[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION ORGANIC ACTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY,
AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 15, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-67
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-833 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California NICK LAMPSON, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
Washington LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRAD SHERMAN, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia JIM MATHESON, Utah
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah VACANCY
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama VACANCY
TOM FEENEY, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman
NICK SMITH, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
VACANCY BART GORDON, Tennessee
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
ERIC WEBSTER Subcommittee Staff Director
MIKE QUEAR Democratic Professional Staff Member
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Professional Staff Member
OLWEN HUXLEY Professional Staff Member
MARTY SPITZER Professional Staff Member
SUSANNAH FOSTER Professional Staff Member
AMY CARROLL Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
ADAM SHAMPAINE Majority Staff Assistant
MARTY RALSTON Democratic Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 15, 2004
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 16
Written Statement............................................ 23
Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards,
Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives............ 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Panel I:
The Hon. Theodore W. Kassinger, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department
of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 31
Dr. D. James Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, The
Academy of Natural Sciences
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Biography.................................................... 36
Rear Admiral Richard D. West, President, Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Biography.................................................... 47
Dr. Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, Jr., Former Assistant Administrator,
National Weather Service
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Biography.................................................... 53
Financial Disclosure......................................... 55
Discussion
NOAA's Budget and the Congress................................. 62
NOAA's Mission................................................. 68
Role of NOAA in Multi-jurisdictional Issues.................... 69
Specific NOAA Functions........................................ 70
Panel II:
Mr. Richard J. Hirn, General Counsel, National Weather Service
Employees Organization
Oral Statement............................................... 74
Written Statement............................................ 75
Biography.................................................... 78
Discussion....................................................... 80
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Hon. Theodore W. Kassinger, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department
of Commerce.................................................... 84
Dr. D. James Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, The
Academy of Natural Sciences.................................... 86
Rear Admiral Richard D. West, President, Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education........................... 87
Dr. Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, Jr., Former Assistant Administrator,
National Weather Service....................................... 88
Mr. Richard J. Hirn, General Counsel, National Weather Service
Employees Organization......................................... 89
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ORGANIC ACTS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon J.
Ehlers [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Organic Acts
thursday, july 15, 2004
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose:
On July 15, 2004 at 2:00 p.m., the Subcommittee on Environment,
Technology, and Standards will hold a hearing on H.R. 4546, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, and H.R. 4607, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Act of 2004.
NOAA was established in the Department of Commerce by Executive
Order in 1970 under President Nixon. The 1970 Executive Order primarily
consolidated the ocean and atmospheric activities of various federal
agencies under NOAA. The order did not lay out an overarching mission
for the agency and since that time Congress has not passed a
comprehensive act outlining the mission and specific functions of the
agency. In addition, in its Preliminary Report released in April 2004,
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy strongly recommended that Congress
pass an organic act for NOAA. H.R. 4546 responds to this Ocean
Commission recommendation by providing an organic act for NOAA. The
bill also includes a general authorization for NOAA's current line
offices, such as the National Weather Service. In addition, H.R. 4546
incorporates several NOAA-related pieces of legislation pending before
Congress. The Administration also has submitted its own version of a
NOAA organic act to Congress, which was introduced as H.R. 4607.
Overarching Questions:
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
1. What are the oceanic and atmospheric communities' general
comments on H.R. 4546 and H.R. 4607?
2. How is NOAA currently organized and structured and should
that change?
3. What missions and functions should NOAA be responsible for?
How should NOAA be organized? What should be included in an
organic act for NOAA?
Witnesses:
The Honorable Theodore Kassinger, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Dr. James Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, the Academy of
Natural Sciences. Dr. Baker was Administrator of NOAA from 1993-2001.
Rear Admiral Richard West (Ret.), President, Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education. Admiral West was a member of the
subcommittee of NOAA's Science Advisory Board that recently reviewed
NOAA's research enterprise.
Dr. Elbert (Joe) W. Friday, Jr., WeatherNews Chair of Applied
Meteorology and Director, the Sasaki Applied Meteorology Research
Institute, University of Oklahoma. Dr. Friday is a former Assistant
Administrator of the National Weather Service and the Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research at NOAA. Additionally, he is a past-president
of the American Meteorological Society.
Mr. Richard Hirn, General Counsel, National Weather Service Employees
Organization (NWSEO). The NWSEO represents employees from many of
NOAA's line offices.
Background:
History of NOAA
In 1966, the Marine Resources and Engineering Act established an
independent commission to produce a comprehensive study and
recommendations for the Nation's ocean policy. The Commission, chaired
by Julius Stratton, released its report in 1969. One of its
recommendations was that the President should establish an independent
agency to coordinate all federal, nonmilitary ocean management
programs. In 1970, President Nixon established the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by Executive Order within the
Department of Commerce.
The executive order establishing NOAA, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of
1970, transferred the functions of various agencies, such as the Sea
Grant College Program, into the new NOAA and established a leadership
structure for the new agency. The plan did not provide an overall
mission for the agency.
Since that time NOAA has evolved into the central civilian federal
agency for both oceans and atmospheric issues. However, Congress has
never passed a comprehensive act defining the mission and specific
functions of the agency. Instead, Congress has enacted laws on specific
issues. In most cases these laws are not coordinated and NOAA lacks an
overarching statutory mission to tie them together.
Currently, NOAA has approximately 12,500 employees and an annual
budget of about $3.4 billion, which represents 55 percent of the budget
for the Department of Commerce. NOAA is structured around six line
offices (see Appendix A for an organizational chart):
The National Ocean Service (NOS) is responsible for
the observation, measurement, assessment and management of the
Nation's coastal and ocean areas. This includes providing
navigational charts and performing applied research on coastal
and ocean issues, such as harmful algal blooms.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) protects
and preserves living marine resources through fisheries
management, enforcement, and habitat conservation, and falls
under the jurisdiction of the House Resources Committee.
The National Weather Service (NWS) is the Nation's
primary civilian source of weather data, forecasts and
warnings.
The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
is responsible for providing much of the research into
improving understanding of environmental phenomena such as
tornadoes, hurricanes, climate variability, ocean currents, and
coastal ecosystem health.
The National Environmental Satellite Data and
Information Service (NESDIS) operates the Nation's weather and
climate satellites and manages the processing and distribution
of the data and images from those satellites.
The Office of Program Planning and Integration (PPI)
promotes the development of effective programs by integrating
resources across NOAA.
Also within NOAA is an Office of Marine Aviation and
Operations (OMAO), which manages the NOAA uniformed officer
corps. The NOAA corps is one of the Nation's uniformed military
services and supports the functions of all the line offices in
the agency, including operating planes used in hurricane
reconnaissance and ships used in fisheries surveys and research
expeditions.
Impetus for a NOAA Organic Act
The Oceans Act of 2000 established the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy (referred to here as the Commission) to perform an updated
comprehensive review of ocean-related issues and laws facing the
Federal Government. The Commission, recognizing that NOAA has become
the de facto lead federal agency for oceans issues, strongly
recommended that Congress strengthen NOAA in a three-phase process.
Phase I, which the Commission recommends implementing immediately, is
enactment of an organic act for the agency. Phase II, which would occur
during the next few years, is the consolidation of certain ocean- and
coastal-related functions from other federal agencies into NOAA. Phase
III, a long-term action, would reorganize federal environmental
agencies, including NOAA, into a Department of Natural Resources.
The Commission recommended structuring NOAA around three mission
areas in an organic act. The operations and services mission would
include the current line offices and programs of NESDIS, NWS, and the
mapping and charting functions of NOS. The research and education
mission would include the current line offices and programs of OAR, the
Office of Education, and research programs from the other line offices.
Finally, the resource management mission would include the current NMFS
and the ecosystem management programs from NOS. The Commission did not
specify whether the current offices should be disestablished or whether
they should be managed around cross-cutting missions.
NOAA Organic Acts in the House
In response to the Commission's recommendation and discussions with
experts in oceanic and atmospheric issues, Chairman Ehlers introduce
H.R. 4546, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, on
June 14, 2004. A section-by-section summary of the bill is contained in
Appendix B.
Title I of Chairman Ehlers' bill is an organic act for NOAA,
providing an overarching mission for the agency (based on NOAA's
Strategic Plan) and describing the functions of NOAA's research,
weather, and climate responsibilities. H.R. 4546 structures NOAA around
the mission areas recommended by the Commission with one exception: The
bill retains the National Weather Service as a separate entity in NOAA
rather than consolidating it with other operational and service
functions, because of its longstanding independent identity.
H.R. 4546 retains NOAA within the Department of Commerce and
establishes a new leadership position with the agency, a Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology. A recent review of
NOAA's research enterprise, performed by a subcommittee of the NOAA
Science Advisory Board, strongly recommended establishing such a
position at the agency.
Title II of H.R. 4546 is a general authorization for the current
line offices at NOAA. Titles III-VII incorporate several NOAA-related
pieces of legislation pending before Congress, which would establish a
coastal ocean science program, a marine research program, an ocean and
coastal observing systems program, an abrupt climate change research
program, and a weather research program at NOAA.
The Administration developed its own organic act for NOAA, which
was introduced by Mr. Ehlers (R-MI) and Mr. Gilchrest (R-MD), by
request, as H.R. 4607. A section-by-section of H.R. 4607 is included in
Appendix C. The Administration's bill provides four broad mission areas
for NOAA and expands and clarifies some of the Agency's legal
authorities. For example, it expands the authority of the Administrator
of NOAA to accept and utilize gifts, an authority currently only within
the office the Secretary of Commerce. H.R. 4607 does not include any
re-organization of NOAA's functions.
Representative Saxton (R-NJ) has introduced a bill, H.R. 4368,
which would move NOAA from the Department of Commerce to the Department
of the Interior. It would not change the internal line office structure
of NOAA.
Issues to be Considered
Should an organic act for NOAA continue the current line office
structure or move the agency organization towards the themes in H.R.
4546 and the Commission report (research and education, operations and
services, and resource management)?
Some experts believe NOAA's current structure is ``stove-piped,''
making the agency ineffective at fully utilizing its oceanic and
atmospheric expertise. For example, for nearly a decade OAR performed
research on wind profilers, a novel technology for observing winds that
held promise for improving the lead time on tornado forecasts. When
NOAA faced budget cuts, they asked forecasters in the National Weather
Service if they could use this new technology and if NOAA should keep
investing funds in its development. Many of the forecasters were not
even aware of its capabilities.
Congress would also have to decide how to structure NOAA around the
new missions. Either the current offices could be disestablished, or
they could be managed around cross-cutting missions.
How should science and research be coordinated at NOAA?
Some research at NOAA is performed in each of the operational line
offices, while other research is performed out of OAR. Some people
believe OAR should be dissolved and its research functions assigned to
the appropriate line office. Then, research will be closely tied to the
operational services. Others believe that all research should be
located under one office because that would be more effectively
coordinated. A third idea is to keep near-term applied research and
development in the line offices and have the medium- to long-term
research in OAR, and establish a leadership position at the agency to
coordinate all the science and research activities at NOAA. This last
idea is supported by the NOAA Research Review Team, a subcommittee of
the NOAA Science Advisory Board that recently completely an extensive
review of NOAA's research programs. H.R. 4546 creates a Deputy
Assistant Secretary for science and technology to coordinate the
science and research issues at NOAA. The Administration bill is silent
on this topic.
Should NOAA's mission and functions be expanded to include all federal
ocean and coastal related activities?
This question addresses the Phase II and Phase III recommendations
of the Commission for strengthening NOAA. As an example, the Commission
recommended transferring operation (but not the development) of NASA
research satellites to NOAA to ensure a smoother research to operations
transition. This would involve the transfer not only of personnel, but
also of the significant expense of operating satellite programs.
Another example is the question of whether NOAA's mission should
include wetland and estuaries research and regulation currently
performed by the Environmental Protection Agency. H.R. 4546 does not
move forward on these recommendations.
Witness Questions:
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in
their testimony.
The Honorable Theodore Kassinger
1. Currently, what is the biggest problem at NOAA and can that
problem be addressed in statute?
2. What missions and functions should NOAA be responsible for?
How should NOAA be organized? What is the most important thing
to accomplish in an organic act for NOAA?
3. Chairman Ehlers' bill, H.R. 4546, organizes NOAA functions
around these mission areas recommended by the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy:
operations and services, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service,
the National Weather Service and the mapping and
charting functions of the National Ocean Service (NOS);
research and education, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the Office of
Education and research programs from other line
offices;
and resource management, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the ecosystem management
programs from NOS.
What are the pros and cons of this proposed restructuring?
Would it improve communication across programs at NOAA to
support ecosystem-based management, a concept that most experts
agree is the way NOAA should manage natural resources?
4. Chairman Ehlers' bill, H.R. 4546, includes specific
functions for NOAA while the Administration's bill, H.R. 4607,
includes only four broad missions for NOAA. Why did you decide
to construct H.R. 4607 in this way? Given that the strategic
plan you developed for NOAA in 2002 suggests re-organizing the
agency around ``matrix management'' topics, please explain why
H.R. 4607 does not include recommendations for any
organizational changes.
Dr. James Baker
1. Currently, what is the biggest problem at NOAA and can that
problem be addressed in statute?
2. What missions and functions should NOAA be responsible for?
How should NOAA be organized? What is the most important thing
to accomplish in an organic act for NOAA?
3. Chairman Ehlers' bill, H.R. 4546, organizes NOAA functions
around these mission areas recommended by the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy:
operations and services, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service,
the National Weather Service and the mapping and
charting functions of the National Ocean Service (NOS);
research and education, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the Office of
Education and research programs from other line
offices;
and resource management, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the ecosystem management
programs from NOS.
What are the pros and cons of this proposed restructuring?
Would it improve communication across programs at NOAA to
support ecosystem-based management, a concept that most experts
agree is the way NOAA should manage natural resources?
4. What are your general views on Title I of H.R. 4546 (the
NOAA organic act sections)? How can that part of the bill be
improved?
5. What are your views on the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Science and Technology described in H.R. 4546? Is this a good
way to improve coordination of science and research at NOAA?
Admiral Richard West
1. Currently, what is the biggest problem at NOAA and can that
problem be addressed in statute?
2. What missions and functions should NOAA be responsible for?
How should NOAA be organized? What is the most important thing
to accomplish in an organic act for NOAA?
3. Chairman Ehlers' bill, H.R. 4546, would organize NOAA
functions around these mission areas recommended by the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy:
operations and services, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service,
the National Weather Service and the mapping and
charting functions of the National Ocean Service (NOS);
research and education, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the Office of
Education and research programs from other line
offices;
and resource management, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the ecosystem management
programs from NOS.
What are the pros and cons of this proposed restructuring?
Would it improve communication across programs at NOAA to
support ecosystem-based management, a concept that most experts
agree is the way NOAA should manage natural resources?
4. What are your views on the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Science and Technology described in H.R. 4546? Is this a good
way to improve coordination of science and research at NOAA, as
recommended by the NOAA Research Review Team?
Dr. Elbert Friday
1. Currently, what is the biggest problem at NOAA and can that
problem be addressed in statute?
2. What missions and functions should NOAA be responsible for?
How should NOAA be organized? What is the most important thing
to accomplish in an organic act for NOAA?
3. Chairman Ehlers' bill, H.R. 4546, would organize NOAA
functions around these mission areas recommended by the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy:
operations and services, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service,
the National Weather Service and the mapping and
charting functions of the National Ocean Service (NOS);
research and education, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the Office of
Education and research programs from other line
offices;
and resource management, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the ecosystem management
programs from NOS.
What are the pros and cons of this proposed restructuring?
Would it improve communication across programs at NOAA to
support ecosystem-based management, a concept that most experts
agree is the way NOAA should manage natural resources?
4. What are your views on the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Science and Technology described in H.R. 4546? Is this a good
way to improve coordination of science and research at NOAA?
Mr. Richard Hirn
1. Currently, what is the biggest problem at NOAA and can that
problem be addressed in statute?
2. What missions and functions should NOAA be responsible for?
How should NOAA be organized? What is the most important thing
to accomplish in an organic act for NOAA?
3. Chairman Ehlers' bill, H.R. 4546, would organize NOAA
functions around these mission areas recommended by the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy:
operations and services, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service,
the National Weather Service and the mapping and
charting functions of the National Ocean Service (NOS);
research and education, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the Office of
Education and research programs from other line
offices;
and resource management, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the ecosystem management
programs from NOS.
What are the pros and cons of this proposed restructuring?
Would it improve communication across programs at NOAA to
support ecosystem-based management, a concept that most experts
agree is the way NOAA should manage natural resources?
4. What are your views on the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Science and Technology described in H.R. 4546? Is this a good
way to improve coordination of science and research at NOAA?
Appendix B
Section-by-Section Explanation
H.R. 4546, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act
BACKGROUND
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was
established by Executive Order in 1970. Since then, various parts of
NOAA have been authorized by Congress, but there is no underlying
``organic act'' defining the mission and function of the agency.
The Oceans Act of 2000 established the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy to examine the Nation's ocean policy and make recommendations
for improvements. On April 20, 2004 the Commission released its
preliminary report, which included 200 recommendations for an improved
national ocean policy. One of the recommendations is that Congress
should pass an organic act for NOAA. The Commission also suggested
organizing NOAA's functions around specific themes rather than the
current line office structure.
H.R. 4546 incorporates these recommendations in Title I as a
general organic act and by outlining NOAA's missions and functions
under three categories: weather, operations and services, and research
and education. The bill as introduced does not include NOAA's
activities concerning fisheries management or the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
Currently NOAA has a structure of six line offices: the National
Ocean Service (NOS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the
National Weather Service (NWS), the National Environmental Satellite
Data and Information Service (NESDIS), the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR), and the Office of Program Planning and
Integration (PPI). H.R. 4546 provides NOAA the flexibility to perform
the functions described in the bill under the current organizational
structure or by moving towards a structure that reflects the categories
set forth in H.R. 4546.
EXPLANATION OF H.R. 4546
Section 1. Table of Contents.
This section provides a table of contents for the bill.
Title I. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Section 101. Short Title.
The short title of this title is the ``National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Act.''
Section 102. Definitions.
This section defines terms used in Title I.
Section 103. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
This section establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. The mission of
NOAA is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's oceans and
atmosphere and the effects of such changes on the land environment, to
conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems, and to
educate the public about these topics. This section also describes the
overall functions of NOAA to accomplish the mission, such as through
research and development for improved weather forecasting, and
collecting scientific data about coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes
ecosystems.
Section 104. Administration Leadership.
This section describes the leadership structure of NOAA and
maintains the current makeup of an Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere as the Administrator of NOAA, and the
Administrator's first assistant is the Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere. The section also creates a new position, a
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, who shall be
responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities
across the agency and must be a career position.
Section 105. National Weather Service.
This section directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a
National Weather Service (NWS) within NOAA. The mission of NWS is to
provide weather, water, climate and space weather forecasts and
warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and
ocean areas. The functions of NWS include: maintaining a network of
regional and local weather forecast offices; maintaining a network of
observations system to collect weather and climate data; and conducting
research to support these functions.
Section 106. Operations and Services.
This section directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA
to support operational and service functions. These functions would
include all the activities of NOAA's National Environmental Satellite
Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the mapping and charting
activities of the National Ocean Service. NESDIS functions described in
this section include: developing, acquiring, managing, and operating
the Nation's operational weather and climate satellite observing
systems and managing and distributing atmospheric, geophysical and
marine data and data products through national environmental data
centers. The National Ocean Service activities include providing maps
and charts for safe navigation.
Section 107. Research and Education.
This section directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA
to conduct and support research and education functions. These
activities would include all of the functions currently performed by
NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), such as
conducting and supporting research and the development of technologies
relating to weather, climate, and the coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes.
This section also describes the education and public outreach functions
NOAA should carry out, which include many of the activities performed
by NOAA's Office of Education.
Section 108. Science Advisory Board.
This section establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which
would provide scientific advice to the Administrator and to Congress on
issues affecting NOAA.
Section 109: Reports.
This section requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report
is to be delivered to Congress within one year of the date of enactment
of the Act. One report should assess the adequacy of the environmental
data and information systems of NOAA and provide a strategic plan to
address any deficiencies in those systems.
The other report must provide a strategic plan for research at
NOAA. This plan was recommended in a recent review of the research
activities at NOAA by its Science Advisory Board.
Section 110. Effect of Reorganization Plan.
This section repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in
1970.
Title II. Authorization of Appropriations for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Section 201. Short Title.
The short title of this title is the ``National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 2004.''
Section 202. Authorization of Appropriations.
This section authorizes appropriations for NOAA's current line
offices (except the National Marine Fisheries Service).
Title III. Coastal Ocean Science Program.
Section 301. Short Title.
The short title of this title is the ``Coastal Ocean Science
Program Act of 2004.''
Section 302. Coastal Ocean Science Program.
This section reauthorizes the Coastal Ocean Science Program at NOAA
and requires all research performed under the Program to be competitive
and peer-reviewed. This section authorizes such sums as necessary in
appropriations for the program.
Title IV. Marine Research.
Section 401. Short Title.
The short title of this title is the ``Marine Research Act.''
Section 402. Purposes.
This section describes the purposes of this title, which require
the President to provide for the support and coordination of an
interagency marine research program to understand and respond to the
interactions of humans and the marine environment.
Section 403. Interagency Marine Research Program.
This section creates the interagency marine research program
through the Office of Science and Technology Policy and requires that a
plan be developed to identify the goals and priorities for the program
and the activities needed to fulfill the goals. Relevant federal
programs and activities should be identified and estimated federal
funding should be included in the plan.
Section 404. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine
Research Initiative.
This section authorizes the Department of Commerce to establish a
Marine Research Initiative to coordinate and implement activities of
NOAA. The Initiative should provide support for one or more NOAA
national centers of excellence, research grants, and scholars and
traineeships.
The centers of excellence, the competitive peer-reviewed extramural
research grants, financial assistance to distinguished scholars, and
traineeships for pre- and post-doctoral students are to help NOAA
fulfill its mission and role in exploring the interaction of humans and
the marine environment.
Section 405. Authorization of Appropriations.
This section authorizes $8 million in appropriations for the NOAA
Marine Research Initiative for fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
Title V. Ocean and Coastal Observation Systems.
Section 501. Short Title.
The short title of this title is the ``Ocean and Coastal
Observation Systems Act.''
Section 502. Purposes.
This section describes the purposes of this title, which include
providing for the development and maintenance of an integrated system
for ocean and coastal observations and the implementation of a related
system for the management of observation data and information.
Section 503. Integrated Ocean and Coastal Observing System.
This section establishes, through NOAA, an integrated system of
ocean and coastal monitoring and data analysis, communications, and
management. The goals of the system include: improving weather
forecasts and disaster warnings; enhancing understanding of global
change and coastal and global ocean systems; and increasing public
awareness of these issues. This section establishes an interagency
Joint Operations Center, led by NOAA, to manage the technologies and
data communications, implement the standards, and promote the
integration necessary to deploy and support the ocean and coastal
observing system. The section also allows for regional associations and
pilot projects that can contribute to observing system.
Section 504. Interagency Financing.
This section authorizes the agencies included in the Joint
Operations Center to participate in interagency financing for carrying
out the activities described in this title.
Section 505. Authorization of Appropriations.
This section authorizes such sums as necessary in appropriations to
NOAA, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and other federal agencies as appropriate for the
ocean and coastal observing system.
Title VI. Abrupt Climate Change.
Section 601. Short Title.
The short title of this title is the ``Abrupt Climate Change
Research Act.''
Section 602. Abrupt Climate Change Research Program.
This section establishes within NOAA an abrupt climate change
research program for improving the understanding of abrupt climate
change mechanisms and paleoclimate indicators. The section defines
abrupt climate change as a change in climate that occurs so rapidly or
unexpected that human or natural systems have difficulty adapting to
the climate as changed.
Section 603. Authorization of Appropriations.
This section authorizes such sums as necessary in appropriations
for the research program outlined in this title.
Title VII. United States Weather Research Program.
Section 701. Short Title.
The short title of this title is the ``United States Weather
Research Program Act of 2004.''
Section 702. Program Focus.
This section outlines the focus of the Weather Research Program
established under section 108 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Authorization Act of 1992. The program should focus on
research in extreme weather conditions, such as hurricanes and floods,
and should work toward accelerating improvements in weather
forecasting. This section also authorizes the program to make grants to
universities and other research organizations.
Section 703. Program Research Priorities.
This section defines the specific research priorities of the
Weather Research Program within the following categories; hurricanes,
heavy precipitation, floods, two-to-fourteen day weather forecasting,
societal and economic impacts and improved communication related to
adverse weather, and testing research concepts in real-life
environments.
Section 704. Interagency Planning and Process.
This section establishes NOAA as the lead for the Weather Research
Program and requires the agency to work with other federal agencies to
develop a five-year plan which outlined program goals and describes
weather information needs, methods for disseminating weather
information, and practices for transferring results into forecasting
operations.
Section 705. Reporting Requirements.
This section requires NOAA to provide a report on the Weather
Research Program to Congress one year after enactment of this Act and
every five years thereafter. The report should include the most recent
five-year plan developed pursuant to section 704 of this title,
descriptions of changes to the plan, and a detailed assessment of the
progress made toward the program goals.
