    [Senate Hearing 105-46]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 105-46

       OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANAGEMENT REFORMS AT THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
                           ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF

                     GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING,

                          AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 24, 1997

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
     40-458 cc                     WASHINGTON : 1997
    _______________________________________________________________________
                    For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office,
     Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

                       COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                       FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
    WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware       JOHN GLENN, Ohio
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
    DON NICKLES, Oklahoma                MAX CLELAND, Georgia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
                 Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
                     Leonard Weiss, Minority Staff Director
                        Michal Sue Prosser, Chief Clerk

                                     ------

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING, AND
                            THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                        SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman
    WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware       JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          MAX CLELAND, Georgia
                            Ron Utt, Staff Director
          Laurie Rubenstein, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                          Esmeralda Amos, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Brownback............................................     1

                                   WITNESSES
                            Thursday, April 24, 1997

    Diana Josephson, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and
      Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
      U.S. Department of Commerce, accompanied by Admiral William
      Stubblefield, Director, NOAA Corps, and John Carey, Associate
      Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere...............     2
    Brian Logan, President, Photo Science, Inc., accompanied by John
      Palatiello, Executive Director, Management Association for
      Private Photogrammetric Surveyors..............................    16
    Kenneth S. Johnson, Chairman, University-National Oceanographic
      Laboratory System..............................................    20
    Joel Myers, President, AccuWeather, Inc..........................    31
    Joel Willemssen, Director, Information Resources Management,
      Accounting and Information Management Division, U.S. General
      Accounting Office, accompanied by Keith Rhodes, Technical
      Director, Office of Chief Scientist, U.S. General Accounting
      Office.........................................................    35

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Johnson, Kenneth S.:
        Testimony....................................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    69
    Josephson, Diana:
        Testimony....................................................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................    43
    Logan, Brian:
        Testimony....................................................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    60
    Myers, Joel:
        Testimony....................................................    31
        Prepared statement...........................................    78
    Willemssen, Joel:
        Testimony....................................................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    91

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared statements of witnesses in order of appearance..........    43
    Mike Smith, Certified Consulting Meteorologist, President,
      Weather Data Inc., prepared statement in letter sent to Sen.
      Brownback, dated April 21, 1997................................   151
    John D. Bossler, Rear Admiral (Ret.), NOAA, prepared statement...   154
    Will Connelly, Marine Business Development Consultant, Fort
      Lauderdale, Florida, prepared statement........................   161

                          OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANAGEMENT
                        REFORMS AT THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
                         AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1997

                                       U.S. Senate,
                             Subcommittee on Oversight of
                      Government Management, Restructuring,
                                and the District of Columbia,
                      of the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:40 p.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam
    Brownback, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senator Brownback.
        Staff Present: Ron Utt, Staff Director, and Esmeralda M.
    Amos, Chief Clerk.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BROWNBACK

        Senator Brownback. I will call the hearing to session, and
    thank you all for joining me. I apologize for being a few
    minutes late. We have another little matter going on today
    called a Chemical Weapons Convention and some pretty big
    hearings on that and discussions going on, which there may be
    some breaks taking place during the hearing with votes
    scheduled for this afternoon. So we may have to take
    intermittent recesses for that.
        This is the fourth in a series of hearings on the
    Department of Commerce. In our last hearing, we explored the
    role of the Department of Commerce in Federal statistical
    gathering, analysis, and dissemination, to consider
    opportunities for reform and consolidation. The purpose of
    today's hearing, though, will be to look at the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. More precisely,
    we hope to learn more about the Federal surveying and mapping,
    the NOAA fleet, and the National Weather Service. Critics have
    argued for years that NOAA performs functions that could be
    better handled by the private sector or consolidated elsewhere
    within the government. For instance, more than 100 private
    companies in the United States compete with the National
    Weather Service to prepare and disseminate weather forecasts to
    the public and businesses.
        There is also the issue of the NOAA fleet, which is an
    aging fleet. There has been a lot of documentation about its
    needs, and whether or not the Congress is going to fund those
    needs and what options will take place and what options there
    are for private sector involvement in providing that sort of
    service that the fleet currently does. We will have three
    panels on this.
        The first panel is the Hon. Diana Josephson, Deputy Under
    Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration. Ms. Josephson, I appreciate very
    much your coming up to the Subcommittee to testify. I like to
    treat these as informal sessions as much as possible so that if
    you would like to present your written statement, I am happy to
    have that. If you want to read off of it, that is fine. If you
    would rather just get right down to the nub, as we say, on it,
    and say what your thoughts and opinions are on NOAA,
    particularly the NOAA fleet, particularly the possibilities of
    privatizing some of these services, that would be most
    appreciated, and then we can have an exchange.
        At any rate, the decision is yours and so is the floor.
    Thank you for joining us.

      TESTIMONY OF DIANA JOSEPHSON,\1\ DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
        OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
      ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY
     ADMIRAL WILLIAM STUBBLEFIELD, DIRECTOR, NOAA CORPS, AND JOHN
        CAREY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND
                               ATMOSPHERE

