The Member yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Representative Tonko, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Hey, thank you, Chair. And thank you, Chair 
Lucas and Ranking Member Lofgren, for hosting this important 
hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for their 
contributions.
    As an engineer, I've always looked to science to inform the 
work that I do and to shape our choices as policymakers and 
public servants. NOAA is indeed a critical piece of our 
Nation's scientific leadership. The data that its expert staff 
of scientists, engineers, and forecasters provides benefit 
Americans every day. That is why it is concerning that we have 
seen a few unfortunate instances where political officials 
intervened with NOAA's scientific authority.
    In June 2020, I called for an investigation into the so-
called SharpieGate, the incident to assess whether 
Administration officials interfered with public emergency 
notifications that were very much intended to relay critical, 
science-driven hurricane projections. I've continued to 
advocate for strong scientific integrity standards and 
protections at our Federal agencies through my Scientific 
Integrity Act. And I am happy to see that the Chair's Organic 
Act legislation promotes the culture of scientific excellence 
at NOAA that our entire Nation and certainly our economy 
benefit from.
    So to any of our witnesses or to all of them, can you all 
please speak a bit to the importance of scientific integrity at 
NOAA and why is it so important that the Administration's work 
products remain free of undue political influence?
    Dr. Jacobs. I couldn't agree more. I'm really supportive of 
that legislation. I experienced this firsthand myself. And, as 
a result--I mean, this is one of the things that I can tell you 
right now. This wouldn't have happened with an independent 
NOAA. The challenge--and particularly after reviewing a lot of 
the IG investigation, we went back, we rewrote a lot of the 
scientific integrity policy particularly and how it pertains to 
social media and other stuff. I think it's the gold standard of 
government science agencies as far as the policy, but it has 
one fatal flaw, and that's it's not enforceable upwards; it's 
only enforceable downwards. And NOAA, no matter how great the 
policy is and how important it is, other than whistleblower 
protections, there's nothing to prevent this other than 
possibly an independent agency. And so my concern, no matter 
where NOAA ends up as far as the Organic Act, this is still an 
issue that needs to be addressed, and I think it's critical 
that that it gets addressed.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Dr. Gallaudet. And I agree wholeheartedly, Congressman.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Me, too, absolutely. Everything that you 
heard is right there with me, too.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, gentlemen. And how can a 
NOAA Organic Act strengthen scientific integrity policy and 
ensure meddling or breaking of such rules does not occur in the 
future?
    Dr. Jacobs. Well, I think the policy itself is great, and 
it stops at the top. And if NOAA is an independent agency, then 
it--the policy basically covers the entire agency, which is--
that's the way it should work. The challenge is, right now--
like I said, it's not enforceable upward. Department of 
Commerce doesn't have one that matches with any of NOAA's 
policies or equities. It's very different. And there's no real 
go-between. And that, to me, is a gap. And I think an 
independent agency would be more protected from that type of 
outside interference.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Gentlemen, any other thoughts?
    Dr. Gallaudet. Yes, Congressman. I think scientific 
integrity is essentially about leadership, especially at NOAA, 
and ensuring an Administrator can exercise leadership and 
scientific integrity in that way will be more effective if not 
having to report to the Department of Commerce.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. Totally agree. Totally agree again. It's 
integrity, and it starts at the top. And the top of NOAA should 
be doing the same thing, and they are, so let's keep--let's 
allow it to happen.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much for your info. I look 
forward to continuing to work with you all to promote 
scientific integrity at NOAA. And I do indeed remain grateful 
to the Chair for highlighting this important issue in his 
legislation.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
turns the gentleman from Illinois to most likely conclude our 
hearing. Mr. Casten is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most likely, it makes 
me wonder what the alternative is, but I'll do my best.
    You know, I want to start just by really thanking all of 
you for your service. NOAA is a wonderful organization. You're 
exceptional public servants, and I think we're fortunate to 
have had you in those chairs. And I say that because so often, 
as somebody who ran for office on three issues--climate change, 
climate change, and climate change--I've depended on NOAA 
analysis to explain what's going on.
    The--you know, there was this report last week--I mean, 
just--I mean, I was pulling through just a handful of things 
that we've been saying recently, you know, NOAA tide gauge data 
that says that sea levels in Louisiana today are 8 inches 
higher than they were in 2006 when Katrina hit. A NOAA analysis 
from last year that said we can expect 2 feet of sea level rise 
on the Gulf Coast by 2050 relative to today. The information 
about recent hurricanes being, you know, much accelerated 
because of the rising temperatures, you know, in the Gulf and 
elsewhere and what that means. And we would not have that data 
for us in our job to make informed policy without the good work 
that NOAA has done.