Section 706. Authorization of Appropriations.
This section authorizes such sums as necessary in appropriations to
the Office of Atmospheric Research within NOAA for the research program
outlined in this title. At least 50 percent of these funds shall be for
competitive, peer-reviewed grants to or contracts with institutions of
higher education.
Appendix C
Section-by-Section Explanation
H.R. 4607, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic
Act of 2004
PURPOSES:
The purposes of this bill are to enhance the ability of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to assess and
predict changes in ocean, coastal, Great Lakes and atmospheric
ecosystems and in the environment; manage, protect and restore the
Nation's ocean, coastal and Great Lakes areas, including ecosystem
approaches; conduct, support, and coordinate efforts to enhance public
awareness; provide reliable scientific information that can be used as
a basis for sound management and public safety decisions; protect lives
and property and expand economic opportunities; and pursue its purposes
in partnership with public and private entities. These purposes are
effectuated through the following provisions, which establish the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, amend the organization
and functions of the NOAA Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere,
and provide other amendments relative to the organization, purposes and
authorities of NOAA.
EXPLANATION OF H.R. 4607:
TITLE I--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ORGANIC ACT OF
2004
SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE
Section 101 would set forth the short title of the Act as the
``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Act of
2004''.
SEC. 102. ESTABLISHMENT
Section 102 would establish within the Department of Commerce, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS
Section 103 would provide definitions for terms used in the Act.
SEC. 104. OFFICERS
Section 104 would establish within NOAA the following positions:
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere; Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere; and, Deputy Under
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere. Section 104 would also authorizes
the Under Secretary, consistent with applicable law including Title II
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned
Officers Corps Act of 2002, to create additional positions as deemed
necessary to carry out the purposes and authorities of NOAA.
SEC. 105. PURPOSES AND AUTHORITIES
Section 105 would set forth the purposes of NOAA. It would also
authorize NOAA to undertake activities necessary to implement NOAA's
purposes. It preserves all authorities currently vested in NOAA,
including those transferred to the Secretary by Reorganization Plan No.
4 of 1970 (Reorganization Plan). This Act is not intended to alter the
current authorities or responsibilities of any other federal agency.
Subsection 105 (a)(4) contemplates that NOAA's purpose to protect life
and property includes a continuation of its efforts to contribute to
the Nation's national security and homeland security efforts.
SEC. 106. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND TRANSITION
Subsection 106(a) would repeal the Reorganization Plan. To ensure
continued force of all provisions of law and past actions predicated
upon or referencing the Reorganization Plan, subsection 106(b) would
provide that any reference to NOAA, the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere (either by that title or by the title of the
Administrator of NOAA), or any other official of NOAA, in any law,
rule, regulation, certificate, directive, instruction, or other
official paper in force on the effective date of this Act shall be
deemed to refer and apply to the NOAA established in section 102 of
this Act, or the position of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere established in section 104 of this Act. Subsection 106(d)
adds the Executive Level position of Under Secretary and Assistant
Secretary to the relevant provisions of Title 5 of the United States
Code that provide for Executive Level pay. Subsection 106(e) provides
that the first individual appointed to the position of Under Secretary,
and the first person appointed to the position of Assistant Secretary,
shall be appointed by the President alone.
SEC. 107. SAVINGS PROVISION
Section 107 would provide that any actions taken by the Secretary,
the Department of Commerce, the Under Secretary, or any other official
of NOAA, that are in effect immediately before the date of enactment of
this Act, shall continue in full force and effect after the date of
enactment of this Act until modified or rescinded.
SEC. 108. NO EFFECT ON OTHER AUTHORITIES
Section 108 would provide that this Act shall not amend or alter
the provisions of other applicable acts unless otherwise noted. It is
intended that nothing in this Act derogates from the duties and
functions of other agencies or alters the current authorities relating
to those agencies.
TITLE II--NOAA ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE
SECTION 201. AMENDMENTS
Subsection 201(a) would amend section 2 of P.L. 95-63, known as the
National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere Act of 1977 (33
U.S.C. 857-13), by deleting the requirement to have 18 Committee
members, allowing the size of the Committee to be appropriately
tailored to its purposes and needs.
Subsection 201(b) would amend section 3(a) of P.L. 95-63 (33 U.S.C.
857-14(a) ), by providing that: a) appointment of Committee members
shall be by the Under Secretary, in lieu of the President; and b)
original members of the Committee shall be current members of the NOAA
Science Advisory Board who wish to serve in such capacity, together
with any additional qualified individuals necessary to fulfill the
purposes of the Committee.
Subsection 201(c) would amend section 3(b) of P.L. 95-63 (33 U.S.C.
857-14(b) ), by staggering terms of membership on the Committee to
ensure continuity of the Committee, and limiting appointment on the
Committee to no more than two consecutive three-year terms.
Subsection 201(d) would amend section 3(c) of P.L. 95-63 (33 U.S.C.
857-14(c) ) by authorizing the Under Secretary to designate a Chairman
and Vice Chairman of the Committee.
Subsection 201(e) would amend section 3(d) of P.L. 95-63 (33 U.S.C.
857-14(d) ), by providing that the function of the Committee is to
advise the Under Secretary with respect to the programs administered by
NOAA.
Subsection 201(f) would delete sections 4 and 6 of P.L. 95-63 (33
U.S.C. 857-15 and 857-17), relating to reports and interagency
cooperation and assistance, respectively. A newly designated section 4
would provide that members of the Committee shall be entitled to
receive compensation not to exceed the daily rate provided for Level IV
of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates for each day during which they are
engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Committee.
Subsection 201(g) would rename the ``National Advisory Committee on
Oceans and Atmosphere'' as the ``NOAA Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere''.
Chairman Ehlers. I just wanted to mention that courtesy
requires that we wait for a Member of the minority to appear
before we begin, so we will begin as soon as that happens.
The Committee will come to order.
I wanted to welcome all of you to today's hearing on
legislation creating an organic act for the National--excuse
me, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better
known to everyone as NOAA.
Your first question may be what is an organic act, and why
does NOAA, an agency that has been around for 30 years, need
one? Excuse me.
An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of
an agency, such as the organic act that created the National
Science Foundation. As an example, my bill, H.R. 4546, states
that the mission of NOAA is first, to understand and predict
changes in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere, second to
conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems,
and third, to educate the public about these topics. The bill
also describes the specific functions NOAA should carry out to
fulfill its mission, such as issuing weather forecasts and
warnings.
NOAA was created in 1970 by then President Nixon through an
Executive Order. This Executive Order transferred various
oceanic and atmospheric functions from other agencies into the
new NOAA, and placed it in the Department of Commerce. However,
the order did not provide an overall mission for the Agency.
After roughly 35 years, our nation has again undertaken a broad
review of our ocean policy. The U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, which released a preliminary report this past April,
made more than 200 recommendations to Congress. During a
Science Committee hearing on the report, the Commission's
Chair, Admiral Watkins, and all the other witnesses said one of
the most important steps for Congress to take is the creation
and passage of a NOAA Organic Act.
I certainly agreed with their sentiment. In fact, we had
already been working on a NOAA organic act for a year or more,
and after consultation with many experts, I introduced H.R.
4546 to serve as the organic act for NOAA. This bill strikes a
balance between providing Congressional direction on NOAA's
mission, and allowing the Administration the flexibility to
adapt to future needs.
H.R. 4546, as introduced, does not include any reference to
fisheries or resource management at NOAA, because those topics
are under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on that committee to pass
a truly comprehensive organic act for NOAA, and in fact, I have
already had some discussions with the Subcommittee Chairman,
who has that issue under his jurisdiction, and hope to soon
talk to the Committee Chair on that matter.
Our discussion today will focus on how NOAA should be
organized. For example, should the current line office
structure be maintained, or should the Agency be reorganized
around ecosystems-based management, as suggested by the Ocean
Commission? Another important question is how best to
coordinate research and science at NOAA. We will also hear
testimony about the Administration's proposed NOAA Organic Act,
which I introduced with my colleague from Maryland, Mr.
Gilchrest, at the request of the Administration. I should note
that Mr. Gilchrest, who is a valuable Member of the Science
Committee, is also a Chair of the Resources Subcommittee on
Fisheries, which is the other major Committee with NOAA
jurisdiction, and the individual who will have much to say
about rewriting that part of the NOAA Act.
We are here today to learn from our witnesses how they
believe we can best define and organize NOAA to better fulfill
its mission. I look forward to hearing from them on how to
accomplish this goal, and I especially want to receive their
comments on our efforts as contained in H.R. 4546.
I would like to request unanimous consent that two letters
of support for H.R. 4546 be made part of the record. One is
from the ocean community, and the other is from the weather
community. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
It is now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from
Colorado, Mark Udall, the Ranking Minority Member, for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers
I want to welcome all of you to today's hearing on legislation
creating an organic act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (better know as NOAA). Your first question may be what
is an organic act? And why does NOAA, an agency that has been around
for 30 years, need one?
An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an
agency. As an example, my bill, H.R. 4546 states that the mission of
NOAA is: (1) to understand and predict changes in the Earth's oceans
and atmosphere; (2) to conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and Great
Lake ecosystems; and (3) to educate the public about these topics. The
bill also describes the specific functions NOAA should carry out to
fulfill its mission, such as issuing weather forecasts and warnings.
NOAA was created in 1970 by then-President Nixon through an
executive order. This executive order transferred various oceanic and
atmospheric functions from other agencies into the new NOAA, and placed
it in the Department of Commerce. However, the order did not provide an
overall mission for the agency.
After roughly 35 years our nation has again undertaken a broad
review of our ocean policy. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which
released its preliminary report this past April, made more than 200
recommendations to Congress. During a Science Committee hearing on the
report, the Commission's chair, Admiral Watkins, and all the other
witnesses said one of the most important steps for Congress to take is
the creation and passage of a NOAA organic act.
I agreed with their sentiment. In fact, we had already been working
on a NOAA organic act for a year. And after consultation with many
experts, I introduced H.R. 4546. This bill strikes a balance between
providing Congressional direction on NOAA's mission and allowing the
Administration the flexibility to adapt to future needs. H.R. 4546 as
introduced does not include any reference to fisheries or resource
management at NOAA because those topics are under the jurisdiction of
the Resources Committee. I look forward to working with my colleagues
on that Committee to pass a truly comprehensive organic act for NOAA.
Our discussion today will focus on how NOAA should be organized.
For example, should the current line office structure be maintained or
should the agency be reorganized around ecosystem-based management, as
suggested by the Ocean Commission? Another important question is how
best to coordinate research and science at NOAA.
We will also hear testimony about the Administration's proposed
NOAA organic act, which I introduced with my colleague from Maryland,
Mr. Gilchrest, at the request of the Administration. I should note that
Mr. Gilchrest, who is a valuable Member of the Science Committee, is
also Chair of the Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, which is the
other major Committee with NOAA jurisdiction.
We are here today to learn from our witnesses how they believe we
can best define and organize NOAA to better fulfill its mission. I look
forward to hearing from them on how to accomplish this goal, and I
especially want to receive their comments on our efforts as contained
in H.R. 4546.
I would like to request unanimous consent that two letters of
support for H.R. 4546 are made part of the record. One is from the
ocean community and the other is from the weather community.
Mr. Udall. Good afternoon, and let me begin by thanking my
friend and the Chairman of this important Subcommittee for
holding this hearing.
The introduced bills, the Pew Commission Report, and the
Ocean Commission Report provide us with a wealth of information
and proposals to consider. It is high time that Congress took a
comprehensive look at NOAA's mission and functions, and that we
examine the state of the natural resources that NOAA manages.
NOAA's health is of great concern to me as Ranking Member of
this subcommittee, and as representative of the district in
Colorado that houses six of NOAA's laboratories.
So, with that in mind, I am sorry to say, at least in my
opinion, that the news about NOAA is not as good as it could
be. NOAA as an organization is in trouble. It is underfunded
and understaffed relative to the numerous and diverse tasks the
Agency performs under its many statutory mandates. Some of its
facilities are in need of refurbishment and repair. And I have
to tell you, I fear the current reorganization effort is
placing a greater emphasis on achieving cost savings than on
developing a culture that fosters teamwork and collaboration
among NOAA's line offices. NOAA's relationship with other
federal agencies, states, and the many non-governmental
organizations it interacts with, also need to be better defined
and supported.
If we look at the natural resources that NOAA is charged
with conserving and managing fisheries, coastal areas, oceans,
and the Great Lakes they are also in trouble. Our once abundant
fisheries in this country continue to suffer from a combination
of impacts including overfishing, habitat destruction, and
pollution. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, once rare events,
are increasing in their frequency and intensity. Our policies
and NOAA's execution of them are failing to ensure the long-
term viability of these vital resources.
Human activities have altered the chemistry of the Earth's
atmosphere and continue to do so, even as the evidence mounts
that these changes will alter the climate and impact the
ecological systems that we depend upon. While NOAA is not
charged with managing or conserving the atmosphere, the Agency
does have expertise that could be used in collaboration with
other federal agencies and outside organizations to do
vulnerability assessments of the potential impacts of climate
change.
NOAA's failures are not the result of the policies of any
particular Administration, or the actions of any particular
Congress. I find it difficult to believe they are the result of
an imperfect organizational structure at NOAA. We have gotten
to this point over a long period of time and for many reasons.
If we are to reverse these trends, there are a number of policy
issues that we need to address as we develop a NOAA Organic
Act. One of the issues that we must confront is the inevitable
conflict that arises when we attempt to reconcile short-term,
narrow, economic interests with long-term preservation, and
management of coastal and oceanic ecosystems.
We need to ensure sufficient support for NOAA's scientific
enterprise, in addition to providing adequate resources to
deliver the operational products of the National Weather
Service, which are so essential to public safety and to our
economy. We must continue to monitor our atmosphere and our
oceans, and to disseminate, archive, and preserve the
information for present and future study of the planet.
However, we cannot monitor everything, and we should not allow
monitoring and study to delay the implementation and
enforcement of management and conservation policies.
In his testimony, Secretary Kassinger refers to the
unresolved disagreements that have stymied previous efforts to
enact a NOAA Organic Act. These disagreements are likely to
derail this effort if we fail to confront them and address them
in a constructive fashion. A visionary mission statement and a
clear definition of Agency functions are meaningless if we do
not also provide the human and financial resources for NOAA to
perform its statutory functions and to carry out its mission.
So I sincerely hope that this hearing is not the last we
will hold to examine the challenges that NOAA faces, and to
hear from the many constituencies that depend upon the services
and products that NOAA provides. Despite its problems--and let
me conclude with this, NOAA and its dedicated workforce
continue to deliver vital services to this nation, but we must
do more to help this Agency realize its potential and
accomplish the missions we have required of it.
And I hope our panel today will address some of the issues
I have raised, and I welcome and will welcome their thoughts on
how we can develop a NOAA Organic Act that will set the stage
for NOAA's future success and the wise stewardship of our
nation and our planet.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I would yield back any time, and
thank you for holding the hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Mark Udall
Good afternoon. Let me begin by thanking Chairman Ehlers for
holding this hearing. The introduced bills, the Pew Commission report,
and the Ocean Commission report provide us with a wealth of information
and proposals to consider. It is high time that Congress took a
comprehensive look at NOAA's mission and functions and that we examine
the state of the natural resources NOAA manages.
NOAA's health is of great concern to me as Ranking Member of this
subcommittee and as Representative of the district in Colorado that
houses six of NOAA's laboratories.
So I am sorry to say the news about NOAA is not good. NOAA as an
organization is in trouble. It is under-funded and under-staffed
relative to the numerous and diverse tasks the agency performs under
its many statutory mandates. Some of its facilities are in need of
refurbishment and repair.
And, I fear the current reorganization effort is placing a greater
emphasis on achieving cost-savings than on developing a culture that
fosters teamwork and collaboration among NOAA's line offices. NOAA's
relationship with other federal agencies, States, and the many non-
governmental organizations it interacts with also needs to be better
defined and supported.
If we look at the natural resources that NOAA is charged with
conserving and managing--fisheries, coastal areas, oceans and the Great
Lakes--they are also in trouble. Our once abundant fisheries in this
country continue to suffer from a combination of impacts, including
over-fishing, habitat destruction, and pollution. Harmful algal blooms
and hypoxia--once rare events--are increasing in their frequency and
intensity. Our policies and NOAA's execution of them are failing to
ensure the long-term viability of these vital resources.
Human activities have altered the chemistry of the Earth's
atmosphere and continue to do so even as the evidence mounts that these
changes will alter the climate and impact the ecological systems that
we depend upon. While NOAA is not charged with managing or conserving
the atmosphere, the agency does have expertise that could be utilized
in collaboration with other federal agencies and outside organizations
to do vulnerability assessments of the potential impacts of climate
change.
NOAA's failures are not the result of the policies of any
particular administration or the actions of any particular Congress. I
find it difficult to believe they are the result of an imperfect
organizational structure at NOAA. We have gotten to this point over a
long period of time and for many reasons. If we are to reverse these
trends, there are a number of policy issues that we need to address as
we develop a NOAA organic act.
One of the issues we must confront is the inevitable conflict that
arises when we attempt to reconcile short-term, narrow economic
interests with long-term preservation and management of coastal and
oceanic ecosystems. We need to ensure sufficient support for NOAA's
scientific enterprise in addition to providing adequate resources to
deliver the operational products of the National Weather Service, which
are so essential to public safety and to our economy.
We must continue to monitor our atmosphere and our oceans and to
disseminate, archive and preserve the information for present and
future study of the planet. However, we cannot monitor everything, and
we should not allow monitoring and study to delay the implementation
and enforcement of management and conservation policies.
The oceans and the atmosphere do not reside within single state
borders or within the exclusive economic zone of the United States.
Within the United States, these resources must be managed in a true
partnership between the states and the Federal Government. But that is
not sufficient. These are global resources, so we must also be engaged
in a constructive partnership with other nations to conserve and manage
these resources for the benefit of all nations. We must maintain our
role as an international leader generating and sharing scientific
information and establishing innovative policies that will ensure the
viability of our planet.
In his testimony, Deputy Secretary Kassinger refers to the
``unresolved disagreements'' that have stymied previous efforts to
enact a NOAA organic act. These disagreements are likely to de-rail
this effort if we fail to confront them and address them in a
constructive fashion. A visionary mission statement and a clear
definition of agency functions are meaningless if we do not also
provide the human and financial resources for NOAA to perform its
statutory functions and to carry out its mission.
I sincerely hope that this hearing is not the last we will hold to
examine the challenges NOAA faces and to hear from the many
constituencies that depend upon the services and products that NOAA
provides. We must improve NOAA's ability to do its work.
Despite its problems, NOAA and its dedicated workforce continue to
deliver vital services to this nation. But we must do more to help this
agency realize its potential and accomplish the missions we have
required of it. I hope our panel today will address some of the issues
I have raised. I welcome their thoughts on how we can develop a NOAA
organic act that will set the stage for NOAA's future success and the
wise stewardship of nation and our planet.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Udall. Normally, I don't
comment on the opening statements others make, but I want to
reassure you and others that I regard the ocean as our--as a
great frontier that we should learn much more about, and should
be studying much more extensively, and in every way. And
obviously, that does, as you say, require extra human resources
and financial resources.
The--my goal is that as we prepare an organic act, we will
set the stage for good management, cost savings, and you know
as well as I that when you can show good management and cost
savings, the appropriations actually tend to increase, and it
is my fond hope that may eventually happen.
If there is no objection, all additional opening statements
submitted by the Subcommittee Members will be added to the
record. Without objection, so ordered.
At this time, I would like to introduce our witnesses. We
have an all star cast today. We will have two panels.
And on the first panel, we have Mr. Ted Kassinger. He is
the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and we
really appreciate your presence here, and also want to
congratulate you on your recent appointment to this important
post. We hope that--we wish you well, and we hope that you will
never regret having accepted this.
Mr. Kassinger. I am sure it won't be because of the hearing
today, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. The next witness is a familiar face from
the past. Dr. Jim Baker is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Academy of Natural Sciences. He was the
Administrator of NOAA from 1993 to 2001.
Next, we have Admiral West, who is the President of the
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, and is the
former Oceanographer of the Navy.
And the fourth member of this panel is Dr. Joe Friday,
another familiar face, the Weather News Chair of Applied
Meteorology and Director of the Sasaki Applied Meteorology
Research Institute at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Friday is
a former Assistant Administrator of the National Weather
Service and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at
NOAA.
We will have a second panel that I will introduce at a
later time. As our witnesses presumably have been told, we
limit spoken testimony to five minutes. Your written testimony
will automatically be entered into the record, and we ask you
to summarize your comments in oral testimony for five minutes,
and the little lights, both here and in front of you, will
indicate your progress. The first four minutes are green, the
second--the final minute is orange, and when the red light goes
on, you have real problems, and so do I. So, we would
appreciate you trying to limit it to five minutes. We will
start with Mr. Kassinger.
Panel I
STATEMENT OF HON. THEODORE W. KASSINGER, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Kassinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind
words, and for the invitation to appear today. Mr. Udall,
Members of the Subcommittee, we really appreciate your
convening this hearing on H.R. 4546, a NOAA Organic Act. I want
to thank you for your continuing support of NOAA and its
programs. I also want to thank Chairman Ehlers and Congressman
Gilchrest for graciously acceding to the Administration's
request to introduce H.R. 4607, our version of a NOAA Organic
Act.
NOAA has an enormous impact on our nation's economic and
environmental welfare. Secretary Evans recently noted NOAA's
products and services touch some 30 percent of the Nation's
gross domestic product. However, since its establishment in
1970, NOAA has relied on nearly 200 separate legislative
authorities to carry out its business. Some, such as the
Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Agricultural Marketing Act
of 1946, precede the creation of NOAA by several decades. A
unified law, an organic act, will provide a solid foundation
for NOAA to meet the needs of the 21st Century. This was also
the conclusion of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's
preliminary report released this past April.
Both H.R. 4546 and H.R. 4607 share common objectives, but
differ somewhat in three general areas: first, in the explicit
grant of Agency-wide administrative authorities; second, in the
flexibility to reorganize the Agency's structure and programs;
and third, in the nature and scope of an outside Board to
advise the Administrator about NOAA's activities. I will speak
to each of these briefly in turn.
First, H.R. 4607 would greatly simplify NOAA's resource
management and stewardship abilities by codifying in one place
its core administrative authorities. For example, that bill
would grant to NOAA authority to accept gifts and bequests,
consistent with similar authorities provided to other federal
agencies. The ability to accept such gifts and bequests could
be used to obtain weather radio towers, for example.
H.R. 4607 would also grant the authority to acquire
property interests, which could, for example, have positive
results when we undertake to manage natural resource damage and
restoration programs. It also would grant authority to operate
through partnerships and enter into agreements with non-federal
entities.
Currently, these types of authorities are scattered about
those 200 statutes I mentioned, and thus, do not apply to all
of NOAA's activities, and so we have a patchwork effort, often,
when Congress and the Administration identify programmatic
needs, and we seek legal authority to carry them out. The
introduction and enactment of an organic act would allow us to
have Agency-wide authority to clearly carry out the kinds of
programs that you and we want to administer.
Second, both H.R. 4546 and H.R. 4607 establish the
positions of Under Secretary or Administrator, Assistant
Secretary, Deputy Administrator, and Deputy Under Secretary.
However, H.R. 4546 establishes other senior positions in law.
The Administration bill, in contrast, would allow NOAA the
flexibility to establish additional senior positions as needed.
H.R. 4546 also includes specific operations and services
for NOAA, and identifies a few specific programs for
authorization. In contrast, H.R. 4607 would contain four broad
missions: encompassing ecosystem approaches to management,
climate, weather and water, and commerce and transportation.
This approach would allow for organizational and programmatic
changes that may be needed to meet future developments and
challenges.
Third, both bills address a need for an advisory panel of
experts. H.R. 4546 would establish a 15-member Science Advisory
Board. H.R. 4607 would establish a broader-based NOAA Advisory
Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere that incorporates the
functions of the current NOAA Science Advisory Board. The
Administration bill also provides flexibility for determining
the number of Committee members in terms of service. These are
very similar concepts in both bills. Our thought is to provide
this advisory committee with somewhat broader responsibilities
to advise the Administrator across a broader range of issues.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss both
the Committee's bill and the Administration's bill. We
appreciate the Committee's continuing support of NOAA, and look
forward to working with you as the bills move through the
legislative process.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kassinger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Theodore W. Kassinger
Chairman Ehlers, Mr. Udall, and Members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate your convening this hearing today on the creation of a NOAA
Organic Act to bring together in one statute the fundamental structure,
purposes, and authorities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continuing support of NOAA's
programs, as evidenced by your introduction of H.R. 4546, the NOAA
Organic Act authored by you and under consideration by the House
Science Committee. I also want to thank both you and Congressman
Gilchrest for graciously acceding to the Administration's request to
introduce H.R. 4607, our version of a NOAA Organic Act.
Because of its strategic impact on the economic and environmental
welfare of the Nation, NOAA commands a central place within the
Department of Commerce. As Secretary Evans recently noted, NOAA's
products and services touch 30 percent of the Nation's GDP every year.