        Ms. Josephson. Thank you. What I would like to do is submit
    my written testimony for the record, and I have a brief oral
    statement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Josephson and other material
    appears on page 43 in the Appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Brownback. It will be submitted for the record and
    put in the record.
        Ms. Josephson. And then we can engage in discussion. Thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present
    highlights of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration's management reforms and major system
    acquisition programs. First, I would like to give you a few
    examples of the many steps NOAA has taken to improve agency
    management, streamline operations, and save money.
        First, NOAA has implemented a strategic planning process
    which defines and validates our business activities, guides the
    development of operating plans and forms the basis for
    management decisions. NOAA holds managers accountable for
    results and uses performance measures to validate progress.
        Second, by 1999, our workforce will be reduced by 14
    percent from 1993 levels by eliminating 2,061 full-time
    equivalent positions. Three, we are working with the Department
    of Defense to merge civilian and defense weather satellites for
    savings of $1.7 billion over the lifetime of the program
    through 2018. Fourth, we no longer provide specialized weather
    services including agriculture, fruit frost, fire weather for
    non-Federal non-wildfire land management and specialized event
    forecasts. Fifth, NOAA has eliminated or streamlined 20 percent
    of its regulations. And finally, we are downsizing the NOAA
    Corps to 299 officers by September 30, 1997, and plan to
    convert these from a uniformed service to ci-
    vilian employees resulting in savings to the Federal
    Government. This legislation is currently under review by the
    Office of Management and Budget and will be forwarded to the
    Congress shortly.
        Second, I would like to focus on two areas that you
    mentioned in your opening statement: Weather Service
    modernization and the NOAA fleet. The Weather Service is two-
    thirds of the way through a $4.5 billion modernization and
    restructuring effort that is deploying Next Generation Weather
    Radars, advanced geostationary satellites, automated service
    observing systems, and a new computer and communication system,
    the so-called AWIPS. This restructuring streamlines the Weather
    Service from over 300 weather offices to 119 weather forecast
    offices and 13 river forecast centers.
        The Nation is already experiencing the benefits brought
    about by the modernization. For example, next generation
    Doppler radars have improved the average lead time for tornado
    warnings from zero to 2 minutes prior to modernization to about
    12 minutes in 1996. A 1992 study by the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology found that every dollar spent on
    weather service modernization provides $8 in benefits to
    American taxpayers.
        The final component of the modernization is AWIPS. As
    expected, development of this complex new system has provided
    many challenges to management. The AWIPS program received
    approval on February 12 from the Secretary of Commerce to begin
    limited deployment. This decision authorizes the acquisition
    and installation of 21 systems across the Nation. Once the
    AWIPS Build three software, which is the third out of six
    builds in total, is complete and operationally tested and
    evaluated this fall, NOAA will seek approval for full
    production decision in December 1997.
        Weather and climate services are provided to the public and
    industry through a unique partnership between the Weather
    Service and private meteorological sector. The Weather Service
    will continue to focus on its basic mission to provide
    forecasts and warnings for the public safety, and the private
    sector will continue disseminating forecasts and tailoring
    basic information for business uses. Since forecasts must be
    developed in order to provide warnings, we feel it is our
    responsibility to release them to the general public as well as
    the warnings.
        I would like to respond briefly to a recently expressed GAO
    concern that NOAA is unprepared to develop the Next Generation
    Geostationary Satellite System. In order to begin a GOES-Next
    generation program, two prerequisite efforts must be completed
    within NOAA. First, requirements for future geostationary
    observations must be validated jointly by the Weather Service
    and our satellite service. Second, NOAA must assess whether
    available and emerging technologies can meet NOAA's technical
    and economic requirements. Both of these assessments are
    underway and will be completed by the end of 1998.
        On fleet replacement and modernization, NOAA's philosophy
    is that the most cost effective acquisition of marine data is
    likely to be provided by a mix of charter vessels, contracts
    for data, university ships and NOAA ships. From our limited
    experience to date, we believe the jury is still out on whether
    the private sector can provide the same services at less cost.
    Due to NOAA's internal cost-cutting efforts, our ships may
    operate at comparable or cheaper costs than commercial vessels
    over the next 7 to 10 years of their useful lives.
        NOAA is committed to expanding the use of private
    contractors and cooperative arrangements with universities for
    ship support. We recently laid up two hydrographic ships and
    made $3 million in operating funds available for hydrographic
    contracting. These funds supplement $5.5 million in program
    funds which have also been redirected for private sector
    hydrographic contracting. NOAA is also working with UNOLS to
    develop a cooperative memorandum of understanding that will
    coordinate use of NOAA research vessels, in particular the new
    Ronald H. Brown. In addition, NOAA intends to acquire up to
    half a year of ship time on UNOLS vessels.
        Before I conclude, let me say that we consider IG
    recommendations and GAO reports to be an important management
    tool and are committed to using the audit process to strengthen
    our programs. Mr. Chairman, this completes my remarks. I will
    be glad to answer any questions you may have.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you very much. Appreciate very
    much your coming here and testifying and being willing to make
    your statements regarding NOAA. Let me look particularly at the
    fleet because that is the area that has drawn the most interest
    by a number of people. As I understand, the fleet is--I hate
    these numbers when I get--approximately 25 ships. How many
    ships are in the fleet?
        Ms. Josephson. Fifteen.
        Senator Brownback. You have 15 ships that are actually in
    the fleet?
        Ms. Josephson. Correct.
        Senator Brownback. OK. Did you decommission two ships so
    that you could take some of those funds for privatizing and
    outsourcing that work?
        Ms. Josephson. Correct.
        Senator Brownback. OK. So you had 17 and now you have, or
    you had 15 and you just decommissioned two that----
        Ms. Josephson. Right. We had 17 and we----
        Admiral Stubblefield. We had 24 at one time.
        Ms. Josephson. We have decommissioned down to 15.
        Senator Brownback. So you have 15 in operation today?
        Ms. Josephson. Correct.
        Senator Brownback. OK. What is the useful life left on
    these 15 ships? Can you give me the range of what they are on
    these ships?
        Ms. Josephson. Two to 3 years to 10.
        Admiral Stubblefield. No, actually probably 5 to 7 years up
    to 30 years.
        Ms. Josephson. If you recondition.
        Admiral Stubblefield. Well, we have two new ships.
        Ms. Josephson. I was forgetting the two new ships. We have
    two new ships.
        Admiral Stubblefield. Up to 30 years plus.
        Ms. Josephson. Right.
        Senator Brownback. OK. So you have two ships, and there is
    a 30-year life expectancy left with, and the remaining would be
    a 5- to 7-year life expectancy?
        Ms. Josephson. Five to 10.
        Senator Brownback. OK. Depending on how well they age and
    how much they are used?
        Ms. Josephson. How old they are. The conditions they are
    used, how we maintain them, whether we do a repair to extend
    their useful life.
        Senator Brownback. I do not mean to trap you on any of
    these questions, but I have some technical questions. I look at
    this and I want to know what in the world is this. This does
    not sound very good. So if you need to respond to me later or
    get something from somebody else, please feel free to do it. I
    understand that your daily cost of operation of these ships is
    more than $21,000 a day. That is the average cost of using one
    of your ships. Now do you know if that is anywhere close to
    approximate? Would you disagree or would you agree with that
    number?
        Ms. Josephson. I do not know the answer to that, and it
    would vary from ship to ship because we have ships that are in
    the 100-foot length to the ships in the 250-270-foot length,
    and obviously the cost to operate them will vary widely.
        Admiral Stubblefield. I can answer that.
        Senator Brownback. I am sorry. Do you mind, Ms. Josephson,
    if he comes up and states his name for the record so that we
    can get that testimony?
        Admiral Stubblefield. Certainly. My name is William
    Stubblefield. I am the director of NOAA Corps operation in
    charge of the ships and aircraft.
        Senator Brownback. Good. Thank you. Mr. Stubblefield?
        Admiral Stubblefield. Correct.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you.
        Admiral Stubblefield. The $21,000 would be on the very
    upper end of our ship operation, and that would be with
    operational costs and overhead. The majority of our ships would
    be in the price range of anywhere from $8 or $9,000 per day up
    to the $20-$21,000, but I have to emphasize that includes all
    costs, full costs.
        Ms. Josephson. Would you detail that?
        Admiral Stubblefield. Yes. The smaller range vessels, the
    smallest size vessels would be in the $6 to $7,000 range. Our
    fishery ships generally cost somewhere between $8 to $15,000
    per day, depending on size.
        Senator Brownback. Ms. Josephson, if I could----
        Ms. Josephson. I was just wondering what that covered when
    you say whole cost?
        Admiral Stubblefield. I thought I said it covers the
    maintenance costs, the fuel, the personnel, and all the
    associated overhead.
        Senator Brownback. OK. Ms. Josephson, when you look at
    sending a ship out on mission or when you are first developing
    your budgets, do you go out and contact private groups or
    university groups that have ships that can provide the type of
    service you are looking for and ask them to bid on the type of
    work that you are planning for that year or----
        Ms. Josephson. No.
        Senator Brownback [continuing]. What is your process?
        Ms. Josephson. Our process is that we generally look a
    couple of years ahead. We do a rotating 2-year forward plan,
    but I would emphasize that we own these ships. They are fully
    amortized at the moment, so we are not paying any capital
    costs. It is like owning your own car once you pay the monthly
    payments. So our philosophy is to use our ships for the
    remainder of their useful lives because that is the most cost
    effective approach for the government.
        Senator Brownback. Have you done that study internally?
        Ms. Josephson. Done what study internally?
        Senator Brownback. To determine that this is the most cost
    effective way?
        Ms. Josephson. We have done a study. We were asked by the
    Congress to do a study, I guess, in the fall of 1995, which we
    submitted in the spring of 1996.
        Senator Brownback. And you went out and contacted----
        Ms. Josephson. We had a contractor who went out and
    contacted people in industry to ask them about the availability
    of their vessels and to give us cost information, and I would
    like to ask Mr. Carey to respond to that in more detail.
        Senator Brownback. You have to state your name for the
    record, please.
        Mr. Carey. Yes. My name is John Carey. I am the Associate
    Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere.
        Senator Brownback. Welcome.
        Mr. Carey. Thank you, sir. I believe your question was had
    we done a study, and, yes, the answer is we did do a study at
    the request of the Senate Appropriations Committee which was
    submitted to the Congress, and we certainly would be happy to
    provide a copy of that for the Committee to----
        Senator Brownback. Good.
        Mr. Carey [continuing]. To review.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Information provided by Mr. Carey, the study ``NOAA Fleet
    Assessment: Report to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Justice, and State,'' December 15, 1995 is retained in the
    Subcommittee files.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Brownback. If you would, we would appreciate your
    doing that.
        Mr. Carey. And in answer specifically to your question, as
    part of that study, we did engage various contractors who went
    out to survey the hydrographic community, the fisheries
    community, and the research community, both on the question of
    availability of vessels and also to solicit information on cost
    data, and all of the details of that are included in that
    study.
        Senator Brownback. Now, the Commerce Department's Inspector
    General, and this should come as no surprise to you, strongly
    believes NOAA's billion dollar modernization plan for these
    ships should be terminated, and he says, and I just want to
    quote this portion to you, ``Because private sector and other
    Federal ships can provide improved services at reduced cost,
    there is no reason to make further capital investment in NOAA's
    fleet.'' And the IG actually recommends using the modernization
    funds to pay for the costs associated with decommissioning the
    fleet. Are you familiar with that statement from the IG?
        Ms. Josephson. Yes, we are.
        Senator Brownback. And would you care to respond directly
    to the Commerce Department's Inspector General point about
    that?
        Ms. Josephson. We believe that the most cost effective
    approach to continue our ship assets is in each case when the
    time comes to replace a ship to have an open procurement where
    people can bid to have the government construct the ship, they
    can bid to lease the ship to us, they can bid to take an
    existing ship and modify it to meet our requirements. At that
    time, we will look at the best deal for the government, what is
    the most cost effective deal. As I mentioned before, we
    currently own our ships. The government has paid for them. They
    are fully amortized. We are not paying any capital expenses,
    and so we believe it is cost effective for us to continue to
    use those ships through the remainder of their useful lives.
        Senator Brownback. Even though the upper end figure is
    $21,000 per day to operate some of your ships?
        Ms. Josephson. Yes, but this is 300----
        Admiral Stubblefield. That is a 274-foot vessel. That is
    the same range as what the university fleet would be as well.
        Ms. Josephson. These are identical ships.
        Admiral Stubblefield. These are identical ships. I would
    like to say there is a uniqueness factor as well. The fishery
    vessels, for example, we require both a biomass sampling as
    well as environmental sampling done simultaneously. We are the
    only ships in the domestic market that can do this combined
    sampling. The university community, as Dr. Johnson will testify
    later, I believe, will say that the university ships cannot
    trawl. The commercial sector vessels, which can trawl, do not
    have the berthing facilities, do not have the scientific space,
    nor do they have some of the sophisticated equipment hull-
    mounted that we need for the environmental studies.
        There are no vessels that we know of that we have been able
    to find that can do this combined operation at this point in
    time.
        Ms. Josephson. Mr. Chairman, maybe it would be helpful just
    to step back a moment and point out that we do not have a fleet
    which is homogeneous. We basically have four fleets. We have a
    fleet of two vessels which are equipped to go do deep ocean
    oceanography. These are bigger ships, and they are both new
    ships. The government has just paid for them. One came into
    service last year and one is coming into service in July. We
    also do coastal research, and we have one small vessel, which
    we are planning to use for the rest of its useful life, and
    then we plan to switch to chartering for that vessel.
        We have a fleet of three hydrographic vessels doing
    nautical charting, which are very different. Each of these
    types of fleets is very different. And then we have at the
    moment nine fishery vessels. We plan to use them for their
    useful life. Six of them are of the nature that Admiral
    Stubblefield just mentioned. They are uniquely configured to do
    the basic research stock assessment work which we do every year
    as the foundation for the fishery management plans, and they
    have to be able to trawl very long and very heavy nets behind
    them and then take the biomass which is caught and move it
    through a laboratory facility where it is counted, dissected,
    and analyzed, and at the same time the ship is equipped to take
    oceanographic conditions simultaneously about the salinity, the
    quality of the water, so that we match the biomass with the
    conditions in which we catch it.
        And we do these surveys every year. This is a 30-year data
    set. We steam down exactly the same track and based on that, we
    assess, have the stock of fish, these particular species,
    changed from last year to this year, and it is upon this
    scientific basis that we perform all our fishery management
    functions. Those ships are not available in the private sector
    and we have a request in the administration's budget this year
    for $2 million to come up with a proposed design for the next
    generation of these vessels, which, as I said before, would be
    procured in an open procurement. These are our requirements and
    bid to us what you think would be your preferred way of doing
    business with us. We do not have a predisposition to continue
    to own ships over the long-run. We want to get the best deal
    for the government.
        Senator Brownback. Ms. Josephson, have you talked with the
    Inspector General of the Commerce Department about the
    Inspector General's position regarding the NOAA fleet
    organization?
        Ms. Josephson. We have.
        Senator Brownback. And you just think the IG is wrong?
        Ms. Josephson. Yes.
        Senator Brownback. And you think they operate off of what?
    Flawed data or just the perception that they ought to privatize
    and so, therefore, they are going to do it?
        Ms. Josephson. I do not want to characterize the basis of
    his opinions.
        Senator Brownback. GAO has looked into this as well and
    comes to similar types of conclusions as the IG does. Are they
    inaccurate too?
        Ms. Josephson. Could you refresh my recollection of what
    the GAO's statements are? I just do not remember off hand.
        Admiral Stubblefield. If I may, Senator, there was a GAO--
    --
        Senator Brownback. Let me get to her----
        Admiral Stubblefield. Pardon me.
        Senator Brownback [continuing]. Because we ought to be fair
    about this. Let us cite the study here, what we are looking at.
    And it would be fair for us to provide that to you. GAO made a
    similar comparison and reported--this is in the 1994 study, and
    we should get that to her so you can have a chance to talk with
    the GAO as well about this. This was a 1994 study. Their citing
    on this, Ms. Josephson, is that while NOAA's fleet is
    comparatively expensive to operate, the Commerce Department's
    IG calculated that for certain large oceanic vessels, NOAA's
    average daily cost is over 60 percent higher than the average
    cost of similar University National Laboratory Systems vessels.
    The GAO made a similar comparison report at a 25 percent cost
    difference in 1994.
        Ms. Josephson. Well, they are talking now about our bigger
    ships, and at that time, we had older, more expensive vessels,
    which have now been laid up. As I mentioned, we have just
    acquired two new, much more efficient, research vessels in the
    fleet plus we have had a major streamlining effort. I mentioned
    that we are going down 14 percent in our employees. The NOAA
    Corps and the associated support staff is part of that
    reduction. So they have been streamlining. They have had an
    intensive effort to become more efficient in their maintenance
    operations. We have been engaged in a lot of activity since
    1994 to streamline the fleet and to make it more efficient.
        Senator Brownback. When was the last time, the department,
    not the IG, or the GAO, but the Department of Commerce itself
    or NOAA did a head-to-head comparison of whether or not they
    ought to contract out for these services with the private
    sector?
        Ms. Josephson. Well, let me explain what we are doing. In
    the case of Ka'Imimonana, which is one of the new ships which
    was entered into service last year, we are in the middle of an
    A-76 cost comparison to give us a data point on are we more
    efficient or are we not more efficient. We are in the middle of
    this right now. We will be issuing an RFP to industry, which
    the NOAA Corps will respond to also, as part of the A-76
    process. So by next spring, we will have a real life cost
    comparison between one of our ships at least and the private
    sector, whether we operate them more effectively than the
    private sector.
        We are also in the case of UNOLS, as was mentioned in my