    Seen from one angle, that's just facts presented by a 
dispassionate scientist collecting--you know, dispassionately 
collecting data. But it is impossible to decouple that from the 
politics. And, you know, whether that's--you know, what 
accountability does an elected official have who was previously 
denying that climate change was real or blocking things that 
would change climate change? How responsible is that person for 
this storm? That's not a scientific question. That's a 
political question. Did an elected official do enough to--
knowing the data that was available from NOAA and others to 
prepare people and evacuate people? That's a political 
question, not a scientific question.
    And what I'm struck by is that, you know, Dr. Lautenbacher, 
I think you probably experienced both of those firsthand in 
Katrina. You know, was--were the senior officials responsible, 
and did they do enough to get people out of the way? But if I 
recall, you didn't get your name dragged into the public eye to 
the way that, you know, say Director Brown at FEMA (Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) did.
    Dr. Lautenbacher. No. No, that's true. You're right.
    Mr. Casten. Dr. Jacobs, I think during SharpieGate, you got 
dragged into that in a much different way. And this hearing is 
about, you know, the independence of NOAA as an agency, but I 
wonder if you'd get philosophical with me a little bit about 
your independence as an Administrator. And I'm--you know, I 
guess my first question for you, Dr. Jacobs, is, do you agree 
that the job of Administrator at NOAA, because of climate 
change, is becoming more political?
    Dr. Jacobs. Yes, I do. And I think it's probably going to 
become more political not just because of climate change but a 
lot of other things going forward. I mean, you have all these 
weather events, severe weather events, which are exacerbated by 
climate change.
    Mr. Casten. Yes.
    Dr. Jacobs. I mean, it's all--yes, I totally agree.
    Mr. Casten. So I guess I ask that, and, you know, you and I 
talked about this a bit a year or two ago. Do you think that 
the training you had prior to becoming a NOAA Administrator 
prepared you for the sudden political challenges you found 
yourself under during SharpieGate? I mean, if you were to go 
back and, knowing the job you would end up with, are there some 
other courses you would have taken in college?
    Dr. Jacobs. I don't think they offer those courses. No, I 
mean, I wasn't prepared for that. And my formal training is a 
scientist.
    Mr. Casten. Yes.
    Dr. Jacobs. And I felt like, you know, I was one of the 
scientists in a horrible situation. And I think what a lot of 
people probably don't understand about NOAA is it's in the 
Department of Commerce. Department of Commerce can overrule any 
decision that the NOAA--even the NOAA Administrator wants.
    Mr. Casten. Yes. So I guess--and just with the remainder of 
the time--and it's unfair to ask you to do this in a minute. 
But we--the Fed is independent. The Fed is independent by 
funding. They're independent by Administration. The Chair of 
the Fed is not immune to pressure from the President if the 
President wants rates to go in a different direction. The CFTC 
(Commodity Futures Trading Commission) is appointed and 
approved by the Senate so not as independent as the Fed, but 
their funding is independent, and they are not immune from 
pressures. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is 
totally independent, and yet they've been short-staffed for the 
last several months because the appointment has become 
politicized for FERC chairs. And so as you think about what an 
independent NOAA means, setting aside the legislation we're 
talking about today, in your view, is this a need for the 
funding source? Is it a need for how the heads are appointed? 
Is it a need for how they're trained and what we search for? 
Because they're different suites of questions. And I can find 
lots of Administrators of agencies who are nominally 
independent but suffer from--under political pressure.
    Dr. Jacobs. I think--I mean, maybe my perspective might not 
be unique to the Department of Commerce. This--it's quite 
possible this happens in other administrations or other 
departments. But I think one of the challenges of having 
Senate-confirmed political appointees in bureaus or departments 
that then have to answer to schedule C political staff who are 
not Senate-confirmed or anything at a higher department level, 
they feel like the people under them answer to them. And I feel 
like if you're just going at a Senate-confirmed political 
level, you could figure this out in a more coherent way. But I 
feel like there's layers of these schedule C political staffers 
that really exert a lot more authority than they should have. 
And maybe it's delegated to them. Maybe it's--that's just what 
they think. I don't know. But to me, that seems like something 
that you wouldn't see if NOAA was independent.
    Mr. Casten. Way over time----
    Chairman Lucas. The gentleman----
    Mr. Casten [continuing]. But I would love to continue the 
conversation, and I will yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentleman's time has expired. I can 
assure the gentleman that the conversation will continue and 
that I see a number of points in the conversation today where 
there is a lot of agreement within this Full Committee, and we 
will make progress.
    With that, I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable 
testimony and the Members for their questions. The record will 
remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written 
questions from the Members. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record


                   Discussion Draft: National Oceanic
               and Atmospheric Administration Act of 2023
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]