Waterborne cargo alone contributes over $740 billion to our GDP and
supports jobs for more than 13 million citizens. The commercial fishing
industry adds approximately $28.5 billion to the national economy on a
yearly basis.
In transmitting the Administration's proposed NOAA Organic Act to
the Congress, Secretary Evans stated that the increasing economic and
environmental importance of ocean and atmospheric assessment, research
and stewardship created an acute need to enhance NOAA's ability to
predict and protect the environment and contribute to our nation's
safety, health and prosperity. In line with that stated need, NOAA has
adopted for itself the following four priorities: ecosystem approaches
to managing the environment; climate change; weather and water; and
commerce and transportation. Because the Nation's economy depends on
NOAA products, we have placed an emphasis on science that has a clear
application to NOAA's programs.
Originally created by Reorganization Plan No. 4 in 1970, NOAA has
accumulated a large number of diverse responsibilities over the
decades. It currently relies on close to two hundred separate
legislative authorities, as well as on statutes of general
applicability, to perform its job. Some of these, such as the Merchant
Marine Act of 1936, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, and the
Coast and Geodetic Survey Act of 1947, predate the creation of NOAA.
Nonetheless, from the late 1970's through the present, various
Executive and Legislative Branch initiatives to organize NOAA's
missions and authorities into a single law have foundered due to
unresolved disagreements. After thirty-four years, it is time to
advance from a Reorganization Plan to a unified, coherent legislative
enactment.
In its Preliminary Report, released for review of the governors of
the United States on April 20, 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy reached the same conclusion. In its report, the Commission
recommends immediate Congressional action on an organic act to enhance
NOAA's ability to conduct operations consistent with the principles of
ecosystem-based management and with its primary functions.. . . Admiral
James Watkins, Commission Chairman, emphasized the importance of a NOAA
Organic Act before the House Science Committee on May 5, 2004. The
Administration concurs fully and, with the transmittal to Congress of
an Administration proposal, has acted upon this preliminary
recommendation from the Commission.
The introduction of H.R. 4546 and H.R. 4607 thus offers a timely
and welcome opportunity to consider anew the appropriate way to define
NOAA's mission and responsibilities. While we can be assured of a wide
variety of views on this subject, it is encouraging that all parties
seem to agree on one important tenet: NOAA, for the first time, must
have a unified law to provide a solid foundation for its future service
to the United States.
While both bills share common objectives, they differ in approach
in three general areas: first, the explicit grant of agency-wide
authorities; second, flexibility to reorganize the agency's structure;
and third, the nature and scope of an advisory board to oversee NOAA's
activities. We are confident that these differences in approach can be
resolved satisfactorily, and we look forward to working with your
committee to that end.
Explicit Grant of Agency-Wide Authority
H.R. 4607 would greatly simplify NOAA's ability to undertake
research activities, to disseminate information, to manage ocean and
coastal areas, and to provide stewardship of living marine resources by
codifying in one place its core administrative authorities. By way of
example, H.R. 4607 grants to NOAA----
authority to accept gifts and bequests, consistent
with similar authorities provided to other federal agencies.
The ability to accept such gifts or bequests could be used, for
example, to obtain weather radio towers.
authority to acquire property interests, which could,
for example, have positive results for managing natural
resource damage and restoration programs, by confirming that
NOAA has authority to acquire directly property to be used for
habitat restoration projects.
authority to operate through partnerships and enter
into agreements with non-federal entities.
While NOAA has many of these authorities under statutes for
specific programs, or under the Department's general authorities, this
bill provides clear authorities on a NOAA-wide basis, and places the
NOAA authorities together in one public law. We recommend that a NOAA
organic act include provisions providing these types of NOAA-wide
authorities.
Flexibility to Reorganize the Agency's Structure
While both bills establish the positions of Under Secretary
(Administrator), Assistant Secretary (Deputy Administrator), and Deputy
Under Secretary, H.R. 4546 would also establish the NOAA SES positions
of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Science and Technology, and General Counsel. H.R. 4607,
by contrast, would allow these and other senior positions to be
established by the NOAA Under Secretary.
While the positions specified in H.R. 4546 (with the addition of
the position of DAS for Science and Technology) accurately reflect the
current organizational structure of NOAA, the Administration prefers
the approach adopted by H.R. 4607, which would allow for additional
organizational flexibility.
Although Congress may pass a NOAA organic act this session, history
teaches us that it may take years, if not decades, before further
legislative changes are possible. During that period, the Nation's
priorities and the state of science and the environment will inevitably
change and evolve. Our bill would allow NOAA the flexibility to make
those organizational and programmatic changes that may be needed to
meet future developments and challenges. The Administration recognizes
that Congress has a strong interest in how NOAA is organized, and we
are confident that there are ways to assure Congressional participation
in that matter without resorting to the creation of a rigid structure
for NOAA in statute.
In a similar vein, H.R. 4546 highlights several NOAA purposes and
missions by reference to specific NOAA programs and activities. For
example, the bill directs the Secretary to maintain within NOAA a
National Weather Service (NWS), and delineates the NWS mission, goals
and functions (section 105). The bill also directs the Secretary to
maintain within NOAA operational and service programs to support
routine data collection and direct services and products relating to
satellite, observations, and coastal, ocean and Great Lakes information
(section 106). In addition, the bill directs the Secretary to maintain
within NOAA programs to conduct and support research and education and
the development of technologies relating to weather, climate and the
coasts, oceans and Great Lakes (section 107).
H.R. 4607 does not contain any of these provisions explicitly, but
does provide for general authority to continue these important
activities. The Administration prefers not to highlight the importance
of some NOAA programs through their inclusion in an organic act, while
inadvertently or inappropriately neglecting others.
Creation of Advisory Board
Both bills address a need for the establishment of an advisory
panel of distinguished experts to provide advice and insights regarding
NOAA science and research activities. Currently, NOAA has a 15-member
science advisory board that was established by decision of the
Secretary of Commerce and chartered in September 1997 under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. The members are appointed by the NOAA
Administrator to advise him on long- and short-range strategies for
research, education, and the application of science to resource
management and environmental assessment and prediction.
H.R. 4546 establishes in law a 15-member Science Advisory Board,
while H.R. 4607 establishes a NOAA Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere that is broader in scope than the Board contemplated by H.R.
4546. The NOAA Advisory Committee established by H.R. 4607 would
replace the now-defunct National Advisory Committee on Oceans and
Atmosphere and the current NOAA Science Advisory Board. This new
committee would continue to address science issues, as would the
National Science Board in H.R. 4546. In this respect, the NOAA Advisory
Committee would be similar to the current NOAA Science Advisory Board.
The Administration, however, would like to expand the scope of the
present science board to include NOAA-wide policy issues.
We believe that this broader scope would be a logical extension of
issues considered by a science board, better reflecting the depth and
breadth of the policy issues embedded in NOAA's missions and purposes.
Thus a panel could provide the senior leaders of NOAA with the critical
perspective of highly qualified, independent experts who could bring
useful outside perspectives to the challenges NOAA faces. Moreover, as
is commonly done with advisory committees, the NOAA Advisory Committee
structure could include subcommittees or working groups to address in
greater detail specific scientific questions. The Administration bill
provides flexibility for determining the number of committee members
and terms of services through the development of a charter.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss both the Committee's bill,
H.R. 4546, and the Administration's bill, H.R. 4607. As I previously
noted, both bills have very similar objectives. For that reason, we are
convinced that the bills' differences in approach can be harmonized,
and we look forward to working with you as the bills move through the
legislative process. We are hopeful that our combined efforts, as well
as your committee's past and continued support for NOAA, will provide
the momentum needed to enact a NOAA organic act this session.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Theodore W. Kassinger
Theodore W. (``Ted'') Kassinger serves as Deputy Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Commerce, a position to which he was nominated by
President George W. Bush in February 2004 and appointed in July 2004.
Previously, Mr. Kassinger was nominated and confirmed by the U.S.
Senate as the General Counsel of the Department. He served in that
capacity from May 2001 until assuming his current position.
As Deputy Secretary, Mr. Kassinger serves as the Department's chief
operating officer, with responsibility for the day-to-day management of
its approximately $5.8 billion budget, 13 operating units, and 40,000
employees. Among the Department of Commerce's varied missions are
promoting U.S. exports, administering unfair trade laws, and
negotiating and enforcing international trade agreements; regulating
the export of sensitive goods and technologies and promoting
international cooperation on export control and strategic trade
matters; serving as effective stewards of the Nation's ocean, coastal,
and living marine resources while assisting their economic development;
forecasting the weather and conducting other climate research;
formulating technology and telecommunications policy and administering
the federal radio frequency spectrum; conducting the national censuses
and producing some of the Nation's most important economic data;
administering the patent and trademark system; developing and applying
technology, measurements, and standards; and promoting economic growth
in distressed communities and minority business development. As Deputy
Secretary, Mr. Kassinger supports Secretary of Commerce Donald L. Evans
in carrying out these Department responsibilities and other
Departmental policy and operational objectives.
Prior to joining the Bush Administration Mr. Kassinger practiced
law with the multinational law firm, Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., from 1985
to 2001. His law practice focused mainly on the fields of international
trade and business law, and transnational disputes resolution. Earlier
in his career, Mr. Kassinger served as an attorney for the U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S.
International Trade Commission.
A native of Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Kassinger received his B.L.A.
from the University of Georgia School of Environmental Design (1975)
and his J.D. from the University of Georgia School of Law (1978). He is
married to the author, Ruth G. Kassinger. The Kassingers are the
parents of three daughters.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Baker.
STATEMENT OF DR. D. JAMES BAKER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES
Dr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, I served as the Administrator of NOAA, but I
also worked for NOAA as a scientist, and my experience as a
scientist and administrator tells me that it is very important
for NOAA to have an organic act. During my tenure as
Administrator, I was pleased to see Congress support NOAA's
critical missions and grow the budget by more than 50 percent.
Yet, at critical times in national policy debates, there were
questions about NOAA's mission, especially where NOAA's
programs appear to overlap those of other agencies. An organic
act would help to avoid these unnecessary debates.
When NOAA and the EPA were formed in 1970, environmental
issues were foremost in the public's mind. Much has been
accomplished since then in providing clean air, clean water,
and better weather forecasts. But in 1970, we were not aware to
the extent at which we were exploiting fisheries. We were not
able to forecast an El Nino or understand the role of humans in
global climate change. Today, we have the best weather service
in the world. We have a much better understanding of long-term
change. But we are facing vulnerability to natural disasters,
non-point source pollution, and continuing declines in
commercial fisheries.
In the future, we will be doing more offshore drilling, and
the biodiversity of the sea will be explored with new molecular
techniques. We will continue to operate under the burden of not
being a signatory to the Law of the Sea Convention. In short,
the problems are different, harder to solve, and the Agency
needs to change with the times. It needs more recognition and
support, more money, and more independence. In fact, I believe
that NOAA should be an independent agency, like EPA. NOAA was
originally proposed as an independent agency, and today, it has
the maturity to become one. I hope the House will carefully
consider supporting the Senate along those lines.
In terms of the biggest problem, I mentioned that we had
the best weather observation and forecast system in the world,
but are we as ready as we should be for a major natural
disaster? Our lack of preparedness for terrorism events
suggests that our systems for preparing for major natural
disasters needed careful examination. Weather experts know that
storms, floods, and high winds can be devastating, especially
as population growth puts more people and property in harm's
way. NOAA must be part of homeland security planning for
natural disasters.
We have not yet solved the problem of keeping alive a
viable commercial fishing industry with sustainable stocks of
fish. The answer lies in reduced quotas, and in full ecosystem
management. We have been working a long time on this problem.
President Grant established the first U.S. Commission in 1872
because of the decline in fisheries, but we still haven't
solved the problem.
What missions and functions should NOAA be responsible for?
It is important to emphasize the key role of the oceans in
NOAA. Long-term forecasts of weather and climate require better
measurements of the ocean. We must have an ocean observing
system as good as the system we have for the atmosphere, but we
are a long way from that coverage today.
The current emphasis on observations of all kinds in NOAA
is gratifying to see, but the funding must be found to make it
work. Organizationally, it is very important to maintain the
scientific independence of NOAA. There have been attempts in
the past by administrations of both parties to limit the flow
of information from NOAA, particularly on politically sensitive
issues like global climate change and fisheries management. The
organic act should ensure that NOAA can maintain its
independence when such issues arise.
What are the pros and cons of proposed restructuring? I
like the groupings that have been proposed in your bill, and I
think that such a focus would help the Agency function better.
I also think it is critical to follow the advice of the Ocean
Commissions about ecosystem management. I can remember many
discussions at NOAA, while I was Administrator, where we
debated the cause of decline, for example, of stellar sea
lions, without having the benefit of understanding the complex
web of interactions that led to such decline.
Title I of H.R. 4546 gives a good summary of the Agency and
what it does. I think it could be improved by adding a
provision for formalizing the mechanism for research to be
carried out and competitively funded at universities and
research institutions outside NOAA. The Office of Naval
Research would be a good example for an Office of NOAA
Research. I like the idea of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Science and Technology, for coordination of science and
research, and would propose such a Deputy Assistant Secretary
might be the focal point for the Office alluded to above.
I am also pleased to see the continuance of the Science
Advisory Board. This Board was established on my watch at NOAA,
and it provided very good guidance for a variety of programs.
Let me conclude with a word about education. NOAA needs
more support for educational outreach programs. I was pleased
to see that NOAA will sponsor a major new exhibit on oceans at
the Smithsonian, and I hope that more such exhibits and
outreach can be supported. The more the public can be educated
about our issues, the better the support we will have in
dealing with difficult issues.
After I left my job as Administrator of NOAA, I wanted to
join an institution that had both research and public outreach,
and I was lucky enough to become President of the Academy of
Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. At the Academy, we are
developing new programs to show the public the tradeoffs
involved in making environmental decisions. We have a new town
square program where such things are discussed. NOAA might
consider helping establish other such programs around the
country.
Thanks for the opportunity to be here. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify, and look forward to a stronger and more
independent NOAA. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of D. James Baker
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
important hearing. I am D. James Baker, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, and I
served as the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) from May of 1993 to January of 2001, longer than
any other Administrator. I also worked for NOAA as a scientist at the
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle in the 1970s. My
experience as a scientist and administrator tells me that it is very
important for NOAA to have an Organic Act, and I am pleased to testify
in favor of the organic acts which are currently pending in Congress.
The Congress has always strongly supported NOAA, and I hope that a
resolution can be reached, because it will provide strength to the
vital programs NOAA carries out.
From weather and climate to fisheries and coastal zone management,
NOAA has had an important impact on the conduct of national affairs
since it was formed in 1970. During my tenure, I was pleased to see
Congress support these critical missions and grow the budget by more
than 50 percent. NOAA took the lead in civil satellite operations, in
ocean exploration, and in coastal conservation. Yet at critical times
in these and other national policy debates there were questions about
NOAA's mission especially where NOAA's programs appeared to overlap
that of other agencies. An organic act would help avoid these
unnecessary debates. I will organize my testimony according to the
questions that were asked in the invitation letter.
Before I go into the specific questions that I have been asked to
address, I would like to put my answers into a historical context. When
NOAA and EPA were formed by President Nixon in 1970, environmental
issues were foremost in the public's mind. Much has been accomplished
since then in providing clean air, clean water, better weather
forecasts, and accurate and complete mapping of our coasts and Great
Lakes. But in 1970, we were not aware of the extent to which we were
exploiting fisheries; we were not able to forecast an El Nino or
understand the role of humans in global climate change, and we were
seeing just the beginning of the decline in protected marine mammals.
Today, almost 25 years later, we have the best weather service in the
world, our data bases for the environment are massive, and we have a
much better understanding of forecasting El Nino and longer-term
climate change. But we are facing vulnerability to natural disasters,
non-point source pollution, air shed deposition of nitrogen into
coastal waters which leads to dead zones, and continuing and rapid
declines in commercial fisheries. We will be doing more offshore
drilling, and the biodiversity of the sea will be explored with new
molecular techniques. We will continue to operate under the burden of
not being a signatory to the Law of the Sea Convention. The U.S. Ocean
Commission and the Pew Ocean Commission have each provided excellent
documentation of these and other critical issues.
In short, the problems are different--harder to solve--and the
agency needs to change with the times. It needs more recognition and
support, more money, and more independence. In fact, I believe, and I
want to make this point up front, that the environmental problems that
the Nation faces today are such that NOAA should be an independent
agency like EPA. The proposed organic acts can help in making that
transition. It may not happen in this session or administration, or
even in the next, but I believe it is an essential step for our country
to deal with these critical issues. NOAA was originally proposed as an
independent agency, and today it has the maturity to become one. I know
that a bill was introduced yesterday in the Senate to make NOAA an
independent agency, and I hope that the House will carefully consider
supporting that bill.
1. What is the biggest problem at NOAA and can that problem be
addressed in statute?
I would divide the NOAA issues into two parts: weather and climate
forecasts on the one hand and resource management on the other. I
mentioned that we have the best weather observation and forecast system
in the world, thanks to the dedicated work of the employees of the
National Weather Service and the National Environmental Satellite and
Data and Information Service. But are we as ready as we should be for a
major natural disaster? Our lack of preparedness for terrorism events
suggests that our systems for preparing for major natural disasters
need a careful examination. NOAA plays an important role in getting
information out to the appropriate users; NOAA Weather Radio is a good
example. Perhaps we won't see the sequence of events recently portrayed
in the film The Day After Tomorrow, but weather experts know that
storms, floods, and high winds can be devastating, especially as
population growth puts more people and property in harm's way. NOAA
must be part of homeland security planning for natural disasters.
On the resource management side, we are seeing today, as documented
by both of the Ocean Commissions, a rapid decline of commercial
fisheries. We have not yet solved the problem of keeping alive a viable
commercial fishing industry with sustainable stocks of fish. The answer
lies in reduced numbers for quotas, and in full ecosystem management.
We must set an example, and work internationally to find ways to reduce
the stress on fisheries stocks. We are already seeing stocks reduce in
size substantially; that is, individual fish are getting smaller and
smaller. We should not be the generation to preside over the loss of
commercial fisheries. We have been working a long time on this problem:
President Grant established the first U.S. Fish Commission in 1872
because of the decline in fisheries. We have to find a new way. We are
continually told that this new century is the century of biology--can
these new ideas, ranging from species identification by DNA sequencing
to cloning endangered species, help us in fisheries management?
2. What missions and functions should NOAA be responsible for and how
should NOAA be organized? What is the most important thing to
accomplish in an organic act for NOAA?
In particular it is important to emphasize the key role of the
oceans in NOAA. NOAA is responsible for long-term forecasts of weather
and climate, which in turn require better measurements of the ocean. We
must have an ocean observing system that provides coverage and
information as good as the information we get from the atmosphere, but
we are a long way from that coverage today. The current emphasis on
observations of all kinds in NOAA is gratifying to see, but the funding
must be found to make it work. As the Chair of the international
science steering committee for the Global Ocean Observing System
sponsored by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, the World
Meteorological Organization, and the International Council of
Scientific Unions, I can say that NOAA's leadership in global
observations is critical to success for understanding, predicting, and
using ocean data for a variety of purposes. Let me say also that as we
look to the future, it will be essential to have other ocean
observations, namely the satellites that measure the shape of the
ocean, altimeter satellites such as the multinational JASON-2 program,
tropical moored buoys such as the TOGA-TAO array and coastal moorings,
sea level gauges, surface drifting buoys, and measurements from ships
of opportunity.
Organizationally, it is important to maintain the scientific
independence of NOAA. There have been attempts in the past by
administrations of both parties to limit the flow of information from
NOAA, particularly on politically sensitive issues like global climate
change and fisheries management. The organic act should be carefully
read to make sure that NOAA can maintain its independence when such
issues arise.
3. What are the pros and cons of the proposed restructuring in
Chairman Ehlers' bill, H.R. 4546 and would it improve NOAA's support of
ecosystem-based management?
I like the groupings that have been proposed in Chairman Ehlers'
bill, and I think that such a focus would help the agency function
better. When I was Administrator of NOAA, we developed a strategic plan
that was very similar to this grouping, and we ran regular quarterly
meetings to assess progress in this organizational framework. I also
believe that it is critical to follow the advice of the Ocean
Commissions about ecosystem-based management. In particular, NOAA's
role as protector of endangered marine mammals depends on a much better
understanding of the full ecosystems of which these mammals are part. I
can remember many discussions at NOAA while I was administrator where
we debated the cause of decline of, for example, the Steller sea lions,
without having the benefit of understanding the complex web of
interactions that lead to such decline.
4. How can Title 1 of H.R. 4546 be improved?
Title 1 of H.R. 4546 gives a good summary of the agency and what it
does. I think it could be improved by adding a provision for
formalizing the mechanism for research to be carried out and funded at
universities and research institutions outside NOAA. Although NOAA has
funded external research to some extent over the years through Sea
Grant, the Office of Global Programs, and others, much more could be
done. I'm impressed with how the Navy and other parts of DOD have
benefited greatly with organizations like the Office of Naval Research.
Such formal arrangements for, say, an Office of NOAA Research, could be
a good thing.
5. Could a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
improve coordination of science and research at NOAA?
I like the idea of a DAS for Science and Technology for
coordination of science and research at NOAA, and would propose that
such a DAS might be the focal point for the office alluded to above, an
Office of NOAA Research for external funding.
I'm also pleased to see the continuance of the Science Advisory
Board. This Board was established on my watch at NOAA, and with the
able and excellent leadership of Dr. Alfred Beeton it was able to
provide very good guidance for a variety of programs. I am glad to see
that it will continue.
Conclusion
Finally, let me say a word about education. NOAA has not been able
to do as much as it could in educating the public, and I have always
been impressed with what NASA has done. NOAA needs more support for
educational and outreach programs. I was pleased to see that NOAA will
sponsor a major new exhibit on the oceans at the Smithsonian, and I
hope that more such exhibits and outreach can be supported. It was my
experience at NOAA that the more the public was educated about our
issues, the better the support we would have in dealing with difficult
issues.
After I left my job as Administrator of NOAA, I wanted to join an
institution that had both research and public outreach, and I was lucky
enough to become President of the Academy of Natural Sciences in
Philadelphia, the oldest continuously operating natural history
institution in the western hemisphere. At the Academy we are developing
new programs to show the public the tradeoffs involved in making
environmental decisions. We have started a new Town Square program
where citizens, policy makers, representatives of business, and
scientists can discuss issues like watershed restoration and dam
removal to understand all the aspects. NOAA might consider helping
establish other such programs around the country, with experts from
NOAA talking along with others. In any case, more support and emphasis
on education would be very helpful for decision-making.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify, and look forward to a stronger and more
independent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Biography for D. James Baker
Dr. D. James Baker was trained as a physicist, practiced as an
oceanographer, and has held administrative positions in academia, the
non-profit sector, and government. He was elected the twenty-seventh
President and CEO of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia in
April 2002. Before joining the Academy, Dr. Baker was a Presidential
appointee as Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce (1993-2001). Earlier, he was
President of Joint Oceanographic Institutions Incorporated (JOI) in
Washington, D.C. He came to JOI from the University of Washington where
he served as Professor of Oceanography and first Dean of the College of
Ocean and Fishery Sciences, which he helped found. He is the author of
more than one hundred scientific papers, review articles, and
editorials on geophysical fluid dynamics, oceanography, climate, and
the scientific aspects of sustainable development and published a book
on space policy and technology issues. He and his co-workers were
awarded a patent on their design for a deep-sea pressure gauge. He co-
founded and served as the first President of The Oceanography Society.
He is a Member of the American Philosophical Society and a Fellow of
the American Meteorology Society and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Dr. Baker is married to Emily Lind Baker, who most recently was an
editor in the National Digital Library program of the Library of
Congress in Washington, D.C. He was born in Long Beach, California and
went to elementary, junior high, and high school there. He has a
Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from Stanford University, a Ph.D.
in Physics from Cornell University, and was awarded an honorary Doctor
of Humane Letters (L.H.D.) degree from Nova University in 1993.
Chairman Ehlers. And thank you. Admiral West.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL RICHARD D. WEST, PRESIDENT,
CONSORTIUM FOR OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
Admiral West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee
for my invitation today, and for your continued leadership on
ocean science issues. CORE, with its 78 members, represents the
Nation's premiere ocean science institutions. The ocean science
community appreciates your prompt response to the Ocean
Commission's call for a NOAA Organic Act. Both H.R. 4546 and
H.R. 4607 would clarify NOAA's structure and function, and
provide the Agency with the direction to create an integrated
organization.
The ocean science community is very supportive, and sees
H.R. 4546 in particular as a clear step forward for NOAA and
this nation. CORE, the Sea Grant Association, and the National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
jointly endorse H.R. 4546.
The Committee's letter of invitation posed four questions
to me. First, perhaps the largest problem facing NOAA today is
its amalgamation of research, operational, and regulatory
entities that does not operate as a well integrated corporate
culture, as well as being placed within the Department of
Commerce.
Second, with respect to NOAA's missions, functions, and
organization, the Ocean Commission Report offers a good
starting point. Through the goals articulated in the organic
act and reading the Commission's vision, NOAA would greatly
benefit from the research plan called for in H.R. 4546.