    testimony, in the process of entering into a memorandum of
    agreement with them in which our ship-time is made available to
    UNOLS in return for ship-time on other vessels. Our ship will
    be stationed in the Atlantic. They have ships in the Pacific.
    Obviously, it is much more efficient for us to trade times so
    each of us do not steam through the Panama Canal all the time
    and waste a lot of energy dead-ending, I think they call it.
        We also have some data points in our contracting for
    hydrographic services. Long Island Sound was our first
    hydrographic contract. This contract appeared cost effective on
    its face, but the contractor told us that it actually cost them
    50 percent more to do the survey work than they had calculated
    in their bid. And I have some testimony from the contractor.
    The reason we had to shift this hearing--you were very
    courteous to make it earlier--is because I have to testify in
    the House at 2 o'clock, and in that hearing, this contractor
    has some testimony which I would like to submit to the record
    because it is an actual contractor, and they present their view
    of what it has been like to be a contractor of NOAA's in this
    field.
        Senator Brownback. I appreciate these specific points
    because that is what I want to have. I want specific items
    here.
        Ms. Josephson. Right.
        Senator Brownback. When was the last time you generally
    looked at the entire fleet and said----
        Ms. Josephson. It was 1995.
        Senator Brownback. It was 1995 when you looked at saying,
    OK, we are going to get out of the ship business and----
        Ms. Josephson. We looked at the----
        Senator Brownback [continuing]. And where we are going to
    contract for service, and that was 1995, the study that you did
    on that?
        Ms. Josephson. Yes. We surveyed--in each of the three
    segments: Fisheries, hydrography, and the research segments. We
    surveyed the community to get data. The IG had indicated there
    were available ships out there, for example, fisheries vessels.
    We surveyed the fishing community. They have fishing vessels
    available in the winter when they are not out fishing, but we
    need to go and do this research work when they are fishing
    because of the timing of our historic data sets. They are timed
    for the summer months. Also, we did charter a backfill while we
    had one of our fishery vessels being repaired. We did charter a
    fisheries vessel, but we had people living in the fish hold.
        The fishery ships are designed to catch fish and to carry
    large amounts of fish in holds. They are unstable unless you
    have ballast in those holds because they are not designed for
    our kind of work. We need a ship on which can efficiently bring
    in the nets, take the biomass out, and immediately pass it
    through a laboratory facility and do the analysis and the
    accompanying oceanography. You also have to have berths on
    board for 20 to 30 scientists. How many?
        Admiral Stubblefield. Fifteen to 20 scientists.
        Ms. Josephson. Fifteen to 20 scientists and they have to go
    out for months at a time. So it has to be reasonable living
    conditions for our employees. So living in a hold for months at
    a time, the hold of a fishing vessel, was something we did on a
    temporary basis, but we could not possibly do it over the long-
    term. So when we went looking for these charters to replace one
    of our fishing vessels, we did not find anything that was
    available that met the requirements.
        Senator Brownback. Did you also specify in that that we
    might be willing to contract for a period of 5 years so that
    people could----
        Ms. Josephson. If we did contract, we would like to
    contract for longer than 5 years, and one of my requests to the
    House----
        Senator Brownback. So you are saying that even once you
    posed that to them, that the industry was not willing to comply
    with your request and saying we do not have anything we could
    even retrofit to make it available to you?
        Ms. Josephson. In the particular case of the people on the
    fishing hold, this was a shorter term charter, but the AMLR
    charter----
        Admiral Stubblefield. Yes. The one that Ms. Josephson is
    referring to was a 1-year backfill charter. It was not a longer
    charter. More recently we have chartered for a fishery work in
    Antarctica, and we had a 1-year with an option for additional 4
    years. And both the backfill charter I am referring to and the
    Antarctica, the backfill charter, we did not find any domestic
    vessels that met our minimum requirements. The only vessels we
    found were foreign vessels that met our minimum requirements.
    In the case of the Antarctic charter for both trawling as well
    as environmental studies, the only ones that bid were foreign
    bidders.
        Ms. Josephson. In fact, we chartered with a Russian ship.
        Senator Brownback. May I ask on that? There have been a lot
    of questions raised about that. You chartered with a Russian-
    owned ship. Is this the same issue that you are raising here,
    Mr. Stubblefield, on the fish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean?
        Admiral Stubblefield. Well, I am confused, Senator.
        Ms. Josephson. Two different.
        Admiral Stubblefield. We got two different contracts or two
    different charters. One was for a backfill charter for 1 year
    that was in the New England waters.
        Senator Brownback. Which one was with the Russian owned
    ship?
        Admiral Stubblefield. That was in Antarctica.
        Senator Brownback. OK. And your IG was critical of that, I
    believe, saying NOAA failed to explore adequately less
    expensive domestic alternatives such as universities.
        Ms. Josephson. It was an open RFP on which anybody could
    have bid.
        Senator Brownback. I am sorry?
        Ms. Josephson. It was an open RFP, on which anybody was
    free to come in and bid.
        Senator Brownback. Are you familiar with your Inspector
    General's report on that particular topic?
        Admiral Stubblefield. Yes, we are.
        Ms. Josephson. Yes.
        Senator Brownback. Mr. Stubblefield?
        Admiral Stubblefield. Yes, we are.
        Senator Brownback. And you believe them to be inaccurate?
    How do you dispute the IG's statements on this particular
    research vessel and request for survey work where you went with
    the Russian-owned ship?
        Admiral Stubblefield. One of the IG issues was why do we
    not use a university ship. The intent was that we would be
    doing trawling as well as the environmental studies. As it
    turned out, the first year, we did not do the trawling, and the
    university ship in the area could have satisfied the
    environmental aspect very well. But the intent then, and as it
    is now, is to do a combined trawling as well as environmental
    studies. Year two the vessel is doing trawling, and it will do
    trawling for two additional years, if we choose to exercise
    that option.
        Senator Brownback. I am reading from this IG report, which
    I presume you are familiar with.
        Admiral Stubblefield. I am.
        Senator Brownback. But I am catching you some off guard
    so----
        Admiral Stubblefield. It has been awhile.
        Senator Brownback. One of the university laboratory people
    scheduled, the representative stated that until the OIG had
    contacted her in late July 1995, she ``had not heard that the
    Antarctic cruises on the Surveyor would be looking for a
    home.'' I would presume you would regularly contact the
    laboratory or the university community about your needs.
        Admiral Stubblefield. Well, as Ms. Josephson said earlier,
    the NOAA ships conduct three types of missions, a fishery
    mission, this combined trawling and environmental studies, a
    hydrographic mission, and an oceanographic mission. In the case
    of the oceanographic mission, we are in frequent contact with
    the university community. In the case of the hydrographic
    mission, the university community does not normally do
    hydrography. In the case of the fisheries, the university ships
    do not have the capability to trawl, to collect the biomass.
    Since this program was intended to combine both the trawling
    and the environmental, we did not immediately go to the
    university community. But we had informed certain individuals,
    within the university ship community.
        Senator Brownback. I am sorry. When you do not directly go
    to the university community on that, what do you mean by that?
        Admiral Stubblefield. Well, because they do not have the
    capability to trawl.
        Senator Brownback. You do not contact them then?
        Admiral Stubblefield. Not when there is trawling involved.
        Ms. Josephson. Did you not do a CBD announcement?
        Admiral Stubblefield. That is what I was getting up to. But
    we did do a CBD announcement. We sent it out to as broad a base
    as we could have in the United States. That was mostly the
    commercial sector. Informally, we had talked to some
    individuals in the university community, but I do not think we
    talked to the university scheduling group.
        Ms. Josephson. But the basic reason is because we were
    looking for capability that they do not have.
        Senator Brownback. Now who paid for the trawling equipment
    then that was put on the Russian ship?
        Admiral Stubblefield. We paid for some upgrades to the
    Russian ship.
        Senator Brownback. Did that include the trawling equipment?
        Admiral Stubblefield. I, and again, Senator, you are
    catching me off guard. My office was not directly involved with
    those upgrades, but we did pay for some, and I think it did
    involve some of the trawling. Did we put a full-blown trawling
    capability on the ship? Absolutely not. It would have been
    much, much more expensive than the dollars that we contributed.
        Ms. Josephson. Also, ships that trawl have to be designed
    so the hull will withstand the weight of carrying the trawl. So
    if a ship is not designed for that, you cannot ordinarily put a
    trawl capability on without great expense in rebuilding the
    ship. We have looked at that because we had an excess T-AGOS
    vessel, and we looked to see if we could trawl with that ship
    since it might be a more cost effective way of getting a new
    vessel, but had to conclude it was just prohibitively
    expensive. The ship was not designed to trawl.
        Senator Brownback. If I could summarize what I hear you
    saying: You have dropped your fleet down from 24 to 15 ships,
    you are going to as each of these become too old to really do
    the work you want to do appraise then whether to go contract
    out, but I never heard you really say contract. I heard you say
    you might lease so that you would have a long-term lease or
    would you look at contracting for the service that you seek?
        Ms. Josephson. In the case of hydrography, we are
    contracting for data. In the case of research, we need
    platforms on which our scientists go on board. For example, our
    ships carry our fisheries' biologists, our fisheries'
    scientists, to do the fisheries research, and in the case of--
    --
        Senator Brownback. Will you contract there then for
    somebody else to operate the ship?
        Ms. Josephson. Yes. There are two issues. Do we own the
    ship or does someone else own it and provide it to us for a
    lease?
        Senator Brownback. Well, but I am trying to get you to
    define--as your lease, do you mean basically like I would lease
    a car?
        Ms. Josephson. Right.
        Senator Brownback. Or what about just saying we are going
    to place our scientists on another ship or look at that as a
    possible option if----
        Ms. Josephson. When we charter a vessel, we do put our
    scientists on another ship.
        Senator Brownback. So you will look at that option then as
    well?
        Ms. Josephson. I think in fisheries right now, as I
    recollect the figures we provided you, we have something like
    534 charter days a year in which we put our fisheries
    scientists on charter vessels. In fact, one-third of our total
    days at sea are currently being handled through charters, two-
    thirds on our own ships. So we do a substantial amount of
    chartering right now.
        In the case of hydrography, we are purchasing data. There
    is a capability in the private sector due to the fact that the
    Corps of Engineers, in particular, has requirements for people
    to provide them information about dredging when they dredge new
    passages into ports, new channels into ports, and so on. There
    is a capability in the private sector to do hydrography, and in
    the hydrographic area we are contracting for the data itself.
    In the fisheries area, the capability is within NOAA, so we are
    looking for platforms upon which we can do the science. The
    same is true in the deep ocean oceanography area.
        Senator Brownback. Good. Ms. Josephson, too, you cited the
    1995 study when you looked at the entirety of the fleet.
        Ms. Josephson. Right.
        Senator Brownback. Would you be willing to provide that for
    the record, as well?
        Ms. Josephson. Yes, I think Mr. Carey already offered to do
    that.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The study ``NOAA Fleet Assessment: Report to the Senate
    Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and
    State,'' December 15, 1995 is retained in the Subcommittee files.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Brownback. You would be willing to do that. I want
    to make sure that we get that so that we can look at it. Bottom
    line for me on this, and I know you are doing everything you
    can with the limited resources we have and we have got limited
    resources, and everybody is trying to balance the budget.
        Ms. Josephson. Right.
        Senator Brownback. And it would be nice if we could even
    pay a little bit of the mortgage down for the country. So
    everybody is looking at areas or places that we can save money.
        Ms. Josephson. Right.
        Senator Brownback. And when you have Inspector General
    reports and GAO reports that are citing this as a potentially
    very fruitful area for us, and some may say, look, it is just a
    few million dollars, well, watch your pennies and your dollars
    will grow, as Ben Franklin said, and we are trying to say watch
    your millions and your billions will grow. So we are trying to
    find, and I know you are trying to, too.
        Ms. Josephson. Yes.
        Senator Brownback. We have tried to hold this hearing to
    get as much information about an area that looks really quite
    questioning when you consider those outside reports.
        Ms. Josephson. Well, let me give you an analogy. I think we
    all know that when we buy a car and we make our payments, we
    own it. It is going to be more expensive to give up our car
    which we have paid for, to go and lease an automobile because
    we are going to pay for the management costs and the profit of
    the leasing company. This analogy applies here. Now when we get
    to our current ships, we believe, since the government and the
    taxpayer has paid for them, that it is less expensive to
    continue to own them during their useful lives.
        Now we are open as to who operates them, and as I said, we
    are doing A-76 right now. We are also doing a cost comparison
    with UNOLS. So we are open to having other people operate our
    ships if that proves cost effective.
        Senator Brownback. Or even just selling them to somebody
    else to operate if that proves cost effective.
        Ms. Josephson. Well, we had another data point on that. We
    have a ship which is identical to one of our hydrographic
    vessels, the Fairweather, and we have a report on that which we
    also will submit for the record.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Report to the Congress--Lease Back of the Fairweather from a
    Private Sector Contractor, submitted by Ms. Josephson appears on page
    145 in the Appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Fairweather has been laid up, I think, since 1988, and
    a company came to us and said they would be interested in
    taking it from us, refurbishing it, and leasing it back. So we
    did a Request for Information to industry last spring asking
    people to tell us, would they be interested in this vessel, and
    how much would it cost us, give us some range of expense. The
    responses we got showed it would be more expensive for us to
    lease the ship from the private sector than to run the
    identical ship that we have internally. So that is just another
    data point.
        Senator Brownback. Good.
        Ms. Josephson. So, so far, I would say, as I said in my
    testimony, the jury is out. We are very open, but my goal is to
    make the most cost effective decisions for the government.
    NOAA's management's position is that we are open to leasing
    ships or owning them. It just depends for each ship when the
    decision time comes what is the most cost effective decision
    for the government.
        Senator Brownback. And you are open to contracting just for
    the service, not you having to have the lease on the ship then,
    too, which is----
        Ms. Josephson. Now, how would that work? To lease for the
    service?
        Senator Brownback. You have said a third of your
    information is from you contracting for the data.
        Ms. Josephson. No, I did not say that.
        Senator Brownback. That you are contracting.
        Ms. Josephson. No.
        Senator Brownback. OK. So you are not open to that?
        Ms. Josephson. I said we are contracting. A third of our
    days at sea are provided by ships which we charter.
        Senator Brownback. Correct, and so you are contracting for
    this service from that ship? You do not lease that ship then?
        Ms. Josephson. No, those are ships we lease.
        Senator Brownback. OK. Then maybe I am confusing you with
    terminology.
        Ms. Josephson. Yes, I think we are probably talking past
    each other.
        Senator Brownback. What I am interested in, and I am not
    probably using the correct terminology, is that you do not have
    to own or lease the ship? You are interested in data in many
    cases, some cases not. But in many cases, you are just
    interested in data. You do not have to own that ship? You do
    not have to long-term lease that ship? You want to get the
    data.
        Ms. Josephson. Correct.
        Senator Brownback. And you will be willing or open to
    contract for the data.
        Ms. Josephson. In the case of hydrography that is correct.
    It is not correct in the case of fisheries or deep ocean
    oceanography. In these areas, we have the U.S. experts on our
    staff doing the science. This is what we are funded to do. In
    the case of fisheries, the data is used as the basis for the
    governmental regulatory function. So I believe that in that
    case, there might be some legal questions as to whether we
    could get data from those who might have a potential conflict
    of interest or an interest in the regulatory outcome.
        Senator Brownback. Have you examined the legal
    possibilities of doing that then?
        Ms. Josephson. Have we examined the legal possibilities?
        Senator Brownback. Yes. Of contracting for that
    information?
        Ms. Josephson. No, we have not looked at the possibilities
    of chartering for fishery data because we are charged with
    getting the fishery data. This is one of our major missions
    under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. So we would not be implementing
    the act if we----
        Senator Brownback. But acts are changeable, too----
        Ms. Josephson. Well, it has just been reauthorized this
    last fall.
        Senator Brownback [continuing]. If there are ways that you
    would look at and say that this would be more cost effective
    for us to do that. I am asking you to examine all options here
    that are available.
        Ms. Josephson. We have not looked at whether it would be
    more cost effective to contract for fisheries data, no.
        Senator Brownback. That is all I am asking you. Let us make
    sure we look at all ways, and if there are acts that need to be
    changed to do that, then I would hope you would bring that back
    in front of the Congress and say, now you guys may not want to
    do this, but this would be a less expensive way to collect the
    same information that we are interested in. Now you got to
    change the law because you have made us do it this way.
        Ms. Josephson. Yes.
        Senator Brownback. And I would hope you would feel free to
    bring those sort of things in front of the Congress.
        Ms. Josephson. Yes.
        Senator Brownback. You all have been very patient, and I do
    not mean to try to your patience. I am trying to figure out how
    we can do things as well and as inexpensive as possible. So if
    you have additional information you would like to submit for
    the record above and beyond the items that have already been
    submitted, I would be happy to receive those.
        Ms. Josephson. Right.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you for your patience and thank
    you for your time.
        Ms. Josephson. OK. And I wanted to give this to you for the
    record.
        Senator Brownback. Yes.
        The second panel will be Brian Logan, President of Photo
    Science, Incorporated; John Palatiello--I hope I pronounced
    that correctly--Executive Director of the Management
    Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors--pardon me
    for that. You may have to correct me. Ken Johnson, the chairman
    of University National Oceanographic Laboratory System. And
    this is a panel to look at some of the roles here again for the
    NOAA fleet.
        Thank you all, gentlemen, for joining us. Appreciate you
    being here. Your full statement will be put into the record. If
    you would like to summarize, we would appreciate that, and then
    have a chance to have a dialogue or even responding to some of
    the statements made by the earlier panel would be appreciated
    as well. Mr. Logan, President of Photo Science, Incorporated,
    the floor is yours.