This plan must recognize the role of research in NOAA,
establish goals and a process for Agency-wide research and
investments, and delineate the role of its external partners.
It must emphasize the importance of peer review and competitive
awards, which improve the process of managing grants and
contracts, and integrate research, education, and outreach.
Third, with respect to restructuring NOAA, the three
mission areas--operations and services, research and education,
and resource management--make sense. The current line office
structure is widely viewed as inhibiting NOAA's ability to
function effectively as an integrated organization, and many
question whether NOAA can make progress toward a more unified
operation without some structural change.
Fourth, CORE strongly supports the creation of a Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, and its
responsibility for coordinating and managing the NOAA research
enterprise. Establishing this position provides clear
recognition of NOAA as a science-based mission agency, and is
consistent with the recommendation of the NOAA Research Review
Team.
Other points for consideration is the Science Advisory
Board should be authorized as an expert partner in NOAA
research. We support strategic planning and recommend that such
planning cover three areas, scientific research, education and
outreach, and data management. The Coastal Ocean Science
Program will provide important science for ecosystem-based
management. We are, however, very concerned that the NOAA
funding bill approved by the House of Representatives, would
slash funding available for this research in Fiscal Year 2005.
CORE's support for the bill's Marine Research Title and
similar bills that call for multidisciplinary investments to
better understand the role of the oceans in human health. A top
national priority should be the development of an Integrated
Ocean Observing System that extends from our watersheds to the
outer edge of the exclusive economic zone.
The Committee asked me that I also provide a brief overview
of the report of the NOAA Research Review Team, from which I'm
also a member. I am not sure that resets my clock, but I will
continue. The Team was appointed in a response to the Senate
and House legislative reports accompanying this year's NOAA
funding law. In undertaking our charge, the Review Team felt
that it was essential to consider the full breadth of the NOAA
research enterprise to better understand and evaluate NOAA
research and the role of the OAR line office.
In developing our report, we examined substantial amounts
of data and various reports. We conducted extensive internal
NOAA interviews, met with past and present senior managers of
NOAA, other government agencies and large private sector
research-based companies, and held wide-ranging discussions
with external community representatives, and the Science
Advisory Board. Our final report was presented to, and accepted
by, the Science Advisory Board on Tuesday.
The Team's findings and recommendations fall into nine
general categories, but I would like to mention just five
briefly, as they are applicable to today's hearing. First, in
cooperation with external partners, NOAA should develop a 20-
year research vision that supports the Agency's strategic plan,
and a five-year Agency-wide research plan that clearly
articulates research goals and projects in a phased approach.
NOAA should also appoint a distinguished career scientist
as Associate Administrator for Research, reporting directly to
the NOAA Administrator, and with mission and budget
responsibility for all NOAA research. This individual should
chair a top-level NOAA research board, with responsibility for
implementing the research vision. Support would be provided by
a research council of senior research managers chaired by the
OAR Assistant Administrator.
NOAA must strengthen the transition of research to
operational lines, clarifying that both research and
operational programs share physical and programmatic
responsibility for transition. NOAA should develop a clear set
of criteria for determining the location of research programs
within the Agency that would be applied to new programs
immediately, and to existing programs over a two-year period.
NOAA should establish an external taskforce to evaluate the
structure and future of ecosystem research within the line
offices. The role of extramural research should be clearly
defined in the research plan, and an integral part of NOAA,
presentations to the Department of Commerce, the Office of
Management and Budget, and to the Congress. NOAA must improve
its business practices related to extramural research, engaging
the external community and establishing more consistent
administrative processes.
In conclusion, this nation must recognize that the time has
come for constructive action to protect our oceans. NOAA, our
nation's ocean agency, has a critical role in carrying out the
recommendations of the Ocean Commission. We applaud this
committee's efforts to provide NOAA with this clear mission.
With adequate funding, a reinvigorated NOAA can lead this
nation in taking the necessary steps to understand, protect,
and make wise decisions on our global ocean resources.
On behalf of all the members of CORE and my Research Review
Team colleagues, I thank you for your presence today. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Rear Admiral West follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Richard D. West
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to discuss pending legislation and reports
relating to the organization and research programs of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I am Rear Admiral Dick
West, President of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and
Education (CORE). I am speaking today on behalf of the 78-member
institutions of CORE who work together to develop and promote a common
vision and goals for the ocean science community. In addition and as a
member of the NOAA Research Review Team, your invitation asked me to
provide a brief summary of the team's report and recommendations.
I. CORE VIEWS ON H.R. 4546, THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION ACT, AND H.R. 4607, THE NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 2004
CORE was established a decade ago to promote and advance ocean
science research and education. As an organization, CORE fosters
membership of U.S. institutions actively involved in ocean research and
education; seeks support for the development of partnerships in
oceanographic research and education; builds critical links among
government agencies, academia and marine industries; and actively works
with policy and decision-makers on ocean research and education issues.
Our membership includes the leadership of this nation's premier ocean
science institutions.
With the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy nearing completion of its
work, this has truly been an extraordinary year for the entire ocean
science community. On one hand, we are looking forward to the first
comprehensive report on national ocean policy in more than 35 years--
one that will identify both serious problems and exciting new
opportunities. On the other hand, this compelling document is being
released in the waning days of the 108th Congress as our nation faces
war, presidential and congressional elections, and difficult fiscal
decisions to meet tight budget constraints. In response to the
challenges posed by the Commission report, the oceanographic community
has adopted two strategies: The first is to make sure that Americans
understand the critical role of the oceans in our environmental,
economic and national security. The second is to strengthen policies
and investment of resources commensurate with the importance of the
oceans in our lives.
As we pursue these strategies and work to implement the Commission
recommendations, CORE would like to thank the Members and staff of the
Science Committee for their leadership and continued attention to ocean
science issues. In particular, we appreciate Congressman Ehlers'
willingness to sponsor legislation and move forward quickly to put the
Commission's findings in place. This is a very timely and important
hearing given the nature and scope of the proposals being discussed.
The ocean science community supports efforts to enact NOAA organic
legislation and is optimistic that it will provide NOAA with tools
needed to define a common, agency-wide vision. The legislation offers a
unique opportunity to codify NOAA's structure and function and set the
direction for creating a unified and integrated organization. CORE, the
Sea Grant Association, and the National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges jointly have endorsed H.R. 4546.
Attached to my written statement is a copy of our support letter.
Ocean Commission Recommendations and NOAA
In 1969, the report of the Commission on Marine Science,
Engineering, and Resources (Stratton Commission) recommended ``the
creation of a major new civilian agency, which might be called the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, to be the principal
instrumentality within the Federal Government for administration of the
Nation's civil marine and atmospheric programs.'' The report also
suggests that the primary mission of the new agency be ``to ensure the
full and wise use of the marine environment in the best interests of
the United States.'' It proposes 18 functions ranging from advancing
the marine and atmospheric sciences to assuring the availability of
educated and trained manpower. Less than a year later, the President's
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 created NOAA, consolidating many of
the civilian oceanic and atmospheric programs that were scattered
throughout the federal bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, NOAA still exists today as an amalgamation of
research, operational, and regulatory entities that do not operate
under a common and well-integrated corporate culture. The current
fragmented structure stems in large part from the way in which NOAA was
assembled from existing federal marine, weather and atmospheric
entities, then awkwardly placed within the Department of Commerce.
Through the 1970 reorganization plan, NOAA became the uneasy sum of
several competent, yet independent-minded organizations that still have
not melded into a single cohesive agency.
Thirty-five years have passed since the Stratton Commission
finished its work and now the Watkins Commission is preparing to issue
its final report. One of the preliminary recommendations of today's
Commission is very similar to that of its predecessor. It states,
``Congress should pass an organic act that codifies the establishment
and missions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The act should ensure that NOAA's structure is consistent with the
principles of ecosystem-based management and with its primary functions
of assessment, prediction, and operations; management; and research and
education.'' The situation is also similar in that the Administration
and Congress have responded quickly by taking action, in this case
through the introduction of H.R. 4546 and H.R. 4607 to implement
Commission recommendations.
Of course, the Commission recommendations related to NOAA are not
limited to the call for organic legislation. Of the Commission's almost
200 recommendations, nearly a quarter are directed toward NOAA. Among
those of significance for today's NOAA discussion are the following:
Doubling the federal ocean and coastal research
budget over the next five years, from the 2004 level of
approximately $650 million to $1.3 billion per year, including
enlargement of the National Sea Grant College Program, and
support for other research identified as high priorities. (25-
1)
Expanding the national ocean exploration program
under NOAA and the National Science Foundation and with
involvement of other federal ocean agencies. (25-4)
Serving as the lead federal agency for funding,
implementing and operating the Integrated Ocean Observing
System (IOOS) with distribution of funds through a streamlined
process to federal and nonfederal partners. (26-2,9)
Strengthening support for both formal and informal
ocean-related education at NOAA and other agencies, including
support for an education office, teacher development
opportunities, undergraduate marine science courses, a national
ocean workforce database, participation of traditionally under-
represented groups and a traineeship program patterned after
the National Institutes of Health. (8-3,7,9,11,12,15)
Creating a NOAA organization to support transition of
research technologies into operations and increasing investment
in research programs to assess and develop effective
technologies for dealing with issues like vessel pollution,
protected species interactions, aquaculture, and ocean
observations. (16-4, 20-7, 22-3, 26-7, 27-2)
Expanding research and development efforts, including
competitively awarded grants and support of federally
designated centers, by NOAA and other agencies for
multidisciplinary studies of marine species and potential
marine bio-products; expanded research in marine microbiology
and virology; and improved methods for monitoring and
identifying pathogens and chemical toxins in ocean waters and
organisms. (23-1,2,3)
Organic Act Legislation
Following introduction, CORE circulated H.R. 4546, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, and H.R. 4607, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act of 2004, to its members for
review. Both bills include NOAA organic legislation and it seems clear
that H.R. 4546 fundamentally is not in conflict with H.R. 4607 but
expands upon it significantly in important ways. H.R. 4546 is a clear
step forward for NOAA and CORE members are generally very supportive.
There are a few issues, however, that raise questions and we would like
to work with you to resolve them as the Committee moves the bill
through the legislative process.
One preliminary question is that H.R. 4546 authorizes some specific
research programs addressed by the Commission report but not others. We
recognize that the bill was not intended to be exhaustive. However, it
may be useful to consider including or expanding authorizations for
other education and research efforts, such as the National Sea Grant
College Program, the National Undersea Research Program and ocean
exploration. Stepping back from discussion of specific programs, CORE's
principal interest is that NOAA develop balanced research and education
programs that are peer-reviewed and competitively awarded, rely on
effective partnerships and outreach, support the full breadth of the
agency's mission and demonstrate its commitment to scientific
excellence.
Returning to H.R. 4546, one key provision is the creation of a new
career position, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and
Technology. CORE strongly supports the new position and its
responsibility for coordinating and managing research activities across
the agency. Establishing this position provides clear recognition of
NOAA as a science-based agency that has a corporate view of their
research program. This recommendation also appears to be consistent
with the goals of the Research Review Team. It would, however, be
useful to clarify the ability of the science deputy to actively
influence science activities and budgets within the line offices, as
well as his or her relationship to the NOAA Science Advisory Board.
Given the Commission's recommendation that research and education be
one program element of a revised NOAA structure, we also would suggest
that you make education a specific part of the portfolio of the science
deputy.
From our perspective, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
International Affairs also is an important position, especially as we
work to develop a global observing system. Consequently, the Committee
may wish to consider adding integration of global observing systems
specifically to the list of responsibilities for the international
position.
CORE strongly supports the authorization for the Science Advisory
Committee and the requirement to develop strategic plans for scientific
research and for data management, archival and distribution. With
respect to data and information systems, the provision related to the
global Earth-observing system is particularly important. However, the
plan also should address development of services, including
reprocessing and algorithms.
With respect to research, NOAA would greatly benefit from a plan
that emphasizes the importance of peer-reviewed and competitive awards,
improves the process of managing grants and contracts, integrates
research and outreach, cuts across agency divisions, clearly defines
priorities based on operational requirements and reflects the needs and
recommendations of constituent groups at the national, regional, State
and local levels. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of
longer-term, basic research to NOAA's mission and viability. We also
should recognize that it is not always possible to reduce uncertainty
in projecting climate and other environmental variability. More
accurately, our goal should be to increase understanding of the
system's complexity in order to develop more robust projections in
light of that variability.
Community support through interaction and regular contact with
external constituencies is essential to the effectiveness of the
agency. Numerous studies have recognized the NOAA-university
partnership as a principal means to forge that connection. For this
reason, it is essential that the bill include a mechanism for academic,
public and other community input into the development and
implementation of the NOAA-wide strategic plans for scientific research
and data. NOAA should regularly apply the planning models used by the
National Science Foundation and other research agencies, including
workshops and other forums to generate NOAA priorities for research,
education and outreach. Such community involvement should not be
limited to planning stages, but rather be extended to all agency
activities.
Effective education and outreach are critical to NOAA missions and
CORE applauds H.R. 4546 for explicitly identifying them as NOAA
functions. However, it also may be necessary to define specific NOAA
education and outreach functions in the section on research and
education. In addition, a strategic plan for education should be
developed independently or as part of the research plan.
As the bill moves through the legislative process, it will be
important to address marine management responsibilities and delineate
the relationship of marine management to the programs already defined
in sections of the organic act title--weather service, operations and
services, and research and education. The bill's programmatic sections
are similar to the primary functions identified by the Ocean
Commission. However, the bill stops short of recommending changes in
the line office structure. The current line office structure is widely
viewed as inhibiting NOAA's capability to function effectively as an
integrated organization and it is unclear whether NOAA can make major
progress towards a more unified operation without such changes. This is
a particular concern in dealing with the Commission recommendation to
implement ecosystem-based management.
The relationship between research and operational programs and
services, including information management, must be considered
carefully and work hand-in-hand. NOAA observing activities must be
tasked with providing quality data sets that can support fundamental
research, which in turn will be used to support new forecasting and
prediction services as well as evolution of the observing and
information system. We tend to think of science in the service of
operations, but in many areas such as climate forecasts and ecosystem-
based management, it is a two-way street. It is not a simple matter of
a one-way flow of knowledge from science to operations, but rather
operations and management programs must be in full partnership with
research and technology development. Within NOAA, the operational side
must see its success as depending, in part, on its ability to support
basic, curiosity-driven research, which will elucidate new concepts and
new questions to improve operations and support new management
policies. One way to prevent operations and service from being ``stove-
piped'' from research and education is to link them through modeling
and analysis conducted jointly.
Authorization of Appropriations
The authorization levels proposed in H.R. 4546 appear to be
consistent with maintaining current service levels. One concern that
has been raised is that authorized funding for Program Planning and
Integration remains constant, despite the increasing need for planning
efforts across the agency.
Coastal Ocean Science Program
NOAA's coastal ocean science program has been one of its most
successful research efforts, despite funding constraints in recent
years. It is a relevant and useful program, whose research objectives
should be augmented by access to a fully functioning coastal ocean
observing system. An immediate concern is that the NOAA funding bill
that recently was approved by the House of Representatives would slash
the funding available for such research activities in fiscal year 2005.
We urgently request that the appropriation levels be restored before
the funding bill is finalized.
The ocean science community supports renewed interest in research
that measures, analyzes and predicts the effects of coastal and Great
Lakes pollution. The Watkins Commission clearly recognizes the rising
threat posed by cumulative effects of continuing coastal pollution.
While the Commission recommendations focus primarily on the enforcement
responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA's coastal
ocean science program fills a much-needed coastal measurement and
evaluation role. As data are collected over time, trends become
obvious, providing environmental managers with tools to assess the
effectiveness of pollution-limiting measures.
The coastal ocean science program is likely to benefit
substantially from development of new sensors and instruments that can
measure physical, chemical and biological parameters of the ecosystems
being studied. Consistent with a central recommendation of the
Commission, the ocean community recognizes the importance of
emphasizing ecosystem-based approaches. CORE supports the requirement
that research be peer-reviewed and competitively awarded and recommends
that authorized funding for coastal ocean science follow the general
Commission recommendation for doubling the research budget.
Marine Research
Similar to other CORE-supported and Senate-approved legislation,
the Marine Research Act would provide the legislative framework for a
unified national investment to improve the understanding of the
interaction of humans and the marine environment. The bill clarifies
the responsibility of the National Science and Technology Council for
coordinating interagency research efforts and requires development of
an implementation plan that builds on ongoing federal research agency
efforts, including those of NOAA, the National Science Foundation, and
the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. Of primary
importance, the plan would provide focus for a new interdisciplinary
research program that relies on the capabilities of our nation's
academic research institutions and is consistent with the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and the Commission.
CORE endorses the call for building new and non-traditional
partnerships among federal research agencies and with the academic
community. This approach could yield major new breakthroughs that will
help us better understand the relationship of the oceans to public
health, mitigate adverse impacts like harmful algal blooms and water-
borne diseases, and develop new products from the sea.
CORE also has supported the creation, within NOAA, of an initiative
on the oceans and human health, named the Marine Research Initiative in
H.R. 4546. Among the important elements of the NOAA initiative are the
establishment of national centers of excellence, competitive research
grants, distinguished scholars and traineeships. The program offers
real promise for building stronger partnerships among NOAA scientists
and academic researchers and opportunities for progress in such fields
as marine genomics and ecological chemistry. A major part of improving
interagency and extramural cooperation is simply crossing the
organizational lines that separate them. Traineeships and scholarships
for pre-doctoral and post-doctoral students, as well as distinguished
scholar appointments accomplish that goal, preparing better trained
scientists and breaking down barriers between institutions, employees
and scientific disciplines.
Ocean and Coastal Observing Systems
The oceans play a critical role in regulating climate and weather,
stimulating our economy, buttressing national security and providing
choice locations for work and play. Annually over $700 billion in goods
move through our ports; $28 billion is netted by the commercial fishing
industry; $20 billion by marine anglers; and another $30 billion by
recreational boaters. While we extract substantial value from the
oceans, our knowledge of how this economically important and life-
giving system works is limited. In addition, human-caused environmental
change adds another layer of complexity and unpredictability. What is
needed is a system that can measure the oceans' vital signs, an
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). Science and technology have
made such a system possible; now national and global environmental,
economic and national security issues make it imperative.
IOOS will provide measurable benefits to:
Monitor coastal pollution
Understand connections between oceans and human
health
Support homeland defense and protect against
terrorist attacks
Measure and explain both human-caused and natural
environmental change
Warn and protect against marine hazards
Provide better information to support sustainable
resource management
Understand ecosystem-level interactions and changes,
thus making ecosystem-based management possible
Measure and explain climate change
Provide data that can be turned into value-added
products benefiting marine transportation, aquaculture,
fisheries, offshore energy extraction and recreational users of
oceans and coastal areas.
Today, we stand at a developmental confluence that should promote
implementation of IOOS. Evolving technologies in computers, information
management systems, communications, sensors, and platforms--combined
with recognition of interrelationships among the oceans' physical,
biological and chemical systems and topped off by mounting evidence
that human activities could have significant and unpredictable impacts
on the global environment--are creating both opportunity and imperative
for IOOS.
The ocean science community strongly supports the creation of an
integrated system that extends from watersheds to coasts to the outer
edge of our exclusive economic zone, as well as providing critical
global coverage. Enactment of ocean observing legislation has been a
priority for CORE since it was established in 1994. Following the
release of the Commission's preliminary report, CORE member
institutions have worked to make proposed legislative provisions
consistent with the relevant Commission recommendations. While we
support the ocean observing provisions in H.R. 4546, we would like to
work with you to ensure that they reflect both the Commission's views
and recent domestic and international progress in planning for IOOS.
While many of the functions of IOOS will ultimately serve
operational purposes, the path to that goal will involve significant
investments in research and development. Here again, it is important to
note the importance of fully integrating science, operational systems
and information systems from design through operation and evaluation.
Scientists must be involved throughout the process, not just in the
initial gathering of requirements. The member institutions of CORE are
the source for much of the research expertise and capabilities that
will be required for development of a fully operational system and have
endorsed merit-based competition for allocation of available funds. The
ocean community represented by CORE supports H.R. 4546 in calling for
51 percent of the funds appropriated for regional observing systems to
be made available as grants for the development and implementation of
regional coastal observing systems.
A critical subset of the ocean observing system that already exists
is the evolving network of coastal observing systems. Many of the
existing and planned regionally-based coastal ocean observing systems
are the result of the planning and work of consortia of academic
institutions, federal and state agencies, non-governmental institutions
and private industry. These regional associations design, operate and
improve regional coastal observing systems. The next step is to
establish an information management mechanism that connects all
regional associations to a common national backbone in a way that makes
all data accessible and usable to all intended users. The task of
ensuring inter-operability and accessibility must be planned,
coordinated and carried out at the federal level.
Finally, if our goal is to establish a ``national weather service''
for the oceans, we must recognize the federal role in integrating and
maintaining an operational observing system. Without a definite plan to
ensure that we maintain the ``I'' in IOOS, we run the risk of ending up
with a regionally effective, but nationally dysfunctional patchwork of
systems that will not meet our national needs. Other agencies,
including the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and the Navy, also will have critical IOOS
responsibilities and all must work together.
Responses to Committee Questions
1. Currently, what is the biggest problem at NOAA and can that problem
be addressed in statute?
NOAA's largest problem is that it has never fully developed its
potential as the Nation's integrated ocean and atmosphere agency. Its
organizational fragmentation prevents effective implementation of an
agency strategic plan and reduces NOAA to a team of high-performing
players who have limited effectiveness as a unit. While many aspects of
the problem can be addressed in legislation, some of the challenges
facing NOAA are closely linked to its history, bureaucratic culture and
administration.
2. What missions and functions should NOAA be responsible for? How
should NOAA be organized? What is the most important thing to
accomplish in an organic act for NOAA?
The Ocean Commission report offers a good starting point for
discussion of NOAA's missions, functions and organization. Clear
articulation of those attributes would be a major accomplishment for an
organic act.
3. Chairman Ehlers' bill, H.R. 4546, would organize NOAA functions
around these mission areas recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy:
operations and services, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service,
the National Weather Service and the mapping and
charting functions of the National Ocean Service (NOS);
research and education, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the Office of
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the Office of
Education and research programs from other line
offices;
and resource management, which would include
the current line offices and programs of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the ecosystem management
programs from NOS.
What are the pros and cons of this proposed restructuring?
Would it improve communication across programs at NOAA to
support ecosystem-based management, a concept that most experts
agree is the way NOAA should manage natural resources?
With respect to organizing NOAA around its mission areas, H.R. 4607
(the Administration bill) does not specifically address the three
primary functional lines recommended by the Commission. H.R. 4546,
while not explicitly changing the existing line office structure, does
make possible restructuring from subject-defined line offices to
function-defined entities. Again, the rationale for such a
restructuring would be to align the agency's mission with the
Commission's guiding principle of ecosystem-based management. The ocean
research community agrees with the emphasis placed by the Commission on
ecosystem-based management and recognizes that successful
implementation of ecosystem-based management will depend on NOAA's
ability to make such a paradigm shift.
CORE appreciates the important role that NOAA plays as the Nation's
ocean agency and supports actions that help NOAA forge a cohesive
corporate identity and more closely align its functions with its
mission. The primary drawback to the proposed restructuring is likely
to be the difficulties inherent in any large organization making major
changes while maintaining critical service levels and activities.
4. What are your views on the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science
and Technology described in H.R. 4546? Is this a good way to improve
coordination of science and research at NOAA, as recommended by the
NOAA Research Review Team?
As stated earlier in this testimony and in the attached letter of
support, CORE strongly supports creation of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Science and Technology.
Conclusion
Following the unambiguous wake-up call issued by the Watkins
Commission, this nation must recognize that the time has come for
constructive action to explore and protect our oceans. We applaud the
Committee's efforts to provide NOAA, our nation's ocean agency, with a
clear, forward-looking and attainable mission and organization. With
adequate funding to support NOAA's important work and community buy-in
for its mission, the bill lays the foundation for a reinvigorated NOAA
that can protect, understand, and make wise use of the Nation's ocean
resources. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on behalf of all the
CORE member institutions, I thank you for the opportunity to come
before this committee to present our views.
II. SUMMARY OF THE NOAA RESEARCH REVIEW TEAM REPORT
Both the Senate and House legislative reports accompanying the
fiscal year (FY) 2004 NOAA appropriations bills raised concerns about
the structure and conduct of research within its Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research. NOAA was directed to report to the Appropriations
Committees on how OAR could be reorganized, including the options of
consolidating facilities or breaking the line office into its
constituent parts. NOAA responded to these Congressional directives by
asking its Science Advisory Board to establish a Research Review Team
headed by Dr. Berrien Moore. The six-member team was asked to address
five issues: (1) the effectiveness of OAR research in supporting NOAA;
(2) OAR links with NOAA's operational line offices and the Program
Planning and Integration Office; (3) a comparison of OAR management
structure and process with those of other research agencies; (4) the
effect of OAR lab consolidation on the scientific program; and (5)
potential savings and efficiencies as a result of lab consolidation.
In undertaking the charge from the Science Advisory Board, the
Review Team felt that it was essential to consider the full breadth of
the NOAA research enterprise to better understand and evaluate NOAA
research and the OAR line office. They also took into consideration
three items that directly affect NOAA research: the Climate Change
Science Program, the Global Earth Observing System of Systems, and the
Ocean Commission's preliminary report.