      TESTIMONY OF BRYAN LOGAN,\1\ PRESIDENT PHOTO SCIENCE, INC.,
    ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN PALATIELLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT
           ASSOCIATION FOR PRIVATE PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SURVEYORS

        Mr. Logan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit
    my statement, full statement, for the record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Logan appears on page 60 in the
    Appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Brownback. So ordered.
        Mr. Logan. And in doing so, there are about three important
    issues that I would like to discuss here in the time available
    to me. First, there is an historic opportunity, I think, to
    realize significant savings for NOAA's program, and that means
    increasing its utilization of the private sector, and some of
    that came up during the previous discussion.
        In particular, the areas that I am going to discuss are for
    mapping, charting, and geodesy, which includes that word
    photogrammetry you just mentioned.
        Senator Brownback. Or tried to.
        Mr. Logan. Numerous studies including those in which NOAA
    has participated, requested and conducted, have concluded that
    contracting for surveying and mapping work is both feasible and
    desirable. Let me give you some specifics and examples where
    this can be accomplished. In aerial photography, NOAA operates
    and maintains aircraft and aerial cameras and crews at a cost
    which we believe is significantly greater than the private
    sector. Their aircraft makes and models are far in excess of
    what the private sector deems necessary to do the type of work
    that is being done. That does not mean to say that we are not
    taking safety precautions into account, etc. We believe in all
    the safety issues related to operating aircraft.
        NOAA's aerial cameras duplicate what the private sector has
    readily at hand, and according to the Inspector General's
    report, NOAA cannot adequately account for the cost of its
    aerial photography operations. Let me tell you that I can. My
    firm has been contracted for the first time to do such work in
    Miami, Florida, for NOAA. The work has not been totally
    completed to date due to adverse weather conditions. However,
    the comments that we have received relating to the work we have
    accomplished has been complimentary by all members of the NOAA
    technical personnel involved.
        I would like to mention at this point that the Corps of
    Engineers carries out an enormous aerial photography program
    throughout the country including the Caribbean and including
    South America or Central America each year, and they do this
    without one single aircraft of their own. All of their work is
    contracted successfully every year. U.S. Geological Survey
    carries out a similar operation without any aircraft of their
    own.
        In geodesy, which is surveying but taking into account the
    earth's curvature, NOAA is engaged, I believe, in competition
    with private firms by performing for States, often 100 percent
    reimbursed by the States, services otherwise available from
    private firms. For the program known as Supernet, NOAA has
    established a network of global positioning system survey
    control points, using the GPS constellation of satellites, in
    various States to create a high accuracy reference network with
    personnel and equipment dispatched from the Washington, D.C.
    area.
        These projects are funded throughout cooperative agreements
    between NOAA and the individual States, and in fact, NOAA has
    some personnel out at the State level working with State
    Government to promote these programs. I personally fell fall of
    this situation recently or now it is a few years back, I
    suppose, in Vermont, where I developed a statewide network only
    to have NOAA take the project away from me and undertake it
    themselves.
        Some discussion went on earlier about hydrographic
    surveying or nautical charting. This area is an initiative of
    the Vice President's National Performance Review. The capacity
    and capabilities of the private sector is significantly greater
    than NOAA is utilizing at this time, as evidenced by the Corps
    of Engineers again, who used private firms extensively, not
    exclusively, but extensively for the work that they do. This
    exhibit, which John Palatiello has here, our executive
    director, is showing, is a project which my firm and another
    firm, Vernon F. Meyer and Associates in Louisiana, undertook
    for the Corps of Engineers. This is a hydrographic chart or
    hydrologic chart, to be exact, showing the depths of shipping
    channels in the Mississippi River between Arkansas and
    Mississippi.
        This contracting effort right here, we believe, can be
    parlayed into what NOAA requires on near-shore charting. And we
    believe will save the taxpayers considerable money. As this
    table from the Commerce Department Inspector General's report
    indicated, and I think this came up earlier, private ships work
    and operate and carry out this type of mapping at a much lower
    cost per mile than the NOAA's ships, as you can see from the
    chart.
        But despite a small increase in contracting, and there has
    been some contracting in this area, NOAA is still spending
    taxpayers' money to operate its own vessels and upgrade its
    ships with new equipment, and, in fact, a lot of the equipment
    that they are looking for right now would compete extensively
    with firms who do this type of work. I personally do not do
    this type of work, but those firms have this equipment, it is
    available, it could be utilized by NOAA if research or other
    work had to be done rather than buying the equipment and having
    that equipment standing by for their own purposes as they
    needed them. We can talk more about that later if you wish to.
        In photogrammetry, which is the process of taking precise
    measurement from aerial photography to produce maps, agencies
    again, such as the Corps of Engineers, the Geological Survey,
    the Forest Service, the Federal Highway Administration, and
    many others, have contracted out programs to obtain such
    services from the private sector. Until recently, NOAA had not
    contracted out this service. My firm, again, has been awarded
    one of NOAA's first photogrammetric contracts. This involves
    abstracting the coastline mapping from the aerial photography
    of the Miami project I previously mentioned. This small project
    is welcome, and I hope it will convince NOAA that this should
    be the standard approach for obtaining this type of mapping in
    the future. NOAA needs to set an aggressive contracting program
    for this type of work.
        There are significant portions of NOAA's aeronautical
    charting program that can be performed by the private sector.
    As evidence, I would point to this digital State Aeronautical
    Chart produced by Bohannan-Houston, Inc. of Albuquerque, New
    Mexico, for the New Mexico State Department of Transportation,
    Division of Aviation. Again, this work is carried out within
    NOAA, and again we believe that the private sector is more than
    adequately staffed with equipment and technology and expertise
    to carry out this type of work.
        Congress has assured NOAA and other Federal agencies that
    it need not sacrifice quality when it comes to contracting with
    the private sector for surveying and mapping services. Under
    the Federal procurement law, contracts for surveying and
    mapping services are awarded on the basis of demonstrated
    competence and qualification, not the lowest bidder. In other
    words, value for money. This should eliminate any doubt about
    NOAA's ability to select a qualified contractor for these
    services.
        In recent years, Photo Science, my firm, has been fortunate
    to grow and expand at a greater rate than any time in its 42
    years of history. This growth is not only attributed to new
    market opportunities in Federal agencies, but by our ability to
    recruit highly qualified personnel from Federal agencies. As
    the Federal Government downsizes, we have created new private
    sector jobs for individuals from the USGS, from the Corps of
    Engineers, from NOAA itself, the Tennessee Valley Authority,
    the Defense Mapping Agency, now known as NIMA, and we pride
    ourselves on our ability to assure a soft landing for former
    Federal employees. Photo Science is not alone in this effort.
    Many of the MAPPS member firms are also experiencing record
    growth, and many are joining me in the recruitment and the
    retention of former Federal employees.
        So with downsizing government a reality, I strongly believe
    that contracting out should happen faster, and if I have one
    additional comment today, that is that it is not happening fast
    enough. We are talking a lot about doing additional
    contracting, but it is just not happening. Some small projects
    are coming out, but they are not coming out in the volume that
    I believe that they should, and that really brings in another
    problem, and that is that we really cannot staff up for a
    program when we are not sure what the program is going to be.
    There is not yet a relationship built between NOAA and private
    sector the way we have with some of the other agencies, where
    we discuss in detail projects coming further down the line so
    that we can staff accordingly to ensure the work gets done in a
    concise and rapid manner.
        It is very hard to turn around work when you do not know
    what is coming and then suddenly something happens. Work is
    requested, and you have not been given the ability to staff
    accordingly. NOAA has taken some initial steps towards
    contracting, but as I say, they have only yet begun to scratch
    the surface. The percentage of their work still performed in-
    house versus contract is small. They have learned to talk about
    contracting, but the amount of work, as I said earlier, is
    still pitifully small. In their favor, however, I should say
    that they have started to contract more. They are now at about
    25 percent of the work be contracted in this fiscal year, and
    this is to their credit because only 3 years ago, just 1
    percent of their work was contracted.
        However, when you compare it to the other agencies, such as
    the USGS, the Corps, the Navy and the Air Force, it compares
    not that favorably because they are already at 70 percent of
    contracting out for this type of service. NOAA has, and I must
    say this, accomplished valuable work in establishment of
    professional and technical standards, carrying out joint R&D
    and funding administrative grants, etc., for other services
    that are intrinsically governmental in nature and not
    competitive to the private sector. It is not, however, the
    proper role of the government to perform activities that are
    commercially available in the private sector. NOAA should
    reinvent, refocus, redefine into such roles as setting
    standards, conducting basic research, and in conjunction with
    the private sector, applied research, and such research, I
    believe, should be promptly moved into the private sector as
    soon as it is commercially established and available.
        I know that this work can be done because my firm has
    benefited from joint research and small production contracts
    from NOAA. There could and should be more such activity within
    NOAA, as I previously said. I believe that if NOAA and the
    other Federal agencies were to fully utilize the private sector
    surveying and mapping resources, organizations such as mine
    could triple in size. I could easily grow to 500 people with a
    corresponding increase in tax revenues for the Federal
    Government.
        Our great free enterprise system is based on the laws of
    supply and demand. The Federal Government should not be the
    supplier of mapping, but it should be the demand for mapping
    when there is a public interest to be served. To remedy this
    situation, we recommend that the Congress take and enact S.
    314, the Freedom from Government Competition Act, introduced by
    Senator Thomas of Wyoming, and of which you are an original co-
    sponsor, Mr. Chairman. This bill would establish a process by
    which the Office of Management and Budget will identify
    government activities that are commercial in nature and
    implement a plan to contract those activities to the private
    sector. With specific regard to surveying and mapping, evaluate
    all NOAA programs in order to determine mapping that can be
    commercially provided. Spending on these programs should be
    eliminated in order to empower market forces to provide the
    mapping, and redirect NOAA to those aspects of mapping, to
    those functions and to those responsibilities that are more
    appropriate for government, as I have mentioned earlier. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share our views, and
    I would be happy to answer any questions.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Logan. I appreciate that,
    and I appreciate the work you are doing. All those taxes you
    are paying are really helping out.
        Mr. Logan. I thought that that would be appreciated in this
    particular establishment. [Laughter.]
        Senator Brownback. Mr. Johnson, as chairman of University
    Laboratories branch here, we have heard some discussion of your
    group already. We will put your statement in the record, so if
    you would just like to discuss it with me, I would appreciate
    that as well.

       TESTIMONY OF KENNETH S. JOHNSON,\1\ CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY-
                NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC LABORATORY SYSTEM

        Mr. Johnson. OK. Could I read a brief synopsis of my
    statement?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears on page 69 in the
    Appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Brownback. Yes, please feel free. The choice is
    yours. I like to do these as informally as possible. You have a
    lot of good information, and if you want to boil it down, then
    I really would like some good discussion on what you heard from
    the last panel and your reaction of, ``yes,'' this is accurate
    or, ``no,'' I really do not agree with this.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. I do appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the
    opportunity to testify on behalf of the University-National
    Oceanographic Laboratory System. My testimony regards the
    interactions of the UNOLS fleet of oceanographic research ships
    with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I do
    this in my capacity as chair of UNOLS, which is an organization
    of 57 academic institutions and national laboratories from 27
    States. I will just summarize the structure of UNOLS, the
    status of our fleet and our current operations before I discuss
    the NOAA-UNOLS interactions and the services that the academic
    research fleet can and does provide to NOAA.
        UNOLS institutions conduct ocean science research and
    education programs, and they may operate oceanographic research
    vessels. We are joined for the purpose of coordinating
    oceanographic ship schedules and research facilities to
    maximize their efficient use. This coordination is governed by
    one simple reality: Every extra dollar used to support ships is
    one less dollar for science. UNOLS ensures cost effective
    access to the ocean for all of the Nation's scientists. UNOLS
    is now in its 25th year as the world leader in oceanographic
    facilities. The 27 research vessels in UNOLS fleet stand as the
    largest and most capable fleet of oceanographic re-
    search vessels in the world. It is a substantial national
    asset. There are five, soon to be six, large Navy-owned,
    university-operated ships in the fleet, eight UNOLS vessels
    that are owned by the National Science Foundation, and the
    remaining 14 ships are owned by State and private institutions.
        The UNOLS fleet is utilized by scientists from all of the
    States and many institutions beyond those that are UNOLS
    members. These seagoing facilities provide the platforms in
    which the bulk of American oceanographic research is performed.
    The UNOLS fleet is generally in its best condition ever. We are
    nearing the completion of a decade that will see about $200
    million in capital improvements to the fleet that have been
    funded by the Navy, by the National Science Foundation, by
    various State governments, and by private institutions. We are
    very grateful for the support of Congress and all of these
    organizations. This support will ensure that American
    scientists can collect the data needed to manage the oceans
    wisely.
        As a result of this support, all of the large Class I ships
    in the fleet are new or they have undergone major mid-life
    refits. Most of the intermediate ships have undergone major
    mid-life refits during the past 5 years. Significant upgrades
    to several small coastal vessels have just completed or will
    soon begin. However, with a projected lifetime of 30 years for
    an oceanographic vessel and 27 ships in the fleet, we must
    continue to plan for modernization and new construction at a
    rate of nearly one a year. Funds have been appropriated by
    Congress for a new Navy-owned ship to replace the aging Moana
    Wave. New ships to serve coastal research in Alaskan waters and
    mid-Atlantic waters will soon be required to replace the oldest
    ships in the fleet.
        The fleet itself supports research that is funded by a
    variety of State and Federal agencies. The National Science
    Foundation has provided the greatest amount of support, more
    than 60 percent of the total. The Office of Naval Research and
    NOAA are also substantial users of the fleet. The fleet is
    projected to operate for 4,900 days in 1997 at a cost of about
    $50 million. The fleet typically operates throughout the
    world's oceans but most operations are off the U.S. coast.
    Owing to some declines in Federal budgets and the delivery of
    new ships, the UNOLS fleet has some excess capacity. This
    increases the daily rate for ships in the fleet that do not
    have full schedules because fixed annual costs must be spread
    over fewer days.
        We have, therefore, sought out other Federal and State
    agencies to utilize the substantial national asset in order to
    optimize operational costs. These interactions reduce the cost
    of ship time to all of the agencies that use the UNOLS fleet
    including NOAA. Our interest has not been in displacing the
    oceanographic fleets of other agencies, but rather in
    supplementing them. We are poised to be able to do this easily
    and cost effectively. A significant feature of the 1997
    schedule, for example, is the addition of 393 operating days
    for the Naval Oceanographic Office. The work with NAVO was one
    example of our effort to find new partners for the UNOLS fleet.
        NOAA is another agency to which UNOLS ships have
    traditionally provided seagoing support. NOAA has three primary
    missions requiring ships, surveying for coastal charts,
    fisheries assessment, and research. Our interactions have been
    mainly with the NOAA Office of Ocean and Atmospheric Research,
    OAR, which is the primary research office at NOAA. OAR performs
    research and monitoring that is very compatible with the
    capabilities of UNOLS ships.
        As NOAA has begun to retire the oldest ships in their
    fleet, the UNOLS fleet has provided increased support to NOAA,
    especially OAR. NOAA will use about 337 operating days during
    1997 in the UNOLS fleet at a cost to NOAA of about $3.5
    million. This will be their highest level of participation in
    the last 5 years. In recognition of the need for NOAA to find
    access for the scientists to the sea and the desire of UNOLS to
    find other Federal agencies to support the fleet, we are
    developing a memorandum of understanding between NOAA Office of
    Ocean and Atmospheric Research and UNOLS. Major points of the
    proposed MOU include the following:
        The new NOAA research vessel Ronald Brown will enter the
    UNOLS ship scheduling process. NOAA will provide funding
    equivalent to that required for annual operation of the Brown.
    Some of those operations, of the NOAA operations, will be on
    the Brown and some will be on UNOLS vessels to take advantage
    of the distribution of the UNOLS fleet as Diana Josephson
    mentioned. UNOLS scientists will be scheduled on the Brown when
    it is not performing NOAA work and when and if it is cost
    effective to do so. This is the cost comparison that Diana
    Josephson mentioned. This will provide NOAA with much greater
    flexibility in scheduling ship time as a single ship cannot
    meet their multi-ocean requirements without conducting
    excessive transits.
        Academic scientists will have access to the specialized
    atmospheric research capabilities of the Brown as well as its
    general purpose capabilities. In order to equitably trade days
    among ships of different sizes, NOAA will account for the
    operational costs of the Ronald Brown on a similar basis to
    that used by NSF and ONR. In addition to the equivalent of 1
    year of ship time to support the Brown, NOAA will also
    outsource approximately $2.6 million per year in ship
    requirements which is about half the annual cost of a large
    ship. OAR will present these requirements first in the UNOLS
    scheduling process to see if we can meet them.
        Under the proposed MOU, UNOLS will provide approximately 20
    to 25 percent of the $12.9 million that OAR spends annually for
    ship time. While the Brown will be scheduled in the UNOLS
    process, it will remain a NOAA ship. If necessary, most or all
    of the NOAA OAR research could be conducted on ships of the
    UNOLS fleet.
        The largest requirement for ship time within NOAA is at the
    National Marine Fisheries Service. They budget $25 million into
    fiscal year 1995 requests for ship time to support their
    operations. The Fisheries Service work is divided into three
    major categories: Fish stock assessments, marine mammal
    surveys, and fisheries oceanography. Their work requires two
    types of ships, fisheries vessels capable of towing large trawl
    nets for stock assessments and general purpose oceanographic
    vessels for the mammal surveys and fisheries oceanography. The
    UNOLS fleet does not now have ships with the capability to tow
    large trawl nets although several univer-
    sities have expressed an interest in operating such ships. Most
    of the remaining Fisheries Service work, approximately one-
    third, can be performed in ships of the type in the UNOLS
    fleet. The UNOLS fleet already has provided some support for
    NOAA fisheries oceanography programs.
        The NOAA National Ocean Service is responsible for
    collecting the bathymetric data needed to produce navigational
    charts. Most of their requirements for time at sea,
    approximately $14 million, are in support of these charting
    operations. I believe that the general purpose ships of the
    UNOLS fleet are not well prepared to meet the rigorous legal
    and technical requirements of this work. It is best suited to a
    dedicated type of ship. The NOS, National Ocean Service, does
    conduct a coastal ocean program that studies safety issues such
    as hazardous algal blooms. The UNOLS fleet could, if necessary,
    provide ships for these programs.
        While the UNOLS fleet can supplement the ship requirements
    of NOAA OAR and the National Marine Fishery Service, we do not
    have enough excess days available in the fleet at the current
    time and the current size of the fleet to replace all of their
    requirements. If the UNOLS fleet is fully utilized, it can
    provide about 6,000 operating days at its current size. With
    4,900 days of operation scheduled in 1997, there is an excess
    capacity of about 1,000 days. That is equivalent to maybe 3 to
    4 ship years or 17 percent. However, scheduling conflicts
    essentially prevent full utilization of the fleet. There are,
    for example, many more requests for ship time during summer
    than winter to take advantage of better weather conditions and
    to study the most active biological systems. It is also
    necessary to periodically take ships out of service for
    maintenance periods. These conflicts make the last 10 percent
    or 500 days of fleet capacity very difficult to utilize. More
    time may become available if access to the UNOLS fleet allows
    the Naval Oceanographic Office to reduce their backlog of
    survey requirements. The total excess, though, is going to
    remain somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 days, which would
    be approximately one-third of NOAA's seagoing requirements.
        In summary, the UNOLS fleet represents a substantial
    Federal asset that can provide support to many agencies. We
    welcome the chance to supply the support, as it can provide
    educational opportunities for ocean science students, and it
    does reduce the ship operation costs to all of the agencies
    involved. As one aspect of this, we are committed to building a
    strong partnership with NOAA. We have worked closely with NOAA
    to provide support to their seagoing scientists in the past. We
    expect to interact even more closely in the future as the
    Ronald Brown enters the UNOLS ship scheduling process. Thank
    you for the opportunity to provide this information.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I understand Mr.
    Palatiello--do I say that right?
        Mr. Palatiello. Yes.
        Senator Brownback. You do not have a written statement; is
    that correct?
        Mr. Palatiello. I apologize. I think I miscommunicated with
    your staff. I was invited to testify, but I thought it would be
    more appropriate to have one of our members and practitioners
    so Mr. Logan made our statement.
        Senator Brownback. OK. Good.
        Mr. Palatiello. I will be happy to help answer any
    questions.
        Senator Brownback. I need to take about 5 minutes, if I
    can, right now. We have a development on the CWC that I need to
    be apprised of. If you would indulge me for a 5-minute recess,
    panel members. Feel free to do whatever you need to, but then
    we will reconvene in 5 minutes. Thank you.
        [Recess.]
        Senator Brownback. So much for a 5-minute recess. In a
    congressional break here, do not go by how we tell time. Sorry
    for that. It is just that we are involved in the Chemical
    Weapons Treaty, and that is a very pressing issue, and so I
    apologize for that. If I could ask you a couple of questions,
    and I appreciate all of your testimony and your time coming in.
    Mr. Logan, are you familiar with all the NOAA fleet does,
    everything that the NOAA fleet does?
        Mr. Logan. No, I am not. I have a very specific view of
    NOAA and that is really to do with mapping, from aerial
    photography through mapping and charting. The work that they
    are doing with the rest of the fleet, I think this gentleman
    here is more involved with. So we are very focused on one
    particular part of it.
        Senator Brownback. OK. Does your organization, is it
    familiar with everything that NOAA does?
        Mr. Palatiello. Not everything, Mr. Chairman. Our members,
    as Mr. Logan indicated, are involved specifically with regard
    to the charting, the hydrographic charting. The fisheries work,
    the oceanographic work, is not part of our purview, so it is
    only a third of the oceangoing activities that we are familiar
    with.
        Senator Brownback. OK. Mr. Johnson, you are familiar with
    all what NOAA does?
        Mr. Johnson. Fairly, yes. I have general acquaintance. I am
    very familiar with their oceanographic research, somewhat
    familiar with the fisheries, and the charting and so on I just
    look at from a distance. We do not in the university do that
    explicit kind of work. In exploring some of the things that we
    could do, I have familiarized myself with some of their
    capabilities, so I have general familiarity.
        Mr. Logan. I think together we know exactly what they do.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Brownback. We are going to try to make that
    combination. Mr. Logan, in the areas that you work in that NOAA
    also works in, can you provide 100 percent of their needs in
    those areas of the private sector?
        Mr. Logan. Absolutely, yes.
        Senator Brownback. There is no doubt in your mind about
    that?
        Mr. Logan. Absolutely no doubt in my mind that the
    membership of this organization can and could and should be
    supplying that. The only thing that we believe that NOAA should
    be doing is setting standards for the specifications of the
    work that we are doing. They could be doing basic research in
    our area of science, and then doing applied research along with
    the private sector to take that applied research as it becomes
    commercial into the private sector, and I have the experience
    of doing that, and it works very well, but the problem we see
    with NOAA is we get this little tiny piece of it, sort of the
    crumbs that fall off the table, and we never seem to be able to
    get the momentum up to really do what the other agencies have
    been managing to do in the last number of years, and that is
    going from relatively little contracting to a large amount of
    contracting.
        Senator Brownback. You are saying they are 25 percent of
    contracting. The rest are at 70 percent?
        Mr. Logan. They are at 25 percent right now. At least that
    is what their proposal is, 25 percent, but if you look at some
    of the contracts that they have already let this year, they
    have actually put a hold order on those because they say they
    do not have the funding anymore to do them. So, in fact, I am
    not sure what the final number will be because some contracts
    were let and now there is a hold on those contracts.
        They say that they do not have the funding. This is an
    issue--while you were out we were talking about this, saying
    that they cannot contract because they have been downsizing,
    and the government takes, the Congress takes this money away
    when they downsize and they have no money left to contract
    with. So I mean we are standing there saying, well, how can
    that be? I mean there must be some funds in your budget that
    allows you to contract, but they say no. So we do not know
    where that funding is going, but it is certainly not going into
    contracting right now.
        Senator Brownback. Can you provide it on a cost competitive
    basis with the current NOAA fleet, and you heard the Under
    Secretary, the Deputy Under Secretary comment about, well, yes,
    we have bid these out, but they are not competitive.
        Mr. Logan. Yes. I think if you look at the fact that most
    of the other agencies have gone forward and contracted and must
    believe that they are getting value for money or they would not
    be doing that, I do not see why NOAA who has similar needs
    would be any different than those other agencies. And when I
    see the work that they do, it has got to be more cost
    effective. In our testimony that was entered for the record,
    you will see a project that was for some relatively small piece
    of flying in Alaska, and they actually mobilized an aircraft
    from Florida to go to Alaska to do that flying. Now if you can
    tell me that that is a cost effective way of doing work, I
    would like to know because I could certainly utilize it in my
    organization. I mean it is just not a cost effective way to do
    it. We have a member firm in Alaska who is approximately 100
    miles, based 100 miles from that particular project with
    aircraft capable of doing the work. So those are the sort of
    examples that we have.