The Review Team released a preliminary review on January 29, 2004
and a draft report for public comment on May 26, 2004. The comment
period for the draft report concluded on June 25 and the Review Team
revisions are being made based on the comments received. The final
report is planned for presentation to the Science Advisory Board on
July 13.
The Review Team proposes a set of principles to guide
recommendations for ensuring research excellence, to invigorate the
transfer of research into operations and information services, to
ensure use of the best research as the scientific basis for regulatory
advice, and to enhance information services. The team's findings and
recommendations fall into 9 general categories summarized below:
Research Plan and NOAA's Mission. NOAA should develop
a Research Vision that supports the agency's strategic plan and
extends 20 years providing broad guidance and direction. In
close consultation with the external community, NOAA should
develop a five-year, agency wide Research Plan that clearly
articulates research goals and projects in a phased approach.
NOAA Research Organization. A distinguished and
experienced person should serve as Associate Administrator for
Research, reporting directly to the NOAA Administrator and with
budget authority for all NOAA research. The individual should
chair the Research Board, a standing committee of the NOAA
Executive Council with responsibility for implementing the
Research Vision. To support the Research Board, each line
office should establish a senior manager for research who would
serve on the Research Council chaired by the OAR Assistant
Administrator.
Transitioning NOAA Research to Operations and
Information Services. NOAA must strengthen the transition of
research to the operational lines through such mechanism as
science and technology infusion plans within the lines. The
Research Plan should address directly the transition of
research to operational products and services, clarifying that
both research and operational programs share fiscal and
programmatic responsibility for transition. The Research Board
and Council should ensure that the plan is well executed.
Research Location within NOAA. NOAA should develop a
clear set of criteria for determining the location of research
programs within the agency. The criteria should be applied to
new programs immediately and to existing programs over a two-
year period, based on a review by the Research Board. NOAA
should establish an external task force to evaluate the
structure and function of ecosystem research within the line
offices.
Extramural Research in NOAA. The importance of
extramural research requires documentation and articulation to
the Department of Commerce, the Office of Management and Budget
and the Congress. The role of extramural research should be
clearly defined in the Research Vision and Plan and should be
an integral part of NOAA's presentation to all those involved
in the budget process. NOAA must improve its business practices
related to extramural research, engaging the external community
early in the planning process through conferences and symposia,
as well as establishing more consistent administrative
processes. The Science Advisory Board should provide
leadership.
Cooperative Research in NOAA. NOAA should establish a
process for establishing and maintaining joint institutes and
other cooperative arrangement with extramural partners. The
process should include approach-specific criteria such as
demonstrated commitment, unique capabilities, termination
criteria and a well-developed business plan.
Reimbursable Research in NOAA. NOAA should review its
policies and procedures for the management of reimbursable
funding and develop and implement clear guidelines to better
manage it.
Research Organization within OAR. Within OAR, each
laboratory should have a clearly defined mission statement
establishing priorities that are linked to NOAA's strategic
plan, research vision and research plan. The OAR head should
establish a single administrator with budgetary and
programmatic authority for its laboratories and joint
institutes.
Research Organization within OAR Boulder
Laboratories. There should be a consolidation of the OAR
laboratories in Boulder, CO, into a single center.
The Research Review Team envisions real change in the NOAA research
enterprise. Following these recommendations with regard to structure,
operations and organizational culture, the team believes that NOAA can
and must move from the current fragmented set of science and research
programs to a more integrated approach. This corporate enterprise will
be led from the Administrator's office through the new `Associate
Administrator for Research' and guided by a strong, regularly updated
and detailed research plan. A Research Board comprised of the senior
managers from each line office should manage the agency-wide research
program. The Research Council should serve as a working group of the
Board to help develop the details for implementing the research plan
across the agency.
The NOAA research enterprise must move forward with a much stronger
corporate purpose and direction and a significant change in culture;
the various research programs must be more closely coordinated so that
they support and leverage one another regardless of line office
affiliation. Research must be responsive to the overall vision and
mission of the agency including the operational and regulatory
missions. It must be connected to the scientific enterprise as a whole
including the scientific advisory functions and the users of science.
The Research Council and Board must continually monitor and guide the
interaction between research and operations, mindful of the balance
between research ``push'' and operations ``pull.'' There must be an
explicit effort to address this balance to ensure that the best
research products of the agency are fully utilized in each of the many
areas of responsibility of NOAA.
In a changed culture for research in NOAA, research must be valued
and supported for its long-term impact, even in the presence of
critical near-term needs. At the same time, research must not be ``set
apart'' or isolated from the overall mandates of the agency. There must
be extensive, continuous interaction between the research enterprise
and operation efforts to ensure that NOAA programs are science-based
now and in the future. This means that the culture of the agency must
recognize that today's decisions and programs must be based on the best
available science supported by the very best researchers. In addition,
NOAA must ensure that mid- and long-term research is supported to
develop the science that will support future decisions and programs.
The NOAA research enterprise must become fully engaged with the
extramural community from academia, the private sector and other
agencies. This means more than just an advisory board, but a true
change in how NOAA manages extramural funding, develops and maintains
cooperative institutes and programs, and contributes to broader
research efforts nationally and internationally. Extramural researchers
have enormous contributions to make to NOAA's mission and NOAA can
similarly have a major impact on external research programs. NOAA must
become a ``best partner'' for the external science and research
community.
Overall, the Team believes that the NOAA research enterprise must
be both cohesive and expansive. Internally, the program elements must
work together with common goals and objectives. Externally, NOAA must
welcome, support and fully engage in research efforts with partner
agencies, academia and the private sector. We believe there is great
opportunity for a good NOAA research program to become much better and
be our national leader in ocean and atmospheric research.
Biography for Rear Admiral Richard D. West
Rear Admiral Richard D. West, U.S. Navy (Retired), became President
and CEO of CORE in August 2002. Admiral West came to CORE from the
Department of the Navy where he completed his most recent tour of duty
as Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy. During his three years as
Oceanographer and Navigator, he managed a $400 million annual program
providing oceanographic, meteorological, geospatial information and
navigation support to the Navy. He was designated the `first' Navigator
of the Navy and lead the Navy transition from paper to electronic
navigation. He was responsible for the review of all Navy training and
procurement in support of navigation and geospatial information systems
(GIS). He has been called upon to speak as an expert on navigation, GIS
and safety of life at sea.
His military career encompassed a broad spectrum of operational
experience, high-level staff assignments, and command and leadership
positions. Prior to serving as Oceanographer, he was the Deputy
Director for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Other shore
assignments include Director, Surface Combat Systems Division on the
CNO's Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations CINCSOUTH, and
Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force. From 1992-1993, as
Commanding Officer of the Surface Warfare Officers School, he directed
a large, advanced studies academic institution, which provides a
continuum of professional education and training to prepare naval
officers to serve at sea.
Admiral West served in Vietnam with the riverine forces and
commanded ships during hostilities in the Arabian Gulf. He has
commanded three ships, USS OPPORTUNE (ARS 41), USS MCINERNEY (FFG 8),
and USS LEAHY (CG 16).
As President, Rear Admiral West leads and manages the Washington,
DC-based association of 78 of the country's leading oceanographic
research institutions, universities, laboratories, and aquaria. CORE's
mission is to promote, develop, and support efforts to advance
knowledge and learning in the science of oceanography and to
disseminate such knowledge to the scientific community and to the
public. CORE also serves as the Program Office for the National
Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP), a collaboration among
fourteen federal agencies to provide leadership and coordination of
national oceanographic research and education programs. In addition
CORE manages a high school level educational program, the National
Ocean Sciences Bowl, and a coordinated program of research supported by
the Sloan Foundation, the Census of Marine Life.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Friday.
STATEMENT OF DR. ELBERT W. (JOE) FRIDAY, JR., FORMER ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
Dr. Friday. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, for allowing me to testify on this important
issue. I am Joe Friday. I served in the National Weather
Service in NOAA for 16 years, seven as Deputy and nine as
Director. I then served one year as Director of NOAA Research.
Since retiring from NOAA, I served as the Director of the Board
on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate at the National Academy of
Science, and I am currently a Professor of Applied Meteorology
at the University of Oklahoma. I would stress, however, that
this testimony represents my personal views based on 25 years
of direct and indirect associations with NOAA.
In response to your question as to major problems facing
NOAA, I list four in my written testimony, but for the sake of
time, I will only discuss one, that is, the credibility of NOAA
science. The recent attacks in Congressional appropriation
language on the credibility of NOAA science have resulted, in
my opinion, from the lack of understanding of those outside of
NOAA on the nature of its science, and senior NOAA management's
failure to articulate both the quality of the science, as well
as the critical necessity of retaining a strong internal
scientific capability.
For example, NOAA's laboratory structure was absolutely
critical to the successful modernization of the National
Weather Service. The National Severe Storms Lab provided the
research for the NOAA Doppler radar, the NEXRAD Doppler radar.
The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab provided the most
significant improvement in hurricane forecasting that we had
seen in two decades. The Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory, developed the ocean buoy technology which resulted
and enabled the forecast of the '97/'98 El Nino, and this list
could go on and on.
Presently, the National Severe Storms Lab is examining
weather radar technologies that might replace the aging NEXRAD
system, which is already over a decade and a half old. The Air
Resources Lab, the Aeronomy Lab, and others are working to
enable NOAA to meet its new responsibilities in air quality
forecasting. And the list also could go on and on.
With these demonstrated vital connections between NOAA
research and its operations, it is incomprehensible to me that
anyone could refer to NOAA's research as inconsequential and
irrelevant to its mission. A NOAA organic act should clearly
identify research in support of its mission as a prime NOAA
responsibility.
With respect to mission and functions, NOAA should be
commended for submitting H.R. 4607 to Congress as a rapid
response to the Ocean Commission Report. However, the NOAA bill
provides little guidance on the organization structure and
covers only the highest level of functions. Although H.R. 4546
may go too far in specifying details that I would view as
implementation activities, it does a much better job of
defining NOAA's mission and functions. I expect the final NOAA
Organic Act will lie somewhere between these two bills.
The creation of the position of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Science and Technology would be a positive step
to strengthen the role of science within NOAA and to provide it
with a credible science voice. I strongly support the career
reserve senior executive status. Consultation with the National
Academy of Sciences to ensure scientific stature is a good
practice, one that is followed now by some science-based
agencies, and was used in the past in the selection of the
Chief of the U.S. Weather Bureau.
I have several specific comments on the details of 4546 in
my written statement, but for the sake of time, I will mention
only a few here. The inclusion of space weather in the NOAA
mission is appropriate as our society's systems become more
vulnerable to those solar emissions and geomagnetic storms.
Section 105 is a good organic act for the National Weather
Service, outlining the general mission and responsibilities of
the organization. The partnership section needs to be expanded
to include the academic sector of the weather and climate
enterprise, in addition to the public and private sectors. All
three sectors are absolutely vital to this nation.
I fully endorse the recent report of the National Research
Council, ``Fair Weather: the Effective Partnerships in the
Provision of Weather and Climate Services.'' I support the
establishment of a strong, independent Science Advisory Board.
Because its science is critical to the wellbeing of every
citizen of this country, NOAA needs and deserves the best
objective science advice it can obtain.
In section 109, the two reports that are required cover
areas vital to the health of NOAA's science, and therefore, to
NOAA's services. In my 17 years in NOAA, however, I saw
frequent reports presented to Congress with unusually strong
spin. NOAA is to be commended for using the National Academy of
Sciences to review the recent climate change science plan, an
action that responds clearly to the scientific credibility
issue I mentioned earlier. I would recommend that these two
reports in section 109 also be reviewed by the National Academy
of Sciences to minimize any potential for questions of
credibility and/or spin.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that NOAA is
critical to the success of our nation, and I thank you for your
interest in making sure the NOAA mission can be accomplished
effectively. I also thank you for the opportunity to play a
small part in the deliberations on this important legislative
initiative.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Friday follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, Jr.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Elbert (Joe)
Friday. I served in the National Weather Service (NWS) in the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for 16 years, seven as
Deputy and nine as its Director. I also served as the Director of the
research arm of NOAA, the Office of Atmospheric and Oceanographic
Research (OAR), for one year. Since retiring from NOAA, I have served
as the Staff Director of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
of the National Academy of Sciences and as Professor of Applied
Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma where I currently have an
appointment as the Director of the Sasaki Applied Meteorology Research
Institute. I wish to stress that this testimony represents my own
views, based on my previous experience in NOAA and close associations
with NOAA since my retirement from the Federal Government.
During these senior NOAA assignments, I have witnessed NOAA's
strengths, which are many, and its weaknesses, which could seriously
and negatively impact its vital missions and which need to be
corrected. I offer the following responses to the questions posed to me
in the letter of invitation.
Major Problems Facing NOAA
Role Recognition
This may seem unusual to list as a problem, but NOAA's strength
derives form the many national responsibilities that have been assigned
to it. These national responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
The National Weather Service,
The National Ocean Service
The Nautical Charting mission
National Hurricane Center
The National Sea Grant College Program
The National Marine Fisheries Program
The Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and
Supporting Research
And at least a dozen other national functions. . .
There has been a tendency in the past decade or so to try to change
the philosophy of the NOAA organization to remove the term `National'
and substitute the term `NOAA' in these organizational elements, a
suggestion that inward looking is more important than outward. While I
can certainly recognize the need for an overall NOAA identity, this
move fails to acknowledge the real constituent for the NOAA service. It
is the Nation that needs these services, not NOAA. The focus of NOAA
should be outward to the Nation and its needs. An organic act could
clearly define the national nature of the NOAA services.
Data Stewardship
Over the years, NOAA has failed to meet one of its major
responsibilities: the stewardship of the Nation's environmental data
and information. NOAA's mission requires good science and information,
whether in the areas of weather and climate forecasting, or in the
areas of resource management. The activities conducted by NOAA affect
the safety of all citizens and the economic condition of many of them
as well as many businesses. These missions require quality data and
information, and these data, once collected at taxpayers' expense, must
be saved for future generations.
This is not to say that NOAA has not been making progress. Good
people, dedicated to the mission, have tried to step up to the ever
more daunting task, but they have fallen short. The have, fortunately,
gone beyond the old situation used to describe NOAA's archival
activities as a `data hospice' where data go to die. But the full
enormity of this mission has still not been formally recognized by
NOAA, the Department of Commerce, (DOC) or the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). The volume of environmental data is growing at an ever
faster rate with the addition of new and better systems of Earth
observations. The NEXRAD radars, the NPOESS and GOES satellite systems
produce more data in one day than was formerly acquired in a year
before the advent of these remotes sensing systems that have
contributed so much to our understanding of the Earth. Additionally,
these data, once collected, still need to be analyzed and improved. As
new methods of data assimilation are developed, the archive needs to be
reanalyzed to ensure the best information for studies of atmospheric
and oceanic processes, of climate change and variability, and for input
into research activities designed to improve weather and climate
forecasting. As new algorithms are developed to process remote sensed
data, the archived data need to be reprocessed using a consistent
algorithm over the entire period of record. This will ensure the data
continuity so necessary to the studies of climate change and
variability. The present plans for the NOAA archival system do not
include these vital components of a good data stewardship capability.
An organic act could clearly identify the Nation's data stewardship
as a NOAA responsibility, and the report documentation leading to that
act could identify many of the characteristics of that stewardship that
are needed.
NOAA Observing System Architecture
NOAA is moving in the direction of an overall architecture for
observing systems. But here again, I do not believe the full enormity
of the challenge is fully recognized in the funded plans. With respect
to the satellite systems, the NPOESS program seems to be well under way
to provide the polar orbiting capabilities needed for the next two
decades, but the GOES-R program needs attention to keep this nation
from having the same type of gap in this vital satellite coverage that
I experienced in the early 1990's when, due to development difficulties
within the NASA procurement, the U.S. was required to borrow a
geostationary satellite from the European Union to guarantee Atlantic
coverage during the hurricane season. In my opinion, this situation
could recur, especially with the present uncertainties at NASA
resulting in part by the elimination of the Earth Sciences Enterprise
and the re-orientation of NASA away from Earth and toward exploration.
I believe NOAA should seriously examine the possibility of conducting
the GOES-R procurement itself rather than using NASA as has been done
in the past.
An organic act could clearly identify the Nation's Earth
observations as a NOAA responsibility, and the report documentation
leading to that act could identify many of the characteristics of the
supporting mechanisms that are needed.
NOAA Scientific Credibility
The recent attacks on the credibility of NOAA science have
resulted, in my opinion, from a lack of understanding of the breadth
and depth of NOAA science, and senior NOAA management's failure to
articulate both the quality of the science as well as the critical
necessity of retaining the scientific capability within NOAA.
During my 17 years in NOAA, its laboratory structure was absolutely
critical to the very successful modernization of the NWS. The National
Severe Storms Laboratory provided the research for the NEXRAD Doppler
radar and its application. The Forecast Systems Laboratory provided the
insight to interactive forecast techniques which became the cornerstone
of the AWIPS system. The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory provided
the most significant improvement in hurricane forecasting that we had
seen in two decades. The Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
developed the ocean buoy technology which permitted the forecast of the
1997-1998 El Nino. The Environmental Technology Laboratory developed
much of the technology that went into the Automated Surface Observing
Systems. And the list could go on and on.
Presently, the National Severe Storms Laboratory is beginning to
examine the next generation of weather radar that will be needed to
replace the NEXRAD system, which is already over a decade and a half
old. The Forecast Systems Laboratory is examining the next generation
of weather forecasting models, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics is
examining better science for improving the seasonal to inter-annual
climate predictions. As NOAA adds air quality forecasting to its
mission, the Air Resources Laboratory, the Aeronomy Laboratory, the
Environmental Technology Laboratory and the Forecast Systems Laboratory
are all working to bring the new operational capabilities to fruition.
With these demonstrated, vital connections between the NOAA
research structure and the operations of one of the major NOAA line
offices, NWS, it is incomprehensible to me that anyone could refer to
NOAA's research as inconsequential and irrelevant to the NOAA mission.
Research success depends primarily on good people. It also depends
on a suitable infrastructure to support the research. Planning needs to
be in place in order to tie the future needs of NOAA to the emerging
science. Lastly, and least important, is the precise organizational
structure.
An Organic act could clearly identify the research in support of
its mission as a NOAA responsibility, and the report documentation
leading to that act could identify many of the characteristics of that
research capability that are needed.
NOAA Missions and Functions
The missions and functions are well defined in Section 103 of H.R.
4546.
An organic act should establish broad parameters for an
organization without unnecessarily restricting it as the situation in
the science and constituent needs evolve over time. This bill, in my
opinion, does an excellent job of establishing the generic mission and
functions for NOAA, but goes beyond what I generally envision as an
organic act in including what I view as implementation details. These
details could more appropriately be included in separate authorization
bills or in the report language that makes up the legislative history
of the Bill.
The Proposed Reorganization under H.R. 4546
As mentioned in the comments under `Research Credibility' above,
people make an organization. The structure of an organization can
interfere with the ability of the people to accomplish the mission of
the organization. That being said, the three major components for NOAA
as described in H.R. 4546, might be an effective structure, indeed the
strategic planning efforts during the previous administration were
along similar lines, but no reorganization of NOAA to match the
planning structure was undertaken. One concern that I would with the
organization as proposed relates to the wide disparity in size of the
three major divisions, with the operations and services component
dwarfing the other two. Special care would be required to ensure the
appropriate linkage between the operational component and the research
component. On the other hand, the organization might support better
integration across the existing line office structure.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
The creation of the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS)
for Science and Technology (S&T) could be, in my opinion, a positive
step to strengthen the role of science within NOAA. The creation of the
Chief Scientist of NOAA in the mid-1980s never resulted in the sort of
science leadership that NOAA needs and deserves. Previous Chief
Scientists were political appointees, many having a single issue focus
and were not interested in the broader NOAA science issues. This bill
creates the DAS for S&T as a `career reserve' Senior Executive Service
position and requires that it be filled by someone of considerable
scientific stature, a most appropriate requirement for an agency whose
service depends on scientific excellence. The requirement for
consultation with the National Academies of Sciences to ensure
scientific stature is a good one. Indeed, that practice is followed now
by some science based agencies and historically was used during the
first half of the last century in the selection of the Chief of the
U.S. Weather Bureau, the predecessor organization to the NWS.
The DAS for S&T also should be responsible for the oversight of
major science programs in NOAA, including the National Sea Grant
College Program, the U.S. Weather Research Program, the Coastal Ocean
Program, etc.
Additional Specific Comments on H.R. 4546 as Written
H.R. 4546 provides a potential structure which, if enacted, could
set a framework that could help correct many of NOAA's problems. I
would make the following comments on the bill as written. Many of these
sections might more appropriately be structured outside of the NOAA
Organic Act itself, either in authorization language, or in report
language, but these comments are provided to the content of the bill as
written.
-- The inclusion of the solar and geophysical events on the
sun and in the space environment in the NOAA mission is
appropriate. It reflects the growing importance of this science
as the society becomes more dependent on satellite systems and
sensitive electronics that are especially vulnerable to the
solar emissions and geomagnetic storms that we refer to as
`space weather.'
-- The codification of the NOAA responsibility for
coordinating the national and international programs in
meteorological services and supporting research is important.
The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological
Services and Supporting Research (OFCM), currently located in
NOAA, has had this responsibility since the mid 1950s, but only
operated under an Office of Management and Budget Circular (A-
62) which was formally rescinded in the mid 1980s. Although the
OFCM has continued to operate relatively effectively, this bill
can provide the emphasis to strengthen the coordination
process.
-- Sect 103(c) (11) should also include weather and climate
activities as well. The World Meteorological Organization
(WMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, is charged
with the international coordination of these activities and
NOAA, usually through the Director of the NWS, provides the
Permanent Representative to the WMO for the Department of
State.
-- Section 105 The NWS. This is a good organic act for the
NWS, outlining the general mission and responsibilities of the
organization and acknowledging the importance of the private
sector to the overall weather and climate enterprise.
-- The term `space weather' needs to be added explicitly to
the NWS mission. It is already included in the sections on
goals and functions.
-- The `Partnerships' section needs to be expanded to include
the academic sector of the weather and climate enterprise in
addition to the public and private sectors. This enterprise is
increasingly dependent upon a strong private sector, a strong
public sector and a strong academic community. I fully endorse
the recent report of the National Research Council: ``Fair
Weather--Effective Partnerships in the Provision of Weather and
Climate Services.''
-- Section 106, Operations and Services. Under function 5, add
`reprocessing' and `re-analysis' so as to read:. . . ``data
processing, storage, re-analysis, reprocessing and archive
activities''. . . As the science of data assimilation improves,
it is necessary to go back and re-analyze the archived data to
ensure a quality data set that can be used to identify trends
for climate trends and variability studies. Similarly, as the
satellite remote sensing algorithms are improved, the archived
satellite data must be reprocessed using the latest algorithms
to provide continuity for climate change and variability
studies.
-- The Science Advisory Board (SAB). The existing SAB has had
mixed results. Originally, the SAB was to be modeled after the
National Science Foundation's National Science Board. This was
an admirable goal that soon became distorted into a body that
had much more of a tendency to `rubber stamp' the
Administrator's desires than to seriously examine NOAA's
science issues. I would recommend that the members of the SAB
be appointed with the consultation of the National Academy of
Sciences, similarly to the DAS for S&T. The present process of
appointing working groups under the SAB can circumvent the
objective measures the FACA process brings to the creation of
advisory bodies. The science of NOAA is critical to the well
being of every citizen of the United States, indeed, in some
cases the entire world. NOAA deserves the best objective
science advice it can obtain.
-- Section 109, Reports. The two reports required under
section 109 cover materials vital to the health of NOAA Science
and therefore NOAA service.
For much too long, NOAA has not fully stepped up to
its responsibility for data stewardship. The volume of
data that describes the environment is increasing at a
rate that can cause a compete collapse of the NOAA data
stewardship capabilities unless careful, realistic
planning is undertaken in the very near-term, and that
plan appropriately resourced.
One additional item should be added under section 109
(a) (1):
``f. Re-analyze and reprocess the archived data as
better science is developed to integrate diverse data
sources and better algorithms are developed to convert
remote sensed information into geophysical parameters.
These tasks are required to ensure data continuity for
studies of climate variability and change.''
In section 109 (a) (2) (c), include `re-analysis and
reprocessing' in the list of responsibilities.
The Strategic Plan for Scientific Research is also
badly needed in NOAA. For much too long the strategic
planning process has downplayed research, with the
resulting erosion of the NOAA research base and the
increasing tendency to sacrifice research for pressing
operational needs. This practice is equivalent to
`eating your seed corn' during rough times, a practice
that will guarantee future starvation. As in the
analogy, stopping research today will starve the
services of tomorrow.
Given the importance of both these reports, they must
be complete and objective. In my 17 years in NOAA, I
saw frequent reports presented to Congress with
unusually strong `spin.' NOAA is to be commended for
using the National Academy of Sciences to review the
recent Climate Change Science Plan. I would recommend
that these reports be reviewed by either the SAB, or
the National Academy of Sciences, preferably the
latter, to minimize any potential for questions of
credibility.