        Senator Brownback. What about her figures or the figures I
    gave you about the cost per day of operating the NOAA ships
    that range on the upper end at $21,000 per day to $8 to $9,000
    per day. Is that competitive? How does that compare to your
    numbers?
        Mr. Logan. Well, I do not know about the ships, but let me
    tell you something about the aircraft. We fly aircraft that are
    more than capable of doing the work required but our running
    costs would be approximately a third of one of the jets that
    NOAA flies. NOAA flies an actual jet to take photography, a
    full-blown jet. We fly either turboprops or piston aircraft.
    When I say we, I mean our association, our member firms, and
    there is just no way that you can compete with that because it
    is not that they are flying vast areas. They are actually
    flying quite difficult tidal areas which is not a vast amount
    of flying. It is just getting the right amount of weather, the
    right tide, etc., at the same time. So that cannot be an
    effective way of doing that.
        They tend to run three or four crew members per aircraft
    depending on the aircraft. The private sector runs two and
    sometimes one. So again, this has got to be a more efficient
    way of doing it, I would have assumed. But the actual cost of
    the ships, I would pass that over to my colleague here to----
        Senator Brownback. How does that compare to your fleet of
    ships in the cost?
        Mr. Johnson. A comparable sized ship in the UNOLS fleet,
    the $21,000 day would, I believe our most expensive day rate in
    1997 will be $18,000, somewhere between $17 and $18,000 per
    day. At the lower end, they range down to $3,000 per day. So at
    that rate, they are more expensive. $21,000 is higher, but what
    is that--20 percent or 30 percent higher.
        Mr. Palatiello. Mr. Chairman, let me just reinforce
    something that Mr. Logan pointed out. A cost per day is not
    something that I am familiar with, and I know in conversations
    I have had with folks from NOAA, they dispute the findings of
    the IG, but the IG did it on what I think is a more equitable
    way of doing a comparison and that is the cost per linear mile.
    And what they found is that the private ships are far more cost
    effective than NOAA's ships. Now, some areas you can do more
    linear miles per day than you can in other areas because of
    varying conditions and variables that play in, and I do not
    know how this would translate into a per day cost, but I think
    this is a pretty dramatic exhibit of the differences in the
    costs.
        Senator Brownback. And probably more accurate, what you are
    after is the mapping on a linear mile basis in that particular
    case.
        Mr. Logan. Yes. You could have a very good daily rate for a
    particular vessel, but if you are not getting anything
    achieved, what have you achieved?
        Senator Brownback. I have had days like that.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, we all have.
        Senator Brownback. Mr. Johnson, you are saying that the
    fleet of ships you represent could do a lot more of the work
    that NOAA is doing, but not all of the work that you know of.
    Now is that because of a lack of capacity on your part or is it
    a lack just of the technical expertise?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, a bit of each. We probably could do all
    of the oceanographic--we have enough excess capacity to do most
    of the oceanographic research. We do not have the actual hulls/
    equipment to do the deep trawling that Admiral Stubblefield was
    referring to, the towing of essentially a commercial trawl net,
    very large net. Our ships have never been built to do that
    capacity. There has been sort of a gentleman's agreement that
    NOAA would do that, and UNOLS would do oceanography.
        Senator Brownback. Mr. Johnson, part of the things we have
    been doing in this Congress has been that as we move and we
    make, end the era of big government, somewhere down the line,
    and we are not there yet, is trying to project into time line,
    saying, OK, if we are going to make these transitions, if we
    are going to privatize the NOAA fleet operations, you need to
    give some time window for people to build up either the private
    or in your case other sides of the public sector.
        How much time window would we have to give to your
    organization, to others, to say, OK, we are going to
    decommission this fleet and there is going to be sufficient
    capacity in other places to do the same quality of work in a
    cost competitive basis? How much time?
        Mr. Johnson. I would say probably at a minimum close to 5
    years. In the UNOLS fleet, we typically start to plan a new
    ship in a 10-year process, but that is starting to build the
    case then at National Academy of Sciences, too, for the
    appropriation to go to Congress for the money and so on. To
    actually sit down and start to work on the design of the vessel
    and go around to the community, find out what it really needs
    to be able to do, it is a very critical process because the
    ships are expensive and you do not want to not build the right
    capabilities into it.
        Senator Brownback. And that is in the piece and the portion
    of NOAA that the private sector does not have current capacity
    in. Do you know how many of the NOAA ships are focused in that
    particular area?
        Mr. Johnson. I believe Diana Josephson said nine of the
    ships are doing deep trawling. I do not know that they actually
    use nine ship years. They often go off and do other things as
    well. They own nine now that are doing that kind of work. I am
    not sure. It might be maybe 5 or 6 actual years of work doing
    that, I think.
        Senator Brownback. Mr. Logan, how about the sector that you
    are familiar with in NOAA that you have worked on? How much
    transition time is needed for the private sector to tool up to
    be able to do that work?
        Mr. Logan. On the aerial photography side, I would say by
    9:30 this morning, we could have been ready to roll on that.
    That capacity is there throughout the country. It is there and
    ready to be used. On the mapping side and the charting side, I
    think it is just getting to understand and know the
    specifications and therefore allocating the personnel to it. If
    we know that these programs are going to be put in place, it is
    a matter of weeks or months at the most that we could be ready
    to do that type of work.
        On the geodesy side, it may take a little bit longer, but
    certainly I would say it is months and certainly not a year to
    get that moving. And so it is in all the areas that we work in.
    The capacity is there. It is more familiarization of what
    NOAA's standards and requirements are because we have not been
    able to build on those because we do not do that type of work
    for them.
        Mr. Palatiello. Mr. Chairman, let me embellish on Mr.
    Logan's comment. There are a couple of areas where I think it
    would take a longer transition. For example, there is not a big
    private sector market for hydrographic surveying today because
    it is dominated by the government, and government agencies are
    deploying their own ships. So there would be some transition
    time for firms in order to capitalize, to have the larger ships
    to go farther offshore and what have you. As Mr. Logan said in
    his prepared testimony, the Corps of Engineers is responsible
    for the inland waterway system. They do a huge percentage of
    that work. The last estimate I saw was something in the
    neighborhood of 40 percent--I think it is much more than 50
    percent now--of that work is done by contractors to the Corps
    of Engineers. It is very similar to work to what NOAA is doing
    offshore, although the more you go out into the ocean, the
    larger the vessel you would need, and so there would be some
    requirement for more capitalization on the private sector, and
    there would be a need for a transition period.
        But it is kind of the if you build it, they will come
    situation. If the private sector knows that there is going to
    be a market there, certainly they will make the capital
    investment to go after it. So on something like that, there
    would be a transition period. In regard to your earlier
    question about is the capacity and capability there? From a
    technical standpoint, the answer unequivocally is yes. There
    are other issues that I think NOAA would point to that are
    somewhat impediments to contracting today.
        First and foremost is liability both on nautical charting
    and aeronautical charting. We have had an honest difference of
    opinion with NOAA on these issues. They seem to not be able to
    handle this the same way the Corps of Engineers does, which is
    simple errors and omissions insurance. Right now on the
    nautical charting contracts, first, NOAA is requiring insurance
    that is not commercially available. Our members have gone to
    Lloyd's of London, and Lloyd's of London will not write the
    insurance that NOAA has put on the table in negotiations.
        Second, they are requiring that a NOAA officer go on the
    ship of the contractor in order to perform some quality control
    functions. That is not a particular problem. It is probably a
    good idea. Then third, is they are still insisting that they
    have to go out and spend millions of dollars on their own
    equipment to check the contractor's work. Well, I do not know
    how you check a contractor's work in nautical charting unless
    they are going to send their ship out with this equipment and
    remap the same area the contractor just did. We have heard the
    old expression about a belt and suspenders. Well, they have got
    a belt and suspenders and I do not know what else, but they
    have got three different sets of quality control they are
    trying to put on these contracts. They are saying the reason
    for that is because of liability.
        Well, it seems to me there is just not a can-do attitude
    about contracting. They seem to be putting this up as an
    impediment to contracting. They can indemnify their contractors
    if they desire. And as you pointed out in your questioning of
    Dr. Josephson, if they lack the legislative authority to
    indemnify, I haven't seen them come to the Congress and ask for
    the authority. Rather they are imposing all of these
    unattainable burdens on contractors. We have members that are
    sitting down negotiating with NOAA right now, and they are
    getting ready to walk away from the table because NOAA is
    asking them to present evidence of insurance that is just not
    commercially feasible.
        We were through this debate with them 10 years ago, and I
    can go through that story with you if you have a moment, but it
    was a deal killer 10 years ago. They did one of the cost
    comparisons you asked about. And they had a provision in at
    that time that said each contractor had to have $100 million
    worth of liability insurance in perpetuity so that if you did
    the survey today, and a ship ran aground 25 years from now,
    they wanted the contractor to be covered 25 years from now and
    have the insurance on a claims made basis. Well, again, we went
    to NOAA and said you have put this requirement in the contract.
    Clearly, you must have done some sort of market study to
    determine that this is something that a contractor can get. My
    members have been telling me they cannot get this insurance.
    And NOAA said, oh, yes, we have done a study, and that
    insurance is available, and we said, well, can you point us in
    the right direction because we cannot find it? And they said,
    no, you have got to file a Freedom of Information request. So
    we did, and the answer came back that the survey was conducted
    by telephone and no documentation existed. There was never any
    such survey conducted. That was put in, that was on one of
    these A-76 studies, and it was over, they said the activity
    stays in-house, there is no private sector capability, because
    they put in a provision that the private sector could not meet.
        On that particular cost comparison, they set that aside for
    small business. And no small business responded. So they said
    competition is over, the activity stays in-house. They never
    opened it up to larger firms. So these are the kinds of things
    that we have been going through with NOAA in terms of trying to
    go through cost comparisons, trying to do an analysis of
    private sector capability, and there seems to be more
    roadblocks than there is a desire to knock down the roadblocks.
        Senator Brownback. Of the areas you are familiar with NOAA
    operating, Mr. Palatiello, there is no doubt in your mind that
    the private sector if not immediately could quickly ramp up to
    meet those areas that you are familiar with in NOAA; is that
    correct?
        Mr. Palatiello. Unequivocally.
        Senator Brownback. And what areas do you contend you are
    not familiar with that NOAA is currently doing that you would
    be uncertain about that statement? Are there other areas?
        Mr. Palatiello. In terms of technical capability, in the
    areas that we have been discussing, it resides in the private
    sector. Again, there are some other issues like liability that
    might need to be worked through, but in terms of the technical
    competence of companies in the private sector----
        Senator Brownback. What about this trawling issue? I am a
    farm guy. Is there private sector capacity to do this?
        Mr. Palatiello. I think that is more Mr. Johnson's field
    than ours.
        Mr. Johnson. For the kind of work that NOAA is looking for,
    there is not, I think, a real direct equivalent to the NOAA
    ships out in the private sector right now. I believe that there
    are companies that would be interested in building if they knew
    that they had a long-term commitment.
        Senator Brownback. How long of a commitment do they need to
    have?
        Mr. Johnson. I have heard people say 5 to 10 years.
        Senator Brownback. That they would bid on it then?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Brownback. If they could get a 5 to 10 year
    contract?
        Mr. Johnson. Right. Yes, 10 years I think, I am quite sure
    you would see interest. Five years would probably be at the
    lower end.
        Senator Brownback. So Mr. Johnson, of the areas you are
    familiar with in NOAA, separate and distinct from Mr. Logan has
    spoken of, is it possible for the private sector to do this
    area?
        Mr. Johnson. It depends. I mean even in the case of
    research, we make the argument that you want to have the ship
    very closely tied to the institution because of the complicated
    requirements. One day you may be shining a laser up in the sky
    and 1 day a remotely operated vehicle that you are putting in
    the deep sea, and that requires kind of an internal flexibility
    that is tough to handle in a private contract. But I think that
    there are companies doing that kind of work. NSF does have one
    privately contracted, two privately contracted ships working
    for them that are working. So it should be, I guess, possible.
        Senator Brownback. And if you are interested basically in
    the platform, getting that from the private sector, versus in
    the actual pointing of laser up or other things being operated
    by your scientists?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. Because the ship becomes an integral part
    of the science and that is what makes it a little bit
    complicated to handle the contractual details. It is rather
    like running a hospital, I suppose. I mean the whole thing ties
    together. You do not want to have multiple agencies handling
    different aspects of the operation.
        Senator Brownback. Do you have any doubt that if you
    offered a private company any of the operations within NOAA for
    a 10-year contract to provide the platform for this work, that
    you would get bids from private sector companies to do that?
        Mr. Johnson. You would get bids, yes, but with what NOAA
    can do as they have revamped their operation, there is only one
    way to find out.
        Senator Brownback. Has this been bid? And you are saying
    NSF has done some of it now?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we certainly have done work for NOAA.
        Senator Brownback. Yes, but they have private companies----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Brownback [continuing]. That have contracted for
    some of this research work that you are talking about?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, they have.
        Senator Brownback. I think you mentioned two ships or----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, the two ships, the icebreakers that work
    in the Antarctic, are run by a private firm, owned by a private
    firm, and then operate the charter under long-term contract to
    NSF.
        Senator Brownback. Do you know the name of that private
    firm?
        Mr. Johnson. Edison Chouest Offshore. I believe ECO.
        Senator Brownback. We may try to get that name and number
    just to pursue this. Anything else, gentlemen? If not, thank
    you very much for joining us. It has been most illuminating.
        The final panel will be Joel Willemssen, the General
    Accounting Office, and Joel Myers, President of AccuWeather.
    Thank you very much. Now who is my third gentleman here? Would
    you care to identify yourself?
        Mr. Rhodes. My name is Keith Rhodes, and I am a technical
    director in GAO's Office of the Chief Scientist.
        Senator Brownback. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Myers, I
    believe you have traveled in from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Myers. Yes.
        Senator Brownback. I am delighted that you have joined us.
    Maybe you can tell us a little bit about what the weather is
    going to be like in Kansas when I get home, but more I would be
    interested obviously in NOAA and the National Weather Service
    and the issues there, and look forward to your testimony. The
    microphone is yours.