Comments on H.R. 4607
H.R. 4607, submitted to the Congress by NOAA is more along the line
of a (very sparse) organic act. This was generated in response to the
Ocean Commission report and NOAA should be commended for its rapid
response. It provides little guidance on the organizational structure
and the covers only the highest level of functions. Although I believe
that H.R. 4546 goes too far in specifying what I would view as
implementation activities, I expect the final NOAA Organic Act will lie
somewhere between these two bills.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that NOAA is an organization
that is critical to the success of our nation. Your interest in making
sure the NOAA mission can be accomplished effectively is appreciated. I
thank you for the opportunity to play a small part in the deliberations
on this important legislative initiative.
Biography for Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, Jr.
Elbert W. Friday, Jr. is the founding Director of the Sasaki
Applied Meteorology Research Institute and Weathernews Professor of
Applied Meteorology at the University of Oklahoma.
He served as the Director of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and
Climate (BASC) at the National Academy of Sciences from July 1998 to
May 2002.
In June 1997 until July 1998, Dr. Friday served as Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In this
position as Director of NOAA Research, he was responsible for research
and development programs that support and enhance both current and
future NOAA services.
From March 1988 until June 1997, Dr. Friday served as Assistant
Administrator for Weather Services and as Director of the U.S. National
Weather Service (NWS). As such, he was responsible for every aspect of
providing an effective weather, climate, and flood warning system for
the Nation. He managed the modernization of the NWS, resulting in
significantly improved weather and flood warnings and forecasts.
He served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nation's
World Meteorological Organization from 1988 until 1998.
Dr. Friday served as Deputy Director of the NWS from September 1981
until March 1988. In this capacity, he was responsible for the day-to-
day operations of the NWS and was also responsible for the planning for
the modernization of the NWS. He developed the public-private
partnership policies and procedures to ensure an effective working
relationship between the NWS and the private weather industries.
Before coming to the NWS, he completed a 20-year career in the
United States Air Force. He was selected for the rank of Colonel in
1977 and served four years as the Director of Environmental and Life
Sciences in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research
and Engineering. Other military assignments included Weather Detachment
Commander in Saigon, Vietnam, and Nakhon Phanom, Thailand, as well as
positions at the Air Force Global Weather Central and Headquarters Air
Weather Service.
Dr. Friday received his Bachelor of Science degree (with special
distinction) in Engineering Physics from the University of Oklahoma in
1961. He was selected for an Air Force scholarship in 1966 and
completed his Masters Degree in 1967 and his Ph.D. in 1969. Both
graduate degrees are in Meteorology and both were earned at the
University of Oklahoma. He was a distinguished graduate of the Air
Force Command and Staff College in 1972 and graduated from the Air War
College in 1976.
He is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society where he is
currently serving as Past-President. He is a member of several
professional societies including Sigma Xi, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, and the National Weather Association. Dr.
Friday was awarded the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Bronze Star,
the Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), and the Air Force
Commendation Medal (three times). Dr. Friday is the recipient of the
Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive. In 1992, he received
the Distinguished Achievement Award from the University of Oklahoma,
the highest award the University bestows upon its graduates. The
Federal Executive Institute Alumni Association selected him as the 1993
Federal Executive of the Year. He received the 1997 Cleveland Abbe
Award from the American Meteorological Society, its highest award for
service to the meteorological community. In 2000, his office received
an Outstanding Unit Award from the National Academy of Sciences. He has
served as Deacon, Elder, Trustee, and Chairman of the Board of Calvary
Christian Church in Burke, Virginia.
He is married to Karen Hauschild Friday. They have two children,
Kristine Ahlskog and Kelly Crow, and five grandchildren.
Discussion
Chairman Ehlers. And congratulations, you ended at
precisely five minutes. Yes, you will get a prize. As soon as I
buy a box of Cracker Jacks and can find one.
Well, thank you very much. That was excellent testimony,
and very well delivered, and we appreciate that. We will now
begin our first round of questions, and the Chair recognizes
himself for five minutes.
It appears from the comments we have heard that most of you
support H.R. 4546 as an organic act for NOAA, with perhaps some
minor changes. Is this a fair assessment of your testimony?
And let us just go down the line backwards this time. Dr.
Friday.
Dr. Friday. Yes, sir. As I indicated in my written
testimony, it goes further in the details of potential
implementation, that what would ordinarily consider as an
organic act, but I believe the function and the mission and the
structure that is outlined is a very good one for NOAA.
Chairman Ehlers. I appreciate that, and it is always hard
to know where to draw the line. I have been involved in writing
constitutions and by-laws for various organizations, and it is
always difficult to know where the constitution should stop and
where the by-laws should start. That is similar to what we are
doing here, but we will work that out with time. Admiral West.
Admiral West. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. As I said, the ocean
science community strongly supports H.R. 4546, and we have, in
fact, formally endorsed it, along with NASULGC and Sea Grant,
in a formal letter to you.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Baker.
Dr. Baker. Yes, I do, and I only wanted to point out one
thing, and that is that NOAA currently has a Naval Deputy that
is from the Navy, and one of the things that I added when I was
Administrator was an Air Force Deputy to help us with
satellites and weather, and I think that is a good thing to
have as part of the organic act.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Mr. Kassinger.
Mr. Kassinger. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I outlined
briefly in my statement, we prefer, among the two bills, the
more streamlined approach reflected in H.R. 4607, but we
certainly support the intent and thrust of H.R. 4546 to
establish a NOAA Organic Act. I would be happy to talk more
about our thoughts on that any----
Chairman Ehlers. Yeah. I think we could easily work out
most of that without too much trouble, and the rest without a
great deal of trouble.
Secondly, I believe, Dr. Baker, you raised this: the pros
and cons of NOAA being an independent agency. That is something
that we struggled with as well, because there are independent
agencies, and there are those that are part of departments. And
your suggestion was that NOAA should be an independent agency,
and function such as the EPA or the National Science
Foundation, or NASA, or something of that sort.
I would like to again ask each of you, and I will go the
other way, what do you see as the pros and cons of NOAA as
being an independent agency, as opposed to being housed within
a Department. Presumably, it would stay in the Commerce
Department, but if there was some more appropriate Department,
that is certainly an option as well. Mr. Kassinger.
Mr. Kassinger. Mr. Chairman, I don't--I can't speak or
articulate a specific Administration position on the
independence of NOAA at this time, but I would like to offer
two or three thoughts for you as you move down the road of
considering this legislation, and as that issue comes up.
The first is this. I would urge you to consider separating
the issue of the internal NOAA organization, reflected in an
organic act, with the really broader question of the external
fit of NOAA in the Executive Branch. There is a very practical
reason for this. First of all, I believe that, as best as I can
tell, there is a broad degree of consensus on the desire for a
set of organic authorities in a single place. We would very
much like to move forward on that. Once you throw the idea of
an independent agency into the mix, you are talking about a
significant government reorganization. One only has to look at
the recommendations of the Ocean Commission to realize that
there are other components of government that might well fit
into that scheme.
We at the Commerce Department don't covet any other
agencies' programs. Maybe part of their budget, but not part of
their programs. But if you propose an independent NOAA, there
are going to be people who begin thinking about what other
parts of government ought to fit into that. That may be well
worth in-depth discussion, but I would hate to see an organic
act derailed by what would become a significant debate over
government re-organization.
The final thought I offer to you is this. I am not sure
exactly what the reason would be for having an independent
NOAA, but I can speak as the Deputy Secretary and also from my
prior three years at the Commerce Department, to articulate one
thought that ought to be kept in mind, and that is a concern
that you would actually, rather than establish NOAA as a more
strong, free-standing agency, you might actually diminish its
ability to accomplish the things that we all want NOAA to
succeed at.
When NOAA can call on a Cabinet Secretary to represent it
in the highest reaches of government, that is a very positive
and important thing, and a free, independent, small agency in
the scheme of things, I am afraid, would not have that degree
of ability to influence policy, again, in the areas that we all
support.
Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. Dr. Baker.
Dr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this, which has been a subject of great interest to
me for a prolonged time, and I have urged various
administrations, including the Administration that I was in, to
consider that independence, and I have to say that Ted
Kassinger's remarks were the most positive that I have heard
from an Administration in a long time.
I do believe that the issues that NOAA deals with mean that
we should have an independent agency deal with them. They are
as important as the issues that NASA deals with, or that the
EPA deals with. And I believe that NOAA has become mature
enough that it can, in fact, deal with these issues, and Joe
Friday, I think, gave a very good list of the various kinds of
responsibilities that give NOAA its strength.
I think that the fact is that Secretaries of Commerce, I
think this has been generally true as I have watched it, don't
know that they have NOAA when they come in to be Secretary of
Commerce, and then they have to learn about what it is all
about; and then, one has an extra layer of administration and
bureaucracy to go through to try to deal with issues.
The times that the Secretary of Commerce has been really
helpful in promoting issues have been few and far between, in
my experience. I think it is much better to have a direct
connection with the President and the rest of the Executive
Branch. That is not to say that it should be just NOAA. There
might be some other functions of other agencies that might be
added. Estuary programs is just one example of many that might
be looked at. But I think it is time to take seriously now the
whole question of NOAA as an independent agency, and I think
the Senate bills that Senator Hollings, Inouye, and Stevens and
Gregg have introduced, I think lay out the case in a strong
way, and I think it is time to start that debate.
Chairman Ehlers. Admiral West.
Admiral West. The pros of a large agency, of course, is the
horsepower that comes along with it. The cons are that it is a
large agency with a lot of horsepower, and you are a part of
that. I was the Naval Deputy to Dr. Baker, so I got to see NOAA
from that perspective, and I have also watched NOAA pretty
closely the last couple years, and including the last nine
months as a NOAA Research Review Team. Part of the problem is,
is NOAA is hidden. We have got to bring it up. It has got a
very, very important mission for this nation, and we have got
to set it up as an independent agency.
Chairman Ehlers. In other words, when you are hitched to a
horse, you want to make sure it is a horse and not a mule. Dr.
Friday.
Dr. Friday. I don't have--know how to follow that line, but
we will see. The biggest problem that I found that NOAA had
wasn't whether it was in the Department of Commerce or outside
the Department of Commerce, because I served under about eight
different Secretaries of Commerce, I think, during my time, and
some of them would call me up at home for personal advice on
how things should be done, and others, I never met. So, it is a
wide variety there.
But on the other hand, NOAA's real big problem is the fact
that the budget process of NOAA flows through a non-scientific
arm of the Office of Management and Budget, and in the budget
process, the NOAA science programs and service programs compete
with prisons and overseas embassies, and they frequently lose
out in that whole process, in the State/Justice/Commerce bill,
because of the overall priority. So, the structure of the
budgeting process is probably more important than physically
whether we are located in a Department or outside.
Jim Baker makes some very good points as to reasons that it
should be independent. Secretary Kassinger makes some very good
points why it should still be a part of the Department. I am
waffling.
Chairman Ehlers. Well, I am--I apologize for going too long
on this, but I wanted to get all of your responses on this
important issue. But I think it really boils down in many cases
to who the Secretary of Commerce is, and what his or her
interests are. But I appreciate your comments.
My time has expired. I am now pleased to recognize the
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. I thank the Chairman, and I hear the Chairman
plying the differences between mules and horses, and there was
a Republican legislator around the time of the Civil War, who
described the Democratic Party as a mule, because the
Democratic Party had no pride of ancestry, nor no hope of
posterity, and I think we have proven that legislator wrong,
but it is still touch and go.
Dr. Baker, you made a good point. I remember when Secretary
Evans came to Boulder early in his tenure, and was greeted
warmly by the employees, and toured the Skaggs facility, and he
expressed some amazement, both privately and publicly, at the
size of the NOAA budget within the Commerce Department. Now, he
expressed also excitement and enthusiasm for promoting NOAA,
and he had a funny story about one of his children saying his
dad had gone to Washington and become a weatherman, when people
asked him what the Commerce Secretary did. But I think you make
a very, very good set of points there.
I did want to direct a question to Dr.--I am sorry, Mr.
Kassinger, and I want to get to the substance of this, but I
think there is a process question that I think is important to
ask. Mr. Kassinger, I understand that you objected to
testifying on the same panel with Mr. Hirn, who is going to
testify next as a representative of the National Weather
Service Employees Organization. It just strikes me as curious,
and I would like, if I could, an answer as to your reluctance
to appear on a panel with a representative of the employees of
your own Department. And it raises a question I might have
about the relationship that you would have with this important
organization. Is there a problem here? Is there something that
ought to be surfaced, so we can move on to the important work
of the organic act and what the Chairman and others are
proposing?
Mr. Kassinger. Not at all, Mr. Udall. My concern simply was
I didn't want there to be confusion about who was speaking for
the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Udall. I can understand that, I think, but I would just
like to make the point that we have had other Department and
Agency heads who have appeared on similar panels, the same
panel, excuse me, with employees of their organizations. For
example, Administrator O'Keefe appeared before this committee
on the same panel with Mark Roth, who is the general counsel of
the American Federation of Government Employees when we were
discussing an important bill, the NASA Workforce Bill, and
there are numerous other examples of that kind of an approach
on the Committee. So, I just wanted to do my part to try and
clear the air, and encourage you to think in the future about
appearing with somebody from the National Weather Service's
organization, if that was important to them, as well as you.
I know there is potential to have grievances, but
nonetheless, there may also be grievances with outside
constituent groups, and so, I am disappointed that it didn't
work out today, but I hope in the future that both the Commerce
Department and the employees group could appear on the same
panel.
With that, let me move to the substance of the testimony we
have heard today. And I think all of you have talked about
ecosystem management, and it is being proposed as the model
NOAA should follow to accomplish its resource mission. If we
could just move from my right to left, in the time I have
remaining, and each of you could take a shot at defining
ecosystem management, I would appreciate it, and I know the
Committee would appreciate it.
Now, Dr. Friday, you have to be really succinct and short.
I am teasing a little bit, but that is the problem I think we
face, but I would like everybody's thoughts about ecosystem
management.
Dr. Friday. Sir, I don't think anybody can be succinct in
defining that. Ecosystem really is where we live, what all is
involved in where we live, how it is all tied together, and how
it all inter-reacts. It includes everything from weather to
animals, plants, people, and all of the actions thereof.
Mr. Udall. Do you believe there is language that can define
that in a way that then gives direction to the Agency?
Dr. Friday. What happens usually is that everyone
interprets the language how they wish to, and if we can obtain
language that everybody feels they are winning, that will
probably do very successfully.
Mr. Udall. Admiral West.
Admiral West. Well, on the NOAA Research Review Team, I was
the sailor, and there were five other very distinguished
scientists, and we discussed at length what ecosystem
management is. We have got to define it, but I think, in a
sailor's term, it is something bigger than just counting fish.
And we recommended--a recommendation in our committee--that an
external group of some type needs to define this, because it is
a major part of what NOAA has to do for us.
Mr. Udall. So you would look to an external group, as well,
to help----
Admiral West. Yes, sir.
Mr. Udall [continuing]. Generate that language and those
definitions.
Admiral West. Yes, sir.
Mr. Udall. Dr. Baker.
Dr. Baker. Congressman Udall, there are biologists who say
that we can't define an ecosystem, and there are managers who
say that we don't really manage the environment, we only
experiment on it. So, it may be that this term can't be used,
but I think the way in which we are using it is that when we
look at a particular aspect of the environment, we must include
the other aspects which impinge on it. In other words, that
complex web of mutual interactions between physical,
biological, and chemical systems that take place. And my
example was the stellar sea lions. We didn't know if the
stellar sea lions were declining because they were being caught
by fishermen, or because there was viruses, or because there
wasn't enough food in the environment. We had to look at all of
those things. We had proponents for each of them, but in my
view, ecosystem management is trying to take into account each
of these, and trying to understand how the different aspects
come together.
Mr. Udall. Did we ever determine what was increasing the
mortality of the sea lions?
Dr. Baker. No.
Mr. Udall. We never did----
Dr. Baker. But we did take some actions----
Mr. Udall [continuing]. Definitively.
Dr. Baker [continuing]. To try to see if we could influence
one piece or another, but you know, it is very hard to do
experiments in the environment, because you can't hold
everything constant while----
Mr. Udall. Right. Right.
Dr. Baker [continuing]. You change this one thing, and so,
you know, we are still--I would say it is wrong to say
management. It is probably better to say experiment. We do
various experiments, we look at the results, and then we hope
we learn something from that.
Mr. Udall. So ecosystem you would leave in the equation,
but maybe there is another modifier, another noun, management,
isn't the word that you think----
Dr. Baker. Yeah, I think that is probably a little strong--
--
Mr. Udall. Experiment.
Dr. Baker [continuing]. For what we really can do.
Mr. Udall. Mr. Kassinger, do you have a point of view?
Mr. Kassinger. I would first say, Mr. Udall, my
undergraduate degree was in environmental design. I think a
fair description of that major was ecosystem-based management
of landscape, so I have wondered why it took 30 years for
people to talk about ecosystem-based management of seascapes.
I would just make a couple of points. We don't manage
ecosystems. We manage the activities that impact ecosystems. I
think that fits with what Dr. Baker just said. In our current
draft of the NOAA strategic plan, we have come up with a
working definition, which I don't have here in front of me, but
we will put that out for public comment, and try to work toward
a consensus view of that term.
The final point I would make is I wouldn't worry too much
about being overly precise in legislative language, trying to
define such a term, because I think what you want is a concept
and flexibility, rather than something that would serve to
narrow the scope of important activities.
Mr. Udall. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. The gentleman's time has expired. Next, it
is my pleasure to call upon the gentleman from Minnesota, my
state of birth, Mr. Gutknecht, who is very interested in the
issues before us, and has twice visited the laboratories in
Boulder, Colorado.
Mr. Gutknecht.
NOAA's Budget and the Congress
Mr. Gutknecht. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yes, the
good news and the bad news is I have visited the labs in
Boulder, and the good news is that I was very impressed with
much of the work that was being done there. The bad news, from
your perspective, is that I didn't find an Agency which I found
to be critically underfunded. And as we go forward, both as a
Member of this committee and as a Member of the Budget
Committee, I will be hard pressed to say that NOAA is one of
the agencies who needs more money.
When I compared what was being done at those agencies in
and around Boulder, NOAA was clearly the tall dog in a short-
legged race, and so as--I just want to preface that. The other
thing that I am concerned about, and I do appreciate the last
comments by Dr. Baker, and it was refreshing to hear scientists
say that we don't always have the answers, because one of the
concerns that I had with a lot of the people that I met at the
NOAA labs in Boulder was that they had already--you know,
`don't confuse us with the facts' made up their opinion about
the state of the global climate. In fact, what was disturbing
to me is that some of the scientists would not even acknowledge
that we have seen wide variances in the level of CO2
in the atmosphere, and that was disturbing to me, because I do
believe in sound science, and I think sound science requires
being completely honest with ourselves. We don't know why the
level of CO2 has varied so much, and it may well be
that there is not a whole lot that human beings can do about
it.
So, perhaps you want to respond to that, but that has been
my observation, and I would encourage other Members of this
subcommittee and the full Committee to take advantage of going
out and visiting the labs, because they are impressive. The
technology there is amazing. The facility is probably one of
the most impressive buildings in one of the most beautiful
locations that I think we could ever possibly have, and as I
say, it certainly didn't argue poor, poor, pitiful me, but we
would love to hear your response to that.
Dr. Baker. I would be happy to give a try. I think that one
shouldn't penalize NOAA for being successful on the budget that
it has. I think it has done very well. I think you are
absolutely right, and as we looked at it from internally in
NOAA, we saw many more things that we could do and could do
better. We recognize that, and I think that when we looked at
trying to increase our budget, there were many areas where we
knew if we had an additional investment, we can improve the 10
day forecasts. We could improve the forecast of space weather.
There were other things that we could do that would be of value
to society, and I think those things are important. And on
fisheries, for example, one of the big problems that we have is
simply trying to assess the stocks of fisheries, and there,
investment is required. And there was investment by Congress in
new fisheries vessels, and I think there has to be more
investment as we look at these issues.
So, I think one has to look at what could be done, and then
balancing that investment compared to other investments in
other federal agencies. But I think environmental forecasting
is very important for our society that gets more and more
vulnerable to all kinds of environmental change.
On the climate change issue, I think the broader issue is
trying to present to the public and to people outside the
science community that--the role of uncertainty. And I think
scientists in their rush to try to make points will sometimes
ignore or discount the uncertainties in the science that they
are presenting, and I think the uncertainties are as important
as the certainties, as we talk about these issues. And
certainly, there are both certainties and uncertainties in the
issues of adding carbon dioxide to the environment. Certain
things that we know, certain things that we are uncertain
about, other things that we don't know exactly what we should
do. And not all of this gets presented at the same time, and I
think that is an issue, and I think it is something I worked
on. I think a lot of us who have tried to think about how you
present ideas to the public have tried to understand that it is
not just the things we know, but it is also the things that we
don't know that have to be presented, because that is the way
you can make good policy.
And I think it is one of the things that I am trying to do
in my new job is to get people together who are experts in
this, and talk to the public about how you use science to make
policy, because as I said, it is not what--just what you know,
but it is also what you don't know that is important in
determining policy and making good policy decisions.
Dr. Friday. If I could, sir, I would like to point out in
my written testimony, I talk about how virtually every one of
the NOAA labs contributed to the modernization of the National
Weather Service. NOAA is not just a climate change agency. It
is an agency that responds to all variety of needs in the
oceans and the atmospheres. And it was that laboratory
capability that allowed us to move from a lead time of a
tornado forecast from minus two minutes in 1982 to 12 minutes
today.
We used to say, ``what we just saw was a tornado.'' Now, we
can say ``in about 10 or 12 minutes, you are going to see one
in your area,'' and it all came from the science and technology
from those NOAA labs.
Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. The gentleman's time has expired. Next, we
recognize the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership
on this issue, and I appreciate our panelists being here today.
One of the questions I always have about a complex organization
like NOAA is how the interfaces with the various committees of
the Congress either enhance or detract from your ability to do
your job. And I applaud the Chairman for looking at an organic
act to establish NOAA.
Particularly Dr. Baker, but I would ask the others with
their expertise and experience as well, can you give us a brief
insight, and this is probably a huge question, but a brief
insight into NOAA's interactions with various committees. I
know here we are the Science Committee. I believe Resources has
some jurisdiction. I may be mistaken, I think Commerce may have
some say in some of what you do. Is that--are there any
insights we can gain from your experiences there, Dr.--Mr.
Kassinger, and should we consider that issue as we look at an
organic act?
Mr. Kassinger. I don't think that is a significant
consideration, frankly, Mr. Baird, in defining what an organic
act should be. Certainly, the Administration, generally the
Commerce Department, doesn't have any lock on the wisdom on the
various issues that affect our day to day business. We welcome
all interactions with all of the committees with whom we work,
whether it is the authorizing or the Appropriations Committee.
And indeed, you know, this is an issue at Commerce, not just in
the NOAA area. We have a broad range of responsibilities. We
deal with a lot of different committees, and I don't think that
the idea of having organic--a single organic statute for NOAA
should take into account what will always be the case, I am
sure, and that is there are 535 Members of Congress, with an
interest in what----
Dr. Baker. Congressman, I think that NOAA has a special
relationship with Congressman, and I have been always
impressed, having watched NOAA over the years since it was
formed, about the very strong interests of Members of Congress,
Congressional staff members, providing help and support over
the years, and providing information. One of the things that I
did, and I know previous Administrators did, was turn to both
Members of Congress and staff members for information about the
best ways to manage the set of complex issues.
I can't remember how many committees that NOAA reports to,
but it is many. And I think that is probably a strength for the
Agency, because there is lots of different input and help that
come from the different committees. The connection with NOAA
and Congress has been very strong. In fact, it was said to me
that the view of the Department of Commerce about NOAA was NOAA
people never go home without stopping on the Hill first. And it
is probably not so far from the truth. I think there is a real
strong connection there, and I think one wants to recognize in
that, in the organic act, but I think the strength is an
important thing to have, that connection.
Mr. Baird. Admiral West or Dr. Friday. I appreciate, Dr.
Friday, your insights on the approps bill, but Admiral West
first.
Admiral West. It may have been a transitory thing, but the
Research Review Team did find a problem with the information
flow from NOAA to OMB and the Hill.
Mr. Baird. Dr. Friday.
Dr. Friday. When I was Director of the Weather Service,
Sir, I had basically one committee to report to, and that was
the Science Committee. As the head of NOAA research, I had
several committees that I was involved with, with the Sea Grant
Program, and with the Undersea Research Program. It was not
impossible to deal with. It was worthwhile. My biggest problem
was in the Weather Service modernization, we closed 250 sites.
I got to meet a very large number of Members of Congress with
that.
Mr. Baird. I am interested further in this issue of the
appropriations and the competition that NOAA faces. Inevitably,
if we want to support a project, quite rightfully, we have to
look at offsets, but when you are pitting NOAA type functions
against functions that are also important, but really
completely different fields, could you elaborate on that. I
will ask Dr. Friday to start, because you raised the issue
further, but then I would appreciate input from others.