          TESTIMONY OF JOEL MYERS,\1\ PRESIDENT, ACCUWEATHER,
                              INCORPORATED

        Mr. Myers. Thank you. I have submitted a copy of my
    testimony, and I would like to just today give a summary of
    those remarks and then be available for any questions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Myers appears on page 78 in the
    Appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Brownback. Very well.
        Mr. Myers. I am Dr. Joel Myers, founder and president of
    AccuWeather, Incorporated, one of the world's largest
    commercial weather information and forecasting companies, and
    chairman of the Commercial Weather Services Association.
    AccuWeather provides weather information and forecasts in a
    variety of formats for business, industry, government, and the
    general public. Our weather reports and forecasts can be heard
    on 500 radio stations across the United States, seen on
    hundreds of television stations, and read in thousands of
    newspapers and accessed millions of times a day on many of the
    popular news and weather Internet web sites.
        As a former professor at the Pennsylvania State University,
    I take personal pride in the knowledge that at the time I left
    teaching, I had helped train 17 percent of all the
    meteorologists practicing in the United States. Mr. Chairman,
    you and your colleagues may be surprised to learn that on any
    given day, 85 percent of the weather information and weather
    forecasts, making its way to the general public, comes from
    private commercial companies such as AccuWeather and private
    sector meteorologists.
        Much of the specialized weather information and forecasts
    needed by business, government and industry originates within
    the private sector. Absent the current competitive intrusion by
    the National Weather Service into the weather marketplace, the
    commercial weather industry could and would produce 100 percent
    of this country's specialized weather information and routine
    daily forecasts for public availability on radio, television
    and newspapers as well as on the Internet. The remarkable
    growth of the commercial weather industry has been achieved in
    much the same way as other high tech industries have grown and
    flourished, and that is through the ability to adapt to new
    technologies and to channel the innovative talents of highly
    skilled professionals to produce leading-edge, value-added
    products that are the envy of the meteorological world. As a
    result, AccuWeather and other commercial weather companies have
    a growing list of clients, both in the United States and around
    the world.
        Accurate and timely weather forecasts are demanded by
    almost every sector of the U.S. economy. Without a vibrant and
    healthy commercial weather industry, the cost of producing all
    of these products might fall to the government with a
    corresponding price tag that would greatly eclipse the current
    cost of the National Weather Service budget and operation or
    simply not be produced at all. A technologically advanced and
    financially strong weather industry is vital to the U.S.
    economy. Equally, a strong commercial weather industry is key
    to future downsizing within the National Weather Service and
    also to improve severe weather warnings by the Weather Service.
        The National Weather Service of today is a creature of the
    Organic Act of 1890. That act, passed 107 years ago at the dawn
    of the electronic revolution, created the U.S. Weather Bureau
    within the Department of Agriculture. The Weather Bureau has
    since become the National Weather Service within the Department
    of Commerce. It might have made sense in 1890 to give to the
    Weather Service a broad charge for making weather forecasts for
    the public and selected industries. After all, back then there
    was not a single commercial weather company.
        A commercial weather industry began after World War II and
    has over the past 50 years growth to include 100 companies in
    the U.S. and many more abroad. And the electronic revolution
    including the invention of radio, television, computers and the
    Internet was not part of the landscape back in 1890. The U.S.
    Government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to
    modernize the NWS. But little effort has been given to
    modernize the National Weather Service charter to consider its
    function vis-a-vis the commercial weather industry.
        Some people have asked should we privatize the NWS? Should
    we contract out their functions? If by privatize, we are
    talking about selling off sections of the NWS to the private
    sector, the answer is no, we do not want to do that. If by
    contracting out, we are talking about taking some of its
    functions and contracting with commercial companies to perform
    those functions, I would say, no, we do not want to do that
    either. Neither of these actions is necessary. Why contract out
    functions that are already being performed in the private
    sector? Why privatize segments of the NWS that are simply
    duplicative of private sector efforts? The marketplace has
    already privatized much of what the NWS does, but the NWS
    continues activities that are no longer needed because they are
    carried out and carried out well by the private sector.
        What we should be doing, I believe, is moving the NWS out
    of those areas where it is no longer needed and reallocating
    National Weather Service resources to where they are needed:
    Improved severe weather warnings and system reliability. A
    staged and systematic pullback by the NWS is needed from three
    areas. They are (1) user specific services; (2) services
    targeted to specific industries; and (3) daily public forecasts
    such as ``partly cloudy today, 30 percent chance of showers,
    high in the mid 60s, sunny tomorrow, high in the low 70s.''
    These are services that government need not provide. They are
    carried out very well by the private sector. Yet, a substantial
    portion of the NWS budget for personnel and related resources
    is devoted to these routine and duplicative activities which
    directly compete with the private sector.
        NWS budget cuts should be targeted to these duplicative and
    competitive areas, not critical areas like the Hurricane Center
    or severe weather predictions. And spontaneous new unbudgeted
    products such as those presently being put out on the Internet
    with disclaimers of unreliability should be prohibited. The
    core responsibilities of the National Weather Service are and
    clearly should be as shown on these charts. This is what they
    are doing now.
        Senator Brownback. I cannot read that. Could you read some
    of it to me? It is just too far away.
        Mr. Myers. Sure. In the core is the observation and data
    gathering.
        Senator Brownback. OK.
        Mr. Myers. That is the satellites and the radars and the
    ASOS and all the reporting stations. Then, two is the
    atmospheric modeling. That is the computer programs that take
    all this data and make the forecasts. And three is the severe
    weather functions. The observations and data gathering and the
    computer programs are needed in order to make the severe
    weather predictions. Then four is the broad generalized public
    forecasts I have been talking about. And 85 percent of that
    reaches the public and users now comes from the private sector.
    And five, the economic sector and industry services and user
    specific services are done by the private sector, and yet the
    National Weather Service in some places encroaches into those.
    So this is what we are suggesting should be the core function
    in black. It makes perfect sense, and four, five and six should
    be left to the private sector.
        Senator Brownback. Do you have any idea, Mr. Myers, of the
    percent of budget in each of those categories? Can we calculate
    that? Maybe it is not calculable.
        Mr. Myers. Well, I do not know. The only budget figures I
    have is it is not broken out, but it says local warnings and
    forecasts are lumped together, and on that line item it shows
    4,274 personnel, $418 or $451 million. My belief is that when
    you look at the Hurricane Center, you have 100 people or less.
    You look at the people needed to make severe weather warnings,
    flood warnings and such, you are looking at some other number
    of people, but it seems like the bulk of this budget is spent
    on putting out routine forecasts.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you. Please proceed.
        Mr. Myers. So what we are saying is that the three basic,
    one, two and three should be the core function. There is no
    question that doing away with other programs and forecasts
    which people and businesses have become accustomed to will
    cause expression of concern by those who are receiving these
    taxpayer supported services, but these services are available
    at very modest cost from private companies, and with a private
    supplier, the customer has many advantages including control
    over the timing of the services, the tailoring of the services
    to their specialized needs, and the National Weather Service
    should not be calling individual people to warn of an
    unexpected event. A private company can do that. And general
    public forecasts are available free to the public from private
    companies through all media outlets and the Internet right now
    supported by the outlets themselves and by advertisers.
        Taxpayers should not be asked to fund routine daily
    forecasts of ``partly cloudy today with a 30 percent chance of
    showers.'' Return-
    ing the NWS to its core mission will yield significant
    economies within the Federal budget, will contribute to the
    congressional initiatives, to reduce the size of government,
    will bolster an industry that employs people and pays taxes,
    and best of all, it will enhance severe weather warnings for
    the American public. In fact, if the National Weather Service
    budget was only modestly trimmed but their mission redirected,
    the United States could have a better severe weather warning
    system that would fulfill everyone's desires.
        As a step in the right direction, I fully support the
    initiatives to modernize the Organic Act of 1890 by Congress
    and by the Commercial Weather Services Association and others.
    Mr. Chairman, I believe the task at hand is straightforward:
    Change the Organic Act of 1890, refocus the National Weather
    Service on a set of core missions, including issuance of severe
    weather warnings to the public, remove the National Weather
    Service from private sector functions, and out of producing
    products that compete with those produced by the commercial
    weather service industry.
        If in 1997, we were starting out to create the National
    Weather Service for the first time and to draft the Organic Act
    from scratch, it is clear we would focus the newly created
    agency on the core missions that I have mentioned, and we would
    not request that the agency spend taxpayer dollars to duplicate
    services already available from the private sector. The
    National Weather Service should be praised for its great effort
    that it has put into modernization, the tremendous advances
    that it and the National Science Foundation and others have
    funded through research and atmospheric modeling that have been
    translated into significant progress in the quality and
    accuracy of both government and commercial weather forecasts.
        The National Weather Service leadership has shown vision in
    capitalizing on computer programming and enhanced predictions.
    The benefit from this should be a more intense focus on the
    core mission, improving the Nation's warning systems for
    hurricanes, tornadoes, flood, severe lightning, blizzards,
    etc., and the removal of the National Weather Service from
    those areas where it is not needed. If this was accomplished, I
    believe there would not only be enhanced general forecasts
    available to the public from commercial weather sources but
    better public severe weather and flood warnings from the
    government.
        There is no need for the National Weather Service to be
    producing free forecasts for business and industry. There is no
    need for NWS to be producing daily forecasts for people who can
    already turn on the radio or television and get a quality
    forecast paid for through the forces of the marketplace. Mr.
    Chairman, I know that this Subcommittee cannot pass specific
    authorizing or appropriating legislation. I, therefore, request
    that you and Members of the Subcommittee recommend to the
    Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, who will
    be considering an authorization bill for NOAA and NWS this
    session, that they consider and pass specific legislation
    similar to what was approved by the House of Representatives
    last session. I am referring to a provision attached to my
    testimony that was included in the 1996 NOAA authorization
    bill, H.R. 3322.
        I believe there is no doubt that the commercial weather
    industry is capable of meeting the remaining weather demands of
    the American public. Accordingly, I urge the Subcommittee to
    request a GAO study of the NWS with the objective of (1)
    focusing the NWS on a well defined core mission; (2)
    establishing the National Center for Environmental Protection
    as a single point source for all NWS warnings; (3) the
    elimination of general public forecasts; and (4) the
    elimination of forecasts for industry, for special interests,
    for end users and of value-added products.
        Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that while I am talking
    here about refocusing the NWS on a core mission, the NWS itself
    is going in the opposite direction. It is looking to expand its
    activities and intrude upon areas that the private sector is
    already actively engaged in. I believe if left alone, this
    trend will continue because the modernization program, which
    the public has funded, is leading to a very significant
    reduction in staff needs as modern technology takes over the
    work that previously was done by much slower technology or by
    hand.
        My message today is simple: Remove the NWS as a competitor
    to the commercial weather services industry, pull the NWS back
    to the borders of needed core functions, and allow the highly
    competitive market forces within the commercial weather
    industry and the public to produce the weather reports,
    forecasts and other products needed by industry, government,
    and the American people. Thank you.
        Senator Brownback. Makes sense to me. That was very good
    testimony, very interesting, too. Only wish we were on C-SPAN
    being broadcast so others could hear and see and have a chance
    to see the reasoning that you have put forward. We are at Mr.
    Willemssen----
        Mr. Willemssen. Yes, sir.
        Senator Brownback [continuing]. Am I pronouncing that
    correctly?. With the GAO. Be happy to receive your testimony
    and I would love to have some interaction, and I have some
    questions for you.
        Mr. Willemssen. OK.

        TESTIMONY OF JOEL WILLEMSSEN,\1\ DIRECTOR, INFORMATION
      RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
    DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY KEITH
      RHODES, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CHIEF SCIENTIST, U.S.
                       GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