Dr. Friday. The science of NOAA is not--it is different
than anything else, really, that is done in the branch of OMB
that we deal with. And although we have had some very good
people in there as our examiners, when it goes up the line, and
it does have to compete, it is hard to justify why you need
this particular facility to test the emission of a radar set,
for example, when somebody is vitally in need of additional
prison structure, or to rebuild an embassy someplace around the
world. And that is a matter of fact, that is what happens.
We have to be very articulate in NOAA to be able to justify
that all the way up the line. And it is a constant effort, and
I believe it is a problem. I believe if we were competing with
the rest of the Federal Government science side, that we would
fare much better.
Admiral West. On a related issue, I think the number of
line items that NOAA has, in the budgetary process, I found to
be unbelievable, and it adds to the problem that they have with
justifying their mission.
Dr. Baker. I think the biggest budget issue that we faced
was looking at the appropriations for satellites, because it is
the biggest part of our budget, and we would have preferred to
have worked that together with the NASA budget, for example.
And that is something, perhaps, as NASA goes through its re-
organization, one might take a look at. But that was the
biggest piece of our budgetary activity, and required the
longest-term commitments, and overflows of budgets and so on.
So, that is the area that I would look at.
Mr. Kassinger. I am skeptical that this is a significant
problem. The reason is, because first, NOAA is the largest part
of the Commerce Department budget, so we advocate strongly on
behalf of NOAA within the OMB process. Second, it is unclear to
me that one could ensure, putting NOAA as an independent
agency, that you would get the budget examiner you want, or
that you won't end up in another collection of competing
budgets in the appropriations process on the Hill. You may not
like State and Justice, but you may be competing with other
agencies with equally compelling stories, and it is not clear
to me why one thinks that you would get a better outcome.
Mr. Baird. I appreciate the answer. I would--Mr. Chairman,
I appreciate your time. I just have a little bit of concern,
Dr. Kassinger--Mr. Kassinger--that I have heard several
distinguished witnesses here suggest that there is a problem,
and at the end of them suggesting in their experience there is
a problem, you are skeptical that there is. I respect your
right to make that decision, but I am skeptical of your
skepticism.
Chairman Ehlers. With that note, I will observe the
gentleman's time has expired. I would just comment about the
scientists stopping on the Hill. Maybe they are just attempting
to measure the weather conditions here. Or----
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I think it is the free food at the
receptions, probably, that draws them.
Chairman Ehlers. That could be, or else the extreme amount
of hot air generated above the Capitol Dome, which could have a
great influence on the weather patterns in this area.
Next, we are pleased to recognize my colleague from
Michigan, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't be surprised that it
has something to do with the $3.2 billion that NOAA is getting
on their recent stops to the Hill.
I align myself with some of the comments of Congressman
Gutknecht. And looking at the wish list of NOAA, I guess I
think there should be some explanation or justification of
requesting such things as the--it seems to me you are expanding
an agency's jurisdiction and prerogatives, of spending more
than most agencies have. For example, you have a wish list of
the authorization to purchase automobiles. Normally, that is
given to departments, not agencies, and especially looking at
the recent, the most recent GAO report, that suggests that we
can't even keep track of the cars that the government owns now.
Why are you requesting the authority to purchase cars, Mr.
Kassinger?
Mr. Kassinger. I don't think that we are asking
specifically for authority to purchase cars. I think it was the
use of cars. Was it----
Mr. Smith. What I have written down is requesting the
authorization to purchase vehicles. Is that correct, staff?
Yeah, it includes purchase, page 8, under A. Okay, anyway, you
don't know why that is in there, so let us get it out.
Hopefully, it will come out. How about more money----
Mr. Kassinger. I am sorry. Now, I--this was for our--
primarily for our enforcement, our fisheries enforcement folks.
But it is, you know, it is a traditional authority that
agencies have, isn't it?
Mr. Smith. No, it is not. At least my experience with
agencies, and I was in an agency, it is normally a
department's--my understanding is----
Mr. Kassinger. Oh. I am sorry.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. That it normally is given to
departments, not agencies. Let me ask about the authority--you
have requested to have more and better receptions.
Mr. Kassinger. An important part of NOAA's function is its
international expertise.
Mr. Smith. This is not receptions with Members of Congress,
in terms of the appropriation or anything?
Mr. Kassinger. I am sure we can expand the authority to
include that, if you desire, but I think it is fundamentally
part of NOAA's important outreach effort. You know, again, it
is to clarify things that NOAA does in one place, but
sometimes, the authority is scattered about. Sometimes, we rely
on Department of Commerce general authority, but we would like
to make it clear that NOAA has this authority, even if it is
not widely utilized.
Mr. Smith. And give me, maybe, the thumbnail version of why
at $3.2 billion, why NOAA's budgetary appropriations have gone
up so much faster than inflation? And that sort of reflects to
the concern that the Congressman from Minnesota also expressed,
in terms of our overspending, and the increased debt that we
are accumulating, that we are passing on to our kids and our
grandkids.
Dr. Baker. Let me attempt to address part of that, because
there certainly was a budget increase during the time that I
was Administrator of NOAA that was greater than inflation, and
that was because we were trying to provide for society those
kinds of forecasts and warnings that are part of our mission.
As Joe Friday said, we went in a 10 year period from having a
minus number of minutes for forecasting a tornado to an 11
minute forecast, enormous impact on saving lives and protecting
property. We did the same thing in----
Mr. Smith. Now, is that some kind of a quantitative----
Dr. Baker. Yes.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. Fact.
Dr. Baker. In fact, we can document and the National
Weather Service can provide documentation for you about the
amount of economic benefit for every minute of improved
tornado, storm, and flood warning that is provided. And in
fact, we can do that up into the future. If we could provide
additional investment, we could show you the kind of economic
benefit which has been sustained in the past. I think that is a
very important point.
Mr. Smith. Now, is--now, should I be encouraging all my
constituents to buy a radio that gets the National Weather
Service reports? It seems a lot of the speedup time in
communication to people that need to know that example--that
need to know that, including homeowners and businesses, depend
on radio and television. Is the transmission time through
commercial communication systems, is that part of the speedup?
I mean, your prediction has increased, and this--when I saw Mr.
Friday nod on having it quantitatively shown, is the
information that is getting--you are getting the information
quicker. Is the homeowner and the business getting the
information quicker? Mr. Friday.
Dr. Baker. Yeah, he should answer that.
Dr. Friday. Yes, sir. Several things. First of all, we
don't do it by ourselves in the Weather Service. I apologize
for using the term we. I have been out of the Weather Service
since 1997, but it is difficult to completely separate myself
from that culture.
The fact is, is that we depend on the media, working very
carefully with the local television and radio stations
commercial. We also have NOAA Weather Radio, which is the only
method of directly interrupting anyone in their household to
set off an alarm, should they choose to have it done. And as
you know, we have recently entered agreements with Homeland
Security, that that can be used to also notify people of any
national security type of alert as well.
But the fact is, is that all these mechanisms are working
to deliver information faster to the public. We began in 1981
taking measures of every forecast that was produced by the
National Weather Service, and we could watch the numerical
change in that, and we can address those directly into the
economic impacts on various businesses and industry in the
decision-making process. For every dollar that we spend in the
modernization of the Weather Service, there was an $8 return to
the public.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, just one more quick question, sort
of a--I am going to an International Relations Committee now.
We are--we were told at a recent hearing that 6,000 people are
dying every day for the lack of clean water. Does NOAA look at
aquifers, groundwater, in addition to oceans, in terms of water
availability and what is happening to probably one of the
world's most challenging problems, and that is the lack of
clean water?
Dr. Baker. The NOAA focus is on, in fact, rivers as they
come close to the sea, in coastal waters, groundwater, that you
talked about there, is really a focus for the U.S. Geological
Survey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. The gentleman's time has expired, and I
would mention that it would be very nice, as a going away gift,
when you leave office, if you were to give each of your
constituents one of the nice new alarm radios that are
available.
Mr. Smith. I think you can buy them at--for $19 or
something, can't you?
Chairman Ehlers. Yes. I have one in my office I will be
happy to show you. That is right. And it is now my pleasure to
recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Matheson, for five
minutes.
NOAA's Mission
Mr. Matheson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I first have a question
for all of the panel members, and while recognizing that the
mandate does not always create this type of conflict, I was
wondering how you think we should address the conflicts that
arise due to the fact that NOAA's mandate is to conserve and
manage resources, and also to promote economic activities. If
you have comments on how you balance those two aspects of the
mandate.
Dr. Friday. Well, while everyone else is thinking about it,
let me just start.
The Weather Service products and services that go out
include not only the weather warnings, but increasingly
effective and more accurate forecasts of seasonal and inter-
annual forecasts of conditions of temperature, for example, and
precipitation. Those kind of increasing information--
increasingly accurate information sets allow businesses and
industry to make economic decisions on how they are going to
behave, and how they are going to perform in the future.
So, the weather community, both in the research community
and in the operational community, are increasingly providing
additional support to improving the economic activity of this
nation.
Mr. Matheson. You know, if anyone has something they want
to add, please do. If you don't have anything to add, you don't
have to.
Admiral West. I would just say that, from the sailor's
standpoint, that if we didn't have the Weather Service, and I
am not an expert. I think it is somewhere in a few hundred
million dollars. If you didn't have that, the impact, I mean,
it is startling. What we don't have is something equivalent in
our oceans, which I think is a real shortfall.
Mr. Kassinger. Mr. Matheson, I think your question really
goes to process, as opposed to is there a magic formula for
finding that balance. And process-wise, there are a number of
important tools to balance what are extremely important oceans-
related commercial activities, whether it is commercial
fisheries, recreational fisheries, oil and gas drilling,
coastal zone residential activities, other things, with the
very--and equally important process of managing the surrounding
environment. Ecosystems-based management techniques are one of
those. But also just the process of public participation. The
fundamental and most important part of the process is
developing good science, as well as developing socioeconomic
data that is relevant to our activities. And we devote a lot of
attention to that, and we will be even more so in the future.
Role of NOAA in Multi-jurisdictional Issues
Mr. Matheson. Let me ask a new question for Dr. Baker. You
list in your testimony a number of problems, be it natural
disasters, non-point pollution, airshed deposition of nitrogen,
that involve large land areas or water bodies that cross
numerous political boundaries within the U.S. or out
internationally as well. Is NOAA able to effectively coordinate
policies that address these multi-jurisdictional problems, and
what resources or authorities do you think NOAA would need to
be an effective leader or participant in efforts to address
that type of challenge?
Dr. Baker. NOAA does it, I think, partially. The Coastal
Zone Management Act is a good example, where NOAA enforces
federal consistency on state actions, and if one state wants to
do something that will influence or have an impact on another
state, NOAA can step in and say you have to do it in a certain
way, so that the influence is minimized, and that happens
continually.
I think that we don't have all of the authorities in place
that would allow us to do the new things that we talk about,
non-point source pollution is a good example, and I think we
are still trying to develop what will be the authorities to
make that work. Airshed deposition is even a more difficult
problem. The reason I mentioned it is because airsheds
typically are bigger than watersheds. In the Chesapeake Bay,
the deposition of nitrogen from the airshed is larger than
anything that comes through the water, and yet, we don't have a
really good way of dealing with that legislatively.
So, that is an example of the kind of problem, I think,
that needs to be taken up.
Mr. Matheson. Do you have a suggestion about how some
type--what form of authority might be needed to help you better
address a circumstance like that?
Dr. Baker. Well, I think the Coastal Zone Management Act is
a very good example of how one can start the process here, to
set federal guidelines, and then have the states buy in. And in
fact, I think almost every state that--at least when I was
Administrator, I think we had every state but one, had bought
into the Coastal Zone Management Act, so it is possible to make
that work.
Mr. Matheson. Let me ask you another question. What more do
you think we can be doing, in terms of preparing for natural
disasters? I am wondering how you would distinguish any
additional task that NOAA should be doing from responsibilities
that, let us say, FEMA has for responding to natural disasters?
Dr. Baker. Well, the NOAA/FEMA relationship is close and it
is very important to keep that close, because NOAA has the
science responsibility for doing the forecasts, and FEMA has
the responsibility for making sure that people are aware, and
the things that people should do. But what we discovered was,
for example, when we did the first forecasts of the El Nino I
think it was 1995, we put out a number of products that we
thought would be useful for the public, and not all of those
products turned out to be helpful warnings. Some of them were
useful, some of them weren't. And in fact, it was the feedback
between the public and FEMA and NOAA that allowed us to focus
our efforts on specific scientific products that were the most
valuable, for warnings that were the most useful. And it is
that kind of interaction, I think, which is important. The
scientific--the interaction of the scientists who know the
kinds of products that can be done, with FEMA and other
homeland security agencies to say here is what is useful, and
here is how the public can really respond--the public and the
security agencies.
Mr. Matheson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. The gentleman's time has expired. I am
pleased to recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
hearing. And gentlemen, thank you for coming this afternoon. We
have enjoyed your testimony.
I have, I think, four questions, which if the Chairman will
be patient, will take about 45 minutes to answer, I guess. If
you are brief.
Chairman Ehlers. I should remind you we are scheduled for
votes between 3:45 and 4.
Specific NOAA Functions
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. All right. Well, anyway, the four
broad areas of my curiosity. First of all, I think Vern is on
the right track as far as creating an organic act for NOAA to
put it in an arena and a status that I think should be on the
same level as NASA.
The first question, I guess, deals with--one of the
proposals is all you do in NOAA, should it be--begin to be
oriented toward an ecosystem-based management program, and how
would you begin to do that, as far as fisheries management is
concerned? I know that is not a part of this particular
proposal, but isn't ecosystem fisheries management policy
something that is within our reach over the next five to ten
years, that is practical to implement as far as using our
councils are concerned, to manage the Nation's fisheries?
Two, the Weather Service is an extraordinary part of NOAA.
Everybody understands it. Everybody buys into it. It is a
standard piece of equipment that gets an appropriation year
after year. We don't have to worry about a line item or an
earmark for the New England states, or the Gulf of Mexico, or
places like that. Shouldn't we begin, as we look at NOAA, to
use the Integrated Ocean Observing System on the same level as
we look at the weather system, considering everything that is
going on with climate change, the global problems we see with
our oceans, and the lack of information we have about the
oceans in general?
And I think I did mention, whenever we talk about ocean
research, I know there is a lot of talk now about having a
vessel specific to ocean research, and there is some movement
on that with the House and the Senate, to provide that kind of
funding. I know Mr. Ballard, Bob Ballard, is on the Hill over
the last day or so, discussing that particular issue. And so if
we raise the level of NOAA to an understanding as to the
critical importance of literally life on the planet, to the
same level as NASA. NASA has extraordinary research, and we
don't seem to question why we want to figure out what is inside
the rings of Saturn, or whether some of the moons have water
under the surface, and can we get a satellite to leave the
Solar System. Those kinds of things. So, raising the level of
the status of ocean research to the same level as space
exploration.
And then the other things is, that the gentleman from Utah
talked about, and that is, you know, what is NOAA's Weather
Service responsibility as far as air deposition is concerned,
and Dr. Baker, you mentioned the Chesapeake Bay, and clearly,
one third of the excess nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay is from
air deposition. So, how do--what is the interface between NOAA,
let us say, and Department of Interior and EPA, as far as air
deposition is concerned--control of air deposition? But with
Interior, for example, has--when we look at Coastal Zone
Management Act, when we look at the Coastal Barriers Resource
Act, and we see the potential now, if you accept the level of
science that is out there about global warming, and sea level
rise, and larger storms, and more violent confrontations
between the weather and those communities that are continuing
to develop there. So, is there an interface between NOAA,
Interior, EPA, about global warming, about sea level rise,
about storms that come in that deviate from any calculation to
the natural variability of weather, that can be explained under
normal conditions, that actually occur now because the planet
is heating up because of greenhouse gases from human activity?
So, I will stop now, Mr. Chairman, and----
Chairman Ehlers. Well, you have one second to answer the
question.
Mr. Kassinger. Mr. Chairman, let me----
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to just make a comment, if--I
know we are not going to have time for all of those answers,
but our Subcommittee on Fisheries is trying to deal with Mr.
Ehlers to make a compatible piece to this NOAA Organic Act, and
these--this kinds of information would be very helpful for us.
Chairman Ehlers. Now, we will give that some extra time for
you to answer this question.
Mr. Kassinger. I will try not to take all 4-5 of your
minutes. Let me touch on these, just very, very quickly. First,
I think the mission and purposes of a new NOAA--outlined in the
NOAA Organic Acts, both 4546 and 4607, go to all of the
questions you raised, and indeed, are one of the reasons we
would like an organic act very much to focus the mission of the
Agency.
Second, on ecosystem-based management of fisheries, we are
already doing that. Moving in that direction. I think the first
ecosystem-based fisheries management plan was approved a year
ago in Hawaii. It is certainly the way all fishery management
plans should be approached in the future. There is a lot to
learn about this, but it is absolutely the way to go, and we
are very focused on it. Indeed, ecosystem-based management is
one of the four key goals of NOAA, as outlined in the current
management scheme.
Third, on the Integrated Ocean Observing System, there is a
tremendous opportunity to be accomplished along the lines that
you suggest, and indeed, it is one reason that, under Admiral
Lautenbacher's leadership, we are investing so much time and
resources in promoting not only observing systems in our
coastal waters but around the world. It is fair to say the U.S.
is demonstrating tremendous leadership in getting a global
observing system in place. Just a couple weeks ago, I was in
Maine. I had the opportunity to look at what they have already
deployed in the Gulf of Maine, led by the University of Maine,
and the Sea Grant Program up there. And they are constantly
thinking of new instruments to add to the buoys they have out,
and already, in real time, you can go to your computer today,
and see the data over the website, that those buoys are
generating. And the biggest problem they have, I gather, is
that every once in a while, the Coast Guard will go along and
pick up a buoy, because they think it is something lost from a
mooring somewhere, and then they have to go back and put it
back. But it has already been a tremendous benefit to the
fishing communities, to the recreational communities, and
others in the surrounding areas of the Gulf of Maine. So, yes,
it is an important thing to do, and I hope the products that
could be developed and delivered out of the observing systems
will continue to be developed.
Fourth, you mentioned the ocean research vessel. The first
of the new generation NOAA vessels will be launched in August
or September. The second one, the keel has been laid and it
will be coming on line once construction is complete. It is a
program that we believe in. It is very important to get these
vessels that we have committed to out. They are replacing
vessels that are 50 and 60 years old. And they are terrific.
They have great instrumentation. They are extremely quiet. They
will do great work. It is, however, an expensive proposition.
You are talking about significant capital equipments. It is one
of the driving forces in the budget increases that we have seen
in the last couple of years. And that is a serious matter that
we and the Congress have to work out as we look at the overall
needs of NOAA, and the Nation for oceans research.
Finally, very quickly, very broad and complicated subject,
about NOAA's role in climate change and related research. But I
am very proud to say that NOAA is, with the Department of
Energy, co-chairing the Administration's Climate Change
Research Initiatives and Climate Technology Initiatives. There
is an extremely integrated, well-thought out program of cross-
cutting research, now focused on 21 areas, as Dr. Friday
mentioned earlier. The National Research Council has blessed
this program, and said indeed, it is a model for developing
such an integrated, cross-cutting program. So, we don't have
regulatory responsibilities at NOAA in, for example, the air
quality area. But we are devoting a tremendous amount of
research dollars and talent, in some very specific programs.
For example, just this month, we launched in New England a
program led by the University of New Hampshire, with a
consortium of universities and others, research scientists up
there, to begin measuring the flow of particulates in the air
across the continent and beyond, out into the oceans. And
really began to try to develop much better data on the--for the
kinds of issues that you just identified.
I think I will stop there.
Chairman Ehlers. Let me just----
Dr. Baker. Congressman Gilchrest----
Chairman Ehlers. Let me just intervene and ask each of you
to give a brief response, because we have one more panel we
want to fit in yet, before the vote. So, if each of you can
respond very briefly, and then we may send you further
questions on this by mail to get a written response, if--is
that----
Dr. Baker. Let me just----
Chairman Ehlers. Is that okay, Mr. Gilchrest? Thank you.
Dr. Baker. Let me just respond to the last question, which
was the interaction between NOAA, Department of Interior, and
the EPA. There is no question that there are some overlapping
responsibilities. There are some gaps in what is being done. I
think that, as Ted Kassinger said, the Administration's plan
for dealing with the research activities in climate change that
was reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, I think, is a
good model there. But I think that would be a useful topic for
a hearing, to come and listen to what EPA's views, Interior's
views, and NOAA's views are, and what they do, and what they--
and how they interact. Because frankly, having been there and
watched that, I would say the interaction is not as efficient
or as good as it should be, and it is something that really
needs to be looked at more carefully.
Admiral West. Sir, on the ecosystem management, I think we
have got to go on with it, however you define it, by looking at
not just fish or not just the physical dimension of the ocean,
but as an ecosystem. I think NOAA can step up to the plate,
across OAR, NOS, and Fisheries, by taking a region and defining
how it is being done. We ought to get on with it, and we ought
to get on with it right now. That was one of the
recommendations from the Research Review Team.
Second of all, the IOOS ought to be a national priority,
and we ought to do it right now. The plan has been in place for
about three years now. It is time to get on with that. It is
interesting that you mentioned one ship for ocean research.
That should say something to people. As an aside, the Academic
Research Fleet, where most of your ocean researchers are
working. That fleet is very, very old. It is not being
replaced. It is in serious trouble there.
And as far as the interagency work, one of the things that
we discussed during the Research Review--it was not in our
charter, but we clearly made a mention in our report--was a
definite need for some federal interagency discussions on
research.
Dr. Friday. NOAA clearly has the leadership in many of
these areas, and I believe that they should exercise that
leadership across the federal agencies. I agree with Jim Baker
that it hasn't always gone smoothly, but that takes active,
proactive leadership to make sure it occurs.
Chairman Ehlers. I thank you all for your comments. And are
you satisfied?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. And the gentleman's time has expired.
We will not have time for a second round of questions
today, and so I want to thank the panelists for their time, and
their very valuable advice and comments. We will certainly use
your comments appropriately, as we review the various proposals
for an organic act, and probably discard all those we don't
agree with. Now, seriously, we will give serious consideration
to all of your comments, and we will be having a lot of
discussion on this committee over the next few weeks and months
as we try to get this organic act passed before the end of the
year.
Thank you again for your time, and I would ask Mr. Hirn to
come forward for the second panel.
Panel II
Mr. Hirn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you. I should give a better
introduction, now that you are seated. Mr. Richard Hirn is the
general counsel for the National Weather Service Employees
Organization, sometimes known as NWSEO. Mr. Hirn.
Mr. Hirn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. Is your microphone on?
STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD J. HIRN, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL
WEATHER SERVICE EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION
Mr. Hirn. There we go. Yes. There we go. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Udall.
As you probably know, NWSEO is the professional association
and the labor organization that represents not only the
employees of the National Weather Service, but hundreds of
other employees, and three different NOAA line agencies, as
well as the attorneys in the NOAA Office of General Counsel.
These employees believe that the most pressing problem
facing NOAA is not its organizational structure, but the
failure of successive Administrations and Congresses to
adequately fund NOAA's important missions.
Simply changing the organizational structure of NOAA is not
going to solve these critical funding needs, but it might just
exacerbate the problem. To the extent that organizational lines
are blurred, there will be less transparency and accountability
to the public and Congress for where scarce federal dollars are
spent. For many years, Administrations of both parties have
looked to take from the appropriations from the National
Weather Service funds to support other programs and projects
which Congress has regarded as a lesser priority.
Consequently, NWSEO supports the distinct and separate
grant of legislative authority in section 105 of the Chairman's
bill, which creates the National Weather Service and defines
its mission. NWSEO does not support the Administration's bill,
because it lacks the separate legislative authority for the
National Weather Service.
The Administration's bill furthers a disturbing trend, and
that is NOAA's apparent attempt to phase out the National
Weather Service as a distinct identity. For example, NOAA has
informally renamed the National Weather Service as ``NOAA's
National Weather Service'' on its web pages and its
publications, in its official correspondence. NOAA now calls
the National Weathers Service's Aviation Center, Ocean
Prediction Center, River Forecast Center, and even the
Hurricane Center, as the NOAA Aviation Weather Center, the NOAA
Ocean Prediction Center, the NOAA River Forecast Centers, and
the NOAA Hurricane Center. The NWS is even replacing its own
logo with that of the NOAA seagull on its buildings and in its
television presentations.
The Weather Service's loss of identity will have a negative
impact on the public's safety. As NWS forecasts, warnings, and
other communications to the public are increasingly identified
as emanating from NOAA, rather than the National Weather
Service, the public will grow confused about the reliability
and the authoritative nature of these forecasts and warnings.
Frankly and unfortunately, few Americans yet know what NOAA is
and will not understand that the source of the warnings and
forecasts is actually the National Weather Service. A large
segment of the public is already confused about the difference
between forecasts and warnings issued by the government versus
those from the private sector, and which ones should be relied
upon when they conflict.
Now, we agree with the Commission on Oceans that ``research
efforts should be planned to support the Agency's management
missions.'' But in the case of the Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory in Key Biscayne, for example,
decisions about what research is conducted are often made based
on what outside grants are available, rather than tailoring the
research to meet the Agency's mission. Changing the structure
of NOAA will not solve this problem. Only sufficient funding
will.