        Mr. Willemssen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    inviting us here to testify on the National Weather Service's
    modernization program. Mr. Rhodes is accompanying me today
    because of his in-depth expertise in computer and
    telecommunications issues. As agreed, I will give a brief 5-
    minute summary of my statement and request that the full
    statement be inserted into the record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Willemssen appears on page 91 in
    the Appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Brownback. So ordered.
        Mr. Willemssen. At an estimated cost of about $4.5 billion,
    the Weather Service modernization program is one of the largest
    in the Federal Government. The modernization is critical to the
    Weather Service's plans for improving and downsizing
    operations. However, the program has faced persistent
    challenges that must be overcome if the full benefits of the
    modernization are to be realized. Our concerns with the Weather
    Service modernization have led us to place it on our list of
    high risk government programs.
        In implementing the modernization, the Weather Service has
    been acquiring new observing systems: Radars, satellites, as
    well as forecaster work stations. Implementation of most of
    these systems is nearing completion, and they have already been
    instrumental in providing some benefits in improved warnings
    and forecasts. Despite those improvements, however, the AWIPS
    system, which is designed to process and analyze the large
    volumes of data coming from those other systems, has had
    continuing delays and problems. this has prevented full
    utilization of the data coming from radars, satellites, and
    automated surface observing systems.
        The Weather Service's progress to date in resolving these
    problems has been mixed. We continue to be concerned about
    risks in the development of AWIPS, risks that will threaten the
    system's ability to be completed on time and within budget.
    Until AWIPS is deployed and functioning properly, the Weather
    Service will not be able to take full advantage of the nearly
    $4 billion that have already been invested in the modernization
    to date. With recent changes to the AWIPS program,
    significantly more design and development responsibility has
    been transferred to the government, in particular the Forecast
    Systems Laboratory.
        We have previously reported on our concerns and made
    recommendations on this lab's capability to produce software.
    Weather Service officials assure us that they intend to improve
    the government's development process and mitigate the risks of
    producing unstable and unreliable software. However, to be
    effective, these plans must be implemented. And even with full
    implementation of these risk mitigation plans, it is likely
    that unforeseen problems will result simply because of the
    complexity of this effort, problems that the current cost and
    schedule estimates do not account for. Therefore, it is
    imperative that top NOAA and Commerce managers acknowledge the
    likelihood of these unforeseen problems developing that will
    require more time and money than currently estimated.
        Mr. Chairman, for a moment, let me also turn to NOAA's
    acquisition strategy for another critical component of the
    modernization, the GOES satellite system. These satellites are
    positioned to observe the development of severe weather and
    provide information to forecasters to issue accurate and timely
    warnings. Current GOES satellites will begin to reach the end
    of their useful lives about 2002. Therefore, NOAA plans to
    purchase an interim series of two to four satellites quickly to
    prevent a gap in coverage as the current series runs out.
        We believe this strategy is fairly reasonable, given that
    there is not enough time to develop a new design. However, we
    are concerned that NOAA is not initiating an effort to develop
    a new satellite system for the longer-term future after this
    interim purchase of two to four satellites. We believe that the
    potential exists for improving the system and reducing costs in
    the long-term. A new design might better meet the evolving
    needs of forecasters and improve performance as well as reduce
    costs. Given that options may exist for NOAA to develop a
    significantly improved follow-on GOES system, the Congress may
    wish to closely examine the costs and benefits of different
    approaches for the timing, funding, and scope of the follow-on
    program.
        In summary, Mr. Chairman, we are supportive of the
    modernization program. It has made a lot of progress to date
    and many achievements, but there are still risks, in particular
    risks with the AWIPS system, and until we have that system up
    and running, we will not get the full benefits of the
    modernization. That concludes a summary of my remarks. Thank
    you.
        Senator Brownback. Thank you. Mr. Myers, how much
    information do you use from the National Weather Service in
    what you do in your services that you provide at AccuWeather or
    within the commercial weather service? Do you use any of their
    information, a lot of it, none of it?
        Mr. Myers. Yes, we use all of it we can get. We get data
    from private sources and government sources including the
    National Weather Service, but let me say that nothing special
    is done to it for us. It is much like Census data or economic
    data that economists get. It is data that the government has
    gathered for its own uses, and whatever they have for their own
    uses they make available, and we simply plug into it and take
    it in the format, whatever they have. Then we do a lot of
    massaging with it, add value to it. Our forecasters use it as
    the basis for making their forecasts that they then reissue.
        Senator Brownback. Now would that information continue to
    be available in your suggested redesign of the National Weather
    Service where they would focus back on core mission, as you put
    it, the observations and data gathering? You would continue to
    receive basically the same information you are receiving today
    you would suggest on your redesign of the NWS?
        Mr. Myers. Probably. I think it is important that the
    National Weather Service maintain control of the observations
    because that is at the core of all of the severe weather
    warnings that they would provide that the military uses for the
    basis of its forecasts, that the commercial side, television
    meteorologists, individual firms and so on, use as the basis of
    their forecasting as well as the National Weather Service
    issuance of severe weather warnings and advisories.
        So in other words, all these observations, radar pictures,
    satellite imagery, individual weather reports that the National
    Weather Service gathers and there is also reports that the FAA
    and the military gathers. There are ship reports at sea, there
    are reports from all the different countries from around the
    world, satellite imagery from other countries, all of this is
    fairly exchanged around the world, and it is available to just
    about anybody to plug into and get. The National Weather
    Service needs to have a good observational system in order to
    issue the warnings and the advisories that they put out.
        Senator Brownback. And you would continue that and indeed
    refocus maybe even greater emphasis in that category?
        Mr. Myers. I am not sure I----
        Senator Brownback. Are there more raw data needs than are
    being met, do you believe, by the National Weather Service in
    what they need to predict severe weather warnings, do some of
    these other things that are the sources for military
    predictions? Do they need more raw data?
        Mr. Myers. Well, I think this goes to these comments of how
    effective are the satellite observations? A couple years ago,
    we were down to one satellite. Certainly that threatens the
    forecasting in general around the country. So it goes to the
    modernization. The observations have to be of a certain
    quality. The radars have to be maintained. This is the core,
    the basis of all weather prediction, whether it is done by the
    military, whether it is done by the National Weather Service or
    the private sector.
        Senator Brownback. Mr. Willemssen, would you care to
    respond to that?
        Mr. Willemssen. Certainly. I think when the AWIPS program
    comes on line and is fully operational, there will be a
    tremendous escalation in the kind of benefits and the kind of
    data that will be provided to forecasters. You will have, I
    believe, 70,000 data sets that will come together from NEXRAD
    radars, automated surface observing stations, and also the
    satellites. As it stands now, forecasters have to take that
    information from each of the separate sources. It is not
    integrated and brought together. The other key thing that the
    AWIPS will give you is it will have additional decision-making
    support tools so that a forecaster does not have to do these
    tasks manually. Instead, it will be on the screen. So I think
    if we can get the AWIPS capability up and running, you will see
    a tremendous advance in the kind of capability, the kind of
    data, that is available.
        Mr. Myers. I might just add to that, though, with all due
    respect, the private sector has already done a lot of that and
    for a lot less money. For example, with respect to radars, the
    National Weather Service has all these individual radar sites
    all over the country, and they have 100 and some radar sites,
    and in each place they only have the data for that single radar
    and maybe one other. We bring all the radar data in from all
    the sites and combine it already. So we have a composite radar.
    When you watch television, you see a radar for the whole
    country. Well, that does not come from the National Weather
    Service. That comes from us and a couple of other companies
    like AccuWeather that take that data and have already figured
    out how to integrate it and take off the death rays and the
    donut holes and so on that are just spurious and make it
    available to the public or meteorologists who want to use that
    to make forecasts or to understand what the weather patterns
    are. So a lot of things the National Weather Service is still
    trying to do for tens of millions of dollars has already been
    done by the private sector for less.
        Senator Brownback. Do you think we do not need to continue
    with this modernization program or do you feel comfortable
    responding to that?
        Mr. Myers. Well, might I just say, could I just add one
    thing?
        Senator Brownback. Please.
        Mr. Myers. I wonder if we could put in the record the full
    text of my comments, the public-private sector agreement,
    published in The Federal Register in 1990. I forgot to mention
    this when I started. And a copy of the National Weather Service
    WeatherNet Internet sites, and I can supply all those to
    you.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information supplied by Mr. Myers appears on page 110 in
    the Appendix.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Senator Brownback. Yes, please, and it will be put in the
    record.
        Mr. Myers. Thank you very much. I think if we were starting
    over--I am not sure if it is still possible, but there probably
    should be many fewer National Weather Service sites.
        Senator Brownback. Than the 100 that are around?
        Mr. Myers. They have 117 or whatever. Originally back in
    the mid-1980's when they talked about that, they considered
    about having as few as 25 sites. We, for example, do
    forecasting for the whole country from one location. NWS
    hurricane warnings are done from one location in Miami. NWS
    severe storm forecasting for many years was done from one
    location in Kansas City. There is no need to have all these
    forecast centers all over the country. In fact, I have a report
    from the National Weather Service that clearly shows that the
    forecasters in each of these locations are not adding any
    significant skill to the basis of the forecast anyway.
        The average improvement in the local forecasts from the
    guidance that comes out of Washington, D.C. is 0.3 of a degree
    on average in the first period (first 12 hours) and nothing
    thereafter. And if you look at some of the other forecasters,
    the results are mixed throughout. So what has happened is the
    technology and the programming has gotten so far ahead and is
    doing what the individual forecasters used to have to do even
    10, 15 years ago, at the individual sites, but there has been
    so much improvement in the computer programs that take all this
    and make the forecasts that the individual forecasters,
    frustrating as it is to them, cannot really add much value or
    do not add any net value to those forecasts.
        Senator Brownback. So how many total NWS sites would we
    need across the country if you were redesigning the program
    today and to really emphasize and do a great job of severe
    weather forecasting for this Nation?
        Mr. Myers. Well, I have my own opinion, but I think there
    ought to be a study done. My opinion is you could do it all
    from one location just like we do it. If you have all the
    observations coming in, you can do it from the moon. You do not
    have to be able to look out the window to be able to forecast
    the weather. You can only see the weather 5 or 10 minutes away
    anyway.
        Senator Brownback. And we have how many different
    locations? You are saying 117 radar locations and how many NWS?
    Maybe you know, Mr. Willemssen?
        Mr. Willemssen. There are approximately 200 offices
    currently, and under the modernization plan the number of
    offices will go down to about 119.
        Senator Brownback. Do we need 119, Mr. Myers?
        Mr. Myers. Well, I am not sure it is for me to say, but in
    my opinion, no.
        Senator Brownback. Would you design it, if you were running
    it, with 119?
        Mr. Myers. No. You need the radars out there sending data,
    but you need the technicians on site to handle the radars and
    the same thing for the observational program, but it is really
    more efficient if it all comes in to one place and you have all
    the experts there.
        Senator Brownback. Is this the case of something that we
    designed in 1890 and then just have not really taken the time
    or had the political will to tackle redesigning of it?
        Mr. Myers. I think so.
        Senator Brownback. Mr. Willemssen?
        Mr. Willemssen. Well, there was some degree of will to try
    to reduce the number of offices. Part of the benefit of the
    modernization was to cut the number of offices by about half,
    not obviously by the amount that has been discussed here, and
    the other part of that was to cut the number of staff by
    approximately 21 percent. So to be fair to NWS, I would not say
    that it was ignored. It, based on the conversation here, may
    not have been as fully considered as some may wish, and frankly
    there are other considerations that go into those kind of
    determinations.
        Senator Brownback. How many total employees at NWS?
        Mr. Willemssen. There are approximately 5,000.
        Senator Brownback. How many at AccuWeather?
        Mr. Myers. About 310.
        Senator Brownback. I would be interested in your thoughts,
    of Mr. Myers' suggestion, of just concentrating really on the
    raw data collection, analysis of that, in particular focus on
    severe weather service. Do you think that is appropriate?
        Mr. Willemssen. I think that is an alternative, an option,
    that maybe should be considered to the extent that it is
    already out there. When we have looked at the AWIPS program,
    that is if it works, that is going to be a very powerful tool
    to forecasters. To the extent that it already exists, maybe
    that needs to be considered. If I may, I would like to ask my
    colleague to also amplify on that since he is very familiar
    with AWIPS capabilities.
        Mr. Rhodes.
        Mr. Rhodes. AWIPS takes a slightly different approach than
    has normally been made in looking at the sensor data. It goes
    down to the measurement data and does the graphical
    presentation in the workstation as opposed to accepting a
    product. If the government wants the Weather Service to
    continue to advance the state of the practice and the state of
    the art in atmospheric physics and meteorological science,
    then, yes, that does make sense. There are no technical
    impediments to, as Dr. Myers pointed out correctly, doing
    weather forecasting from the moon if you have the data.
        But it is not really a technical question if you are
    talking about jobs and what is most important, or the legal
    ramification of having a bad watch or warning sent out, or what
    is the liability impact of having a crop failure or bad weather
    destroy the crop in Florida without sufficient notice?
        Senator Brownback. Let us build on that statement a little
    bit because, if I am correct, you suggest that the redundancies
    that are built in the system--in other words, an on-the-ground
    capacity virtually in addition to the radar and the other data
    collections and satellites--are needed for severe weather
    forecasts? Am I correct in hearing you?
        Mr. Rhodes. Could you restate the question?
        Senator Brownback. Well, if I am hearing you correctly, you
    are saying we need this redundancy of many offices spread
    across the United States in case the radar information, the
    satellite information, is not sufficient?
        Mr. Rhodes. If the radar information and satellite
    information are not sufficient, and there are instances of very
    local weather phenomenon, which are some of the problem points
    in the decertification of Weather Service offices now, you have
    particular meteorological effects occurring in areas----
        Senator Brownback. Right. Tornadoes happen that way.
        Mr. Rhodes. Tornadoes, but it is not necessarily a tornado
    event. It is the front range effect off the Rocky Mountains in
    Colorado. It is the lake effect off of the Great Lakes. It is
    the frost effect in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Those
    are localized events that might necessarily take some more
    localized observation. Does that mean you need 119 offices,
    does that mean you need 200? I would have to echo Dr. Myers
    call for a study and Mr. Willemssen's call for additional
    analysis.
        Senator Brownback. Mr. Myers, would you care to respond to
    that comment?
        Mr. Myers. I think in the era of modern communication, if
    you have more observations on the front range or in the valley,
    it all can be fed across town or across the country with as
    much ease today, and it can come into a central location just
    as well as into a local weather office. Sometimes the local
    weather office is less equipped than a central office would be
    to handle that and integrate it into everything that is going
    on on a national scale. And those small effects are known as a
    result of studies and can be used whether you are there or not.
    Again, you cannot see those local effects out the window.
        Mr. Rhodes. The only thing I am thinking about, Doctor, is
    that in a case where I do issue a warning based on a
    mesocyclonic event coming in from the Doppler radar, but I
    still need ground truth somewhere. I mean I am still going to
    get with the county sheriff or somebody like that. That is not
    a weather office obviously, but there is some local observation
    requirement from the legal aspect. I can issue a watch. I can
    issue a warning, but I cannot really give you the exact ground
    direction of the progress of the tornado. I can give an
    approximation of where the air mass is moving and where the
    different layers are moving, but I cannot tell you that it is
    actually touched down until I get a response.
        Senator Brownback. But do you need 119 weather offices to
    tell you whether or not the tornado has touched ground, or do
    you need a network of being able to contact county sheriffs?
        Mr. Rhodes. Well, that is the other point on how you solve
    that problem because as Dr. Myers has pointed out, if the
    county sheriff in your home county calls the central office in
    wherever it may be, the warning can still be issued.
        Senator Brownback. This is most interesting. I have got to
    come back to one point, and then I will let you all go.
    National Weather Service, 5,100 employees, projecting to go to
    4,028, although the GAO reported last year that at least 61
    percent of the promised staff reductions will not materialize.
    Is that a correct statement?
        Mr. Willemssen. That is correct. I believe I recall in
    percentage terms the original reduction was going to be 21
    percent, and I think it is now 8 percent.
        Senator Brownback. AccuWeather runs nationwide operation
    with 300 employees, Mr. Myers?
        Mr. Myers. Yes. Worldwide operation with 310 employees and
    90 of those are meteorologists. I think the National Weather
    Service, if I could just comment, there has been tremendous
    progress made on the university campuses and within the
    National Weather Service itself in weather prediction, and
    because of that success, now there can be a significant
    reduction in the people necessary to carry out the function.
    Computers have been harnessed and once all these things are
    solved, however they are solved, with the modernization, the
    modernization is working, has worked, and so there can be a
    significant reduction in manpower and still very well do the
    core mission, and, in fact, if they focused on the core
    mission, I believe the warning, the accuracy of the warnings,
    the timeliness of the warnings, if there were not these other
    distractions, they were not looking for other things to do,
    would improve significantly. The private sector would flourish.
    The American public would have better warnings, and everybody
    would be the winner.
        Senator Brownback. It has always been my experience that if
    you focus on something, you tend to get it done better rather
    than if you are diffuse on a lot of things, and we have done
    that a lot in government, where we create something for a
    single purpose, then over the years, the Congress or
    administration or both say, well, you are good at this, but
    what about also this? And we would like for you to do that. And
    then they come back, and, well, we would like to do these
    things, and by the end of the day when you are on five missions
    instead of one you are not doing any of them really well, and
    you are forgetting your real core function, which is a lot
    about what I think a number of us were elected to Congress to
    do, which is to get back to basics and do what we should be
    doing better.
        So with that, I very much appreciate the panel. It has been
    very enlightening. I appreciate that and your input, and
    anything further you would have, please feel free to give us.
    With that, the hearing is adjourned.
        Mr. Willemssen. Thank you.
        Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Whereupon, at 3:07 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH46.122