And although the creation of a separate research and
education branch of NOAA has a--distinct from its operational
side, has service appeal--surface appeal, the consolidation of
research and education in one place may, in fact, result in
reduced education and research overall. For example, the
operational forecasters who staff the Weather Service's 122
local forecast offices regularly engage in research and
publications based on their operational forecasting experience,
and engage in community research efforts and speaking
engagements to educate the public about weather, in addition to
their regular operational warning and forecasts. Each forecast
office has a warning coordination meteorologist whose
responsibility it is to develop and implement a public
relations program in his or her jurisdiction to educate the
public about the hazards of severe weather.
In summary, the NOAA's research and education functions
should be most closely integrated with, rather than separated
from its operational role. This concludes my statement, Mr.
Chairman, and I would be happy to answer any questions, and I
thank you for inviting us here today to provide our input on
this.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard J. Hirn
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
the National Weather Service Employees Organization to present its
views on the two versions of the NOAA Organic Act that are pending
before this committee.
Our Organization, as you may know, is the professional association
and labor organization that represents not only the employees of the
National Weather Service nationwide, but hundreds of other employees
throughout NOAA, such as those employed by NESDIS who track and command
the Nation's weather satellites at Wallops Island, Virginia; the
civilian crews who maintain and fly the hurricane tracking planes from
NOAA's Aircraft Operations Center at MacDill AFB; the research
scientists at OAR's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory on Key Biscayne, as well as the attorneys in NOAA's Office
of General Counsel and five Regional Counsel Offices who enforce many
of the Nation's most important environmental laws.
The Proposed Restructuring of NOAA
The employees of NOAA believe that the most pressing problem facing
NOAA is not its organizational structure, but the failure of successive
Administrations and Congresses to adequately fund NOAA's important
missions.
For example, funding for hurricane research at the AOML Lab has
been at an almost constant level for over 20 years. The Lab's Hurricane
Research Division has lost a third of its FTE positions over the last
decade; has reduced travel to scientific meetings; has failed to
upgraded its computer equipment until it is either obsolete or broken;
and has limited the amount of research flying in the NOAA aircraft. The
reduction in staff and inability to hire has also resulted in missed
opportunities to advance the science of hurricane forecasting. A
critical current need, for example, is qualified scientific and support
staff to help assimilate the valuable data collected in hurricanes by
both NOAA and the Air Force into the next-generation computer models.
AOML has only one person who has some expertise in this area, yet the
problem is so complex that a team of 5-10 people should be working on
this problem right now.
Last year, employees from the Hurricane Research Division flew into
Hurricane Isabel extensively and provided real-time information to
forecasters who, in turn, made remarkably accurate forecasts for the
storm. Ironically, though, if it were not for the Office of Naval
Research, which supported AOML's field program last year (and will
again this year), and for the generosity of the Air Force Reserve who
donated some of its older GPS dropsondes (because AOML could not afford
enough of its own), the critical data that was transmitted to the NWS
and the rest of the world would not have been obtained. The scientists
at AOML are discovering new features, in the high wind eye-wall region
of hurricanes, from those flights into Isabel that will have important
implications for understanding and predicting the wind fields in
intense hurricanes in the future. Again, if AOML had to rely on NOAA
funding alone, these discoveries would not yet have been realized.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended, and the House last
week approved, funding for the NWS which the Committee claimed
represented the Administration's full request for FY05. Regrettably,
the amount approved actually fell short by nearly $10 million. The
amount requested by the Administration did nothing to resolve the
accumulated $19 million shortfall in the appropriations for local
forecasts and warnings which have never fully funded mandated pay
raises. As a result, the NWS is already planning to slow the pace of
applying new science and technology into local forecasting, which will
jeopardize the NWS' goals for improving tornado, flash flood and winter
storm warnings.
Simply changing the organizational structure of NOAA is not going
to solve critical funding needs--but it might exacerbate the problem.
To the extent that organizational lines are blurred, there will be less
transparency and accountability to the public and Congress for where
scare federal dollars are spent. For many years, Administrations of
both parties have raided the appropriations for the National Weather
Service to fund other programs or projects which Congress has regarded
as a lesser priority. While most of NOAA's mission is important to the
Nation's long-term welfare and prosperity, the mission of the National
Weather Service is critical to the immediate safety of the American
public. In order to prevent NOAA from reallocating funding from the
National Weather Service to other entities, the FY04 omnibus
appropriations measure prohibited NOAA from taxing the NWS and other
line components to support other programs. Similar language has been
included in the NOAA section of the CJS Appropriations the House passed
last week.
Consequently, NWSEO strongly supports the distinct and separate
legislative grant of authority in section 105 of H.R. 4546 that creates
the National Weather Service and defines its mission. NWSEO does not
support H.R. 4607, introduced on behalf of the Administration, because
it lacks separate legislative authority for the National Weather
Service.
H.R. 4607 furthers a disturbing trend NWSEO has noticed from NOAA--
an apparent attempt to phase out the National Weather Service as a
distinct entity. For example, NOAA has informally renamed the National
Weather Service as ``NOAA's National Weather Service'' on its web
pages, in its publications and on official correspondence emanating
from the National Weather Service. NOAA now calls the National Weather
Service's Aviation Weather Center, Ocean Prediction Center, River
Forecast Centers, and even the Hurricane Center the ``NOAA Aviation
Weather Center, ``the NOAA Ocean Prediction Center,'' ``NOAA River
Forecast Centers'' and the ``NOAA Hurricane Center.'' The NWS is
replacing its own logo with NOAA's seagull logo on its buildings and in
its television presentations.
The National Weather Service's loss of identity will have a
negative impact on public safety. As NWS forecasts, warnings and other
communications to the public are increasingly identified as emanating
from NOAA, the public will grow confused about the reliability and
authoritative nature of these forecasts and warnings. Frankly, few
Americans yet know what NOAA is and will not understand that the source
of the warnings and forecasts is the National Weather Service. A large
segment of the public is already confused about the difference between
forecasts and warnings issued by the government versus those from the
private sector, and which ones should be relied upon when they
conflict.
We have reviewed the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and its recommendation that NOAA be restructured by
combining existing line agencies into broader categories--``assessment,
prediction, and operations,'' ``management'' and ``research and
education.'' The Commission believes that this new structure would
further ``ecosystem-based management.'' This recommendation was
apparently made without considering the role of the National Weather
Service, which does not manage natural resources, but is responsible
for protecting the lives of Americans every day.
We agree with the Commission that ``research efforts should be
planned to support the agency's management missions.'' In the case of
AOML, the decisions about what research is conducted are often made
based on what outside grants are availability, rather than on tailoring
the research to the agency's mission. Changing the structure of NOAA
will not solve this problem, only sufficient funding will.
NOAA employees believe that the second biggest problem at NOAA is
that many decisions in resource management are driven not by science,
but by politics. For example, many members of the Fisheries Management
Councils are industry representatives who have a conflict of interest.
When the leadership of the NMFS must decide between the councils'
recommendations and the best science, its decisions are often
influenced by political pressures from Members of Congress and the
governors, rather than by science alone. Similarly, political pressure
often overrides science when NOAA leadership makes decisions with
respect to its consultative role under the Endangered Species Act, such
as how much power may by generated by hydro-electrical plants on the
Columbia River. The Commission on Oceans recognized that ``resource
management decisions should be based on the best available science''
and we agree. However, restructuring NOAA will do nothing to ensure
that science, not politics, guides NOAA's decision-making.
Although the creation of a separate research and education branch
of NOAA distinct from its operational side has a surface appeal, the
consolidation of research and education into one place may in fact
result in reduced research and education. For example, the operational
forecasters who staff the NWS' 122 local Weather Forecast Offices
regularly engage in research and publications based on their
operational forecasting experience, and engage in community outreach
efforts and speaking engagements to educate the public about weather,
in addition to issuing warnings and forecasts on a daily basis. Each
forecast office has a ``Warning Coordination Meteorologist'' whose
responsibility it is to develop and implement a public relations
program in his or her jurisdiction to educate the public about the
hazards of severe weather and how to react to flood, hurricane,
thunderstorm and tornado warnings. In summary, the ``research and
education'' role of NOAA should not be separated from the operational
role. Many NOAA employees have both roles today, and their dual
functions enhance the final product.
Section 105(d)--National Weather Service Functions
There is some minor language in Section 105(d)(1) of H.R. 4546
which, if enacted, may unintentionally result in the diminishment in
the services provided by the National Weather Service. One of the
proposed functions for the National Weather Service listed in that
Section 105 is the maintenance of ``a network of regional and local
weather forecast offices.'' While that language seems innocuous, to
National Weather Service employees it appears to be a ``Trojan horse.''
There are presently 122 local ``Weather Forecast Offices'' or ``WFOs,''
whose warning and forecast functions are supported by a number of
national centers to which section 105(d)(3) refers. There are no
``regional'' forecast offices in the NWS--but there are informal
proposals by some in the agency to create such regional forecast
offices by consolidating the functions of numerous local WFOs, thus
creating a two-tier forecast office system. Scientific research has
shown that forecasts and warnings are more reliable the closer they are
prepared to the geographical area to which they apply. Based on this
science, not many years ago the NWS underwent a complete reorganization
which eliminated the pre-existing two tier field office structure, and
increased the number of WFOs from 52 to 122. Some in the agency wish to
reverse course by again consolidating and eliminating local WFOs. NWSEO
urges that the reference to ``regional'' weather forecast offices be
removed from section 105(d)(1) so that this section is not interpreted
as Congressional authorization or approval to consolidate the local
WFOs into regional forecasting offices.
In order to ensure that the public knows that it can rely on the
weather warnings, statements and forecasts emanating from the National
Weather Service, and to distinguish them from warnings, statements and
forecasts issued by other sources, a subsection (f) should be added to
Section 105 that would require the NWS to identify itself as the source
of the warnings, statements and forecasts it issues. Such language
might read:
``The National Weather Service shall be the sole United States
official voice for issuing warnings during life-threatening
weather situations. All weather warnings, statements and
forecasts issued by the National Weather Service shall clearly
indicate that they were issued by the National Weather Service
and, since the National Weather Service identity is an integral
component of the Agency's mission in the protection of life and
property, the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, shall preserve, make permanent
and promulgate, as a departmental priority, prominent use of
the agency name of `The National Weather Service' as well as
use of the NWS emblem/logo in association with all products and
services provided by all National Weather Service field
offices, prediction centers and management headquarters
throughout the Nation.''
The first sentence of this proposed subsection appears on the NOAA
web site and reflects current government policy.
Section 704--Interagency Planning and Process.
Finally, NWSEO would also like to propose a minor addition to
Section 704, ``Interagency Planning and Process.'' This section
requires NOAA to ``coordinate and consult with'' the NSF, NASA, other
federal agencies and ``other appropriate agencies'' to develop a five-
year plan for, inter alia, outlining methods for dissemination of
weather information to user communities and describing best practices
for transferring the results of weather research to forecasting
operations. The Committee should include language requiring NOAA to
also consult with the labor organization representing NWS employees,
who will ultimately be responsible for implementation of this research
into day-to-day forecasting operations.
There is ample precedent for specifically including such a
requirement in this legislation. Section 707(b)(1)(b) of the Weather
Service Modernization Act of 1992 (set forth at 15 USCA 313 note)
required the Secretary of Commerce to include on the 12-member
Modernization Transition Committee an appointee from ``any labor
organization certified by the Federal Labor Relations Authority as an
exclusive representative of weather service employees.'' NWSEO
President Ramon Sierra served on that Committee and contributed to the
Committee's success by representing the professional views and opinions
of the employees of the NWS who would be most responsible for, and
impacted by, the NWS modernization.
Accordingly, the following language should be added at the
beginning of line 13 of section 704: ``any labor organization certified
by the Federal Labor Relations Authority as an exclusive representative
of weather service employees, . . .''
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to present NWSEO's views on the proposals for a NOAA
organic act. I would be happy to respond to any questions.
Biography for Richard J. Hirn
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Private Practice--October, 1981 to present
My law practice focuses on labor, civil rights, constitutional and
administrative law and litigation. Representative clients have included
national labor unions, educational associations, and other non-profit
organizations.
Litigated cases in federal trial and appellate courts
throughout the country and pioneered unique theories in
constitutional law, employment discrimination, labor relations
and other legal matters having public impact.
As a registered lobbyist, obtained legislation that expedited
resolution of any collective bargaining impasses between the
Panama Canal Commission and its U.S. labor unions. Obtained job
protections for agency employees in the Weather Service
Modernization Act. Initial proponent of the ``Interference with
Access to Medical Care Act'' enacted by the Maryland State
Legislature in 1989. This was the first law in the country to
outlaw obstruction to entrances of abortion clinics and was
prototype for the federal ``Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act.'' Testified before the Judiciary Committees of
the Maryland House and Senate on the constitutionality of and
need for this legislation.
General Counsel, National Weather Service Employees Organization--
October, 1981 to present
Chief legal officer for the union of the meteorologists at the
National Weather Service and the environmental attorneys at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Supervise all litigation and serve as ex-officio member of the
union's governing board. Assist NWSEO in its budgeting,
strategic planning, membership development and investment
strategies.
Chief lobbyist for the union. Develop the union's legislative
positions and represent the union's interests before Members of
Congress and committee staff.
Chair, NWSEO Political Action Committee
Chief press spokesperson for the union. Quoted in New York
Times, Washington Post, USA Today and other major daily
newspapers; interviewed on NBC's Dateline and on National
Public Radio about Weather Service issues.
Associate, Mulholland & Hickey--May, 1980-October, 1981
Represented the International Association of Fire Fighters, the
Public Employee Department of the AFL-CIO and many of the Nation's rail
unions in federal court litigation and routine legal matters.
Attorney, Office of General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board--
August, 1979-May, 1980
Advised the General Counsel of NLRB on issuing unfair labor
practice complaints on appeal from NLRB Regional Directors' dismissal
decisions.
EDUCATION
Washington College of Law, American University, Juris Doctor, 1979
Dean's Fellow, 1978-79 academic year; assisted in drafting ``The
Design of the American University Criminal Justice Clinic,'' Clinical
Legal Education, Report of the Association of American Law Schools--ABA
Committee on Guidelines for Clinical Legal Education (1980).
Haverford College, B.A., Political Science, 1976
Awarded Second Place, Elliston Morris and Elizabeth Smith Peace
Prize for essays on ``Means of Achieving International Peace'' in 1976.
PUBLICATIONS
Authored over 25 appellate briefs filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals
and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Right to Appeal: Civil Service Due Process Amendments of 1990, The
Washington Lawyer, March/April 1991.
Drug Tests Threaten Employers, Too, New York Times, Op-Ed page,
November 12, 1988.
Weather Service Sailing into Budget Storm, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Op-
Ed page, March 15, 1989.
New Protection for a Basic Right--Access to Medical Care, Washington
Post, Op-Ed page, July 2, 1989.
Maryland Closes the Door on Operation Rescue, Baltimore Evening Sun,
Op-Ed page, July 3, 1989.
Sending Title VII to the Jury, The Washington Lawyer, September/
October, 1989.
Title VII Cases Should Go To The Jury, Los Angeles Daily Law Journal
and the San Francisco Banner Daily Journal, October 19, 1989.
TEACHING/LECTURES
Local Union Representatives Training Program for the National Weather
Service Employees Organization; Los Angeles, Atlanta, San
Francisco, Albany, Tampa, Charlotte, Dallas, Kansas City,
Seattle and Honolulu, 1999-2004.
University of Panama, Institute of Panama Canal Studies, Symposium on a
Special Labor Regime for the Panama Canal Authority, August 13-
14, 1996.
Adjunct Instructor, Washington College of Law, American University,
1980-81 academic year.
Discussion
Chairman Ehlers. I thank you very much for your testimony,
and I do want to express my appreciation for the people you are
representing here. I have visited the local Weather Service in
my community several times, and have had good interactions with
them. And I am also reminded of the apocryphal story of the
Congressman some years ago who was attempting to abolish a good
share of the Department of Commerce, and someone asked him
``What about the Weather Service?'' He said ``I don't need
that. I get it off my TV.'' I don't know if the story is true
or not, but that person did lose his next election, so----
Mr. Gilchrest. That is a true story, Vern.
Chairman Ehlers. It is. Okay. So at any rate, that person
lost their next election, so that should be some comfort to
your----
Mr. Hirn. Well, as a matter of fact, a Member of the Senate
Commerce Committee, when I told him who I represented, asked me
how the folks were down at The Weather Channel in Atlanta.
Chairman Ehlers. Yeah.
Mr. Hirn. So, our concerns about the identity problem are
not with--are not unfounded.
Chairman Ehlers. No. And at the same time, I think it is
wonderful that we do have a private sector that disseminates
your results so widely, even if they do take credit for them.
In view of the short time, and that we do have votes, and I
know Mr. Udall has some questions, I will yield to you at this
time.
Mr. Udall. I thank the Chairman. The Chairman is as
gracious as always, and if I might, and I think we do have
enough time, Mr. Hirn, start by pursuing this line of
questioning.
We have heard numerous times and in testimony during the
earlier panel that NOAA's line office structure has inhibited
the Agency from functioning as an integrated unit. Would you
care to comment on that particular point of view?
Mr. Hirn. Well, let me say this, that there has been a--
there is a lot of research that has been done within NOAA that
has applicability to improving warnings and forecasts, and the
reason that it hasn't been put in place is not because there is
not sufficient interrelationship between the research folks and
the operational folks. The reason it is not being put in place
is there is no money to do it.
So, merely changing the organizational structure is not
going to solve that problem. It is not that the research is not
being tailored to the organizational mission, although there
are situations like at the Atlantic Oceanographic
Meteorological Laboratory, where rather than doing the research
the Agency needs, because of insufficient funding, they are--
spend a lot of their time applying for outside grants for
research, and then doing the research for which they can get
outside funding, rather than the research that the Agency
actually needs. And as a result, the--although the hurricane
tracking forecasts have improved in recent years, it has been
nowhere near as much as they could be had that research been
fully funded, rather than having the folks who do the hurricane
research running around trying to get private sector grants to
study whatever somebody is going to fund from the outside.
Mr. Udall. I hope you will take advantage of this
opportunity today, and also with additional testimony for the
record, to highlight other examples that make the case that I
think you are making in a compelling fashion here.
If I could move to--well, actually, I want to make one
other comment. My colleague, Mr. Gutknecht, isn't here, and I
appreciated his taking time out of his schedule to come to
Boulder and visit the NOAA laboratory that is there, and it is,
I think, at least it was state of the art for a federal
laboratory. It doesn't mean it is state of the art for a
private sector laboratory, and one of the missions when we
built the NOAA facility in Boulder, which this committee and
this Congress supported, was to try and get on the front end of
changes in technology and building design. But that is a bricks
and mortar investment. We have to make the operating side
investments as well, and I think that is what I hear from you,
and I heard from others who were here today, including Dr.
Baker.
Having said that and made that point, let me move to one
other question. What role have the employees or--and I don't
know, the acronym doesn't roll of my tongue here, but I will,
NWSEO, on their behalf, played in the current program reviews
in this proposed reorganization? And have employees
historically been included in similar exercises that past
Administrations have taken?
Mr. Hirn. We have had the--we have had no input on this
whatsoever, or consulted with it. I would say that the National
Weather Service, regardless of who the leadership has been, and
in particular, Joe Friday made this a very important role, and
the new Director, Director Johnson is doing this, has been
consulting with the Weather Service Employees Organization on
Weather Service issues, but unfortunately, with regard to the
NOAA level, and the Department level, regardless of what
Administration it has been, we have sort of been a pariah. And
we have not been consulted on--at the NOAA level, or the
Commerce level, in this or the previous Administration. But we
have been consulted at the Weather Service level, and we have a
very good working relationship, and have had a very good
working relationship, with all the recent Weather Service
directors.
Mr. Udall. And Chairman, I would like to ask another
question. I think we have enough time, but if I could just make
this offer, I would like to work with you and be available to
encourage Commerce and the Committee that is looking at all of
this to consider your point of view, and as somebody who thinks
that employees on the frontlines know what is going on, and
what can work, I would really like to promote that approach,
and I think it could only make for a stronger product in the
long run. So, again, thank you for appearing before the
Committee today, and I would yield back any time I have left.
Mr. Hirn. Thank you.
Chairman Ehlers. Thank you, and my question is fairly
brief, but I think a very important one. If you don't have time
to fully answer it here to your satisfaction, you can certainly
put it in writing. And that is, we are trying to find out not
just what is wrong with what we have done in our bill, but what
is missing. And so I would like to know from your perspective,
and from the perspective of the group you represent, what do
you think we should have in the organic act that I have
written, or I should say our staff has written, that you think
should be added, that will clarify the mission and role of the
National Weather Service?
Mr. Hirn. Well, remembering of course that we don't just
represent the Weather Service, we represent a lot of other
groups----
Chairman Ehlers. Right.
Mr. Hirn [continuing]. That would, for example, the NOAA
General Counsel's Office, where we represent the attorneys, we
think there should be some more language, or perhaps there will
be when it goes to Chairman Gilchrest's Committee, put in about
the important regulatory role that the NOAA attorneys are
involved in, the environmental enforcement, things like that.
Chairman Ehlers. Yeah. Because of jurisdictional problems,
we couldn't get into that, but I have already had discussions
with him and it occurs to him, too.
Mr. Hirn. We think that your description of the Weather
Service mission and role is excellent.
Chairman Ehlers. All right. I appreciate that. And if you
have anything further, please put it in writing, and similarly
to Mr. Gilchrest, because he will be taking this up.
Mr. Hirn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ehlers. I want to thank everyone for
participating, and before we bring the hearing to a close, I
want to once again thank you, as well as the other panelists,
for appearing here, and the feedback you have provided, all
panelists have provided, is tremendously important to us as we
pursue this.
I am not the sort of Congressman who thinks I am the expert
on everything, and so we are here to learn from all the
panelists who were here today.
I am pleased that H.R. 4546 is on the right track. I am
pleased with the general acceptance I have heard from
everyone--every affected group that has talked to me about it.
They seem to prefer it above the Administration bill, and
above, in some cases, above the Senate bill. But we are going
to keep our minds open, and look forward to working with
everyone involved, and the authors of the others bills, as we
proceed with this.
If there is no objection, the record will remain open for
additional statements from the Members and for answers to any
followup questions the Subcommittee may ask of the panelists.
And without objection, so ordered.
With thanks again to everyone, this hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Theodore W. Kassinger, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department
of Commerce
Q1. In his testimony, Dr. Friday expressed concerns about procurement
of the next generation of Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites (GOES-R). Is the Administration planning to use NASA as the
procurement contractor for GOES-R, as it did in the past? If so, why
not use a model such as the new polar satellite program, the National
Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS),
which many experts have cited as a successful program?
A1. NOAA is continuing to look at procurement options that will
maximize system capabilities while minimizing cost. Acquisition and
organizational strategies will include strategies similar to the NPOESS
approach, as well as other procurement options.
Q2. Dr. Friday suggested NOAA's strategic plan for research should be
reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, in a process similar to
that used for reviewing the Climate Change Science Program strategic
plan. Would the Administration support this proposal?
A2. NOAA is preparing a Five-Year Research Plan to support its
Strategic Plan. The NOAA Five-Year Research Plan is being developed in
consultation with our external partners and with input from the NOAA
Science Advisory Board (SAB). We will explore the need for a National
Academy of Sciences review following input from the SAB.
The Five-Year Research Plan was released for public comment on
August 20, and the public comment period will last until September 30.
The instructions for downloading and commenting on the Five-Year
Research Plan draft can be found on the Federal Register notice posted
at http://www.nrc.noaa.gov/Reports.htm. An opportunity for external
comments will be provided on a regular basis.
Q3. Dr. Friday suggested that members of the NOAA Science Advisory
Board be appointed in consultation with the National Academy of
Sciences. Would the Administration support this proposal?
A3. The Administration supports the creation of a broader NOAA Advisory
Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (Committee) that can provide advice
on the full range of NOAA research and operations. The expanded
Committee would build upon the success of the NOAA Science Advisory
Board in two ways. First, representative users of science--marine
resource managers and policy-makers--would also participate in
reviewing NOAA research activities. Second, scientists would
participate in reviewing how NOAA resource management and operational
programs utilize science in their activities. We believe the synergy
created by this more comprehensive dialogue among scientists, managers
and policy makers would be beneficial to all. As the membership of the
NOAA Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere would involve a broad
range of participants, we would welcome recommendations from not only
the National Academy of Sciences, but also other appropriate societies
and organizations.
Questions submitted by Democratic Members
Q1. NOAA has had a position of Chief Scientist in the past. Although
qualified people served in this position, the existence of the position
did not appear to have much impact on NOAA's scientific enterprise. If
we create the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science position included
in H.R. 4546, what assurance do we have that whoever assumes this role
will have more success and influence than the former Chief Scientists
at NOAA?
A1. Early in this Administration, the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Oceans and Atmosphere, VADM Lautenbacher, instituted a top-to-bottom
review of NOAA operations and research. One of the items addressed
regarded the position of NOAA's Chief Scientist. Recommendation number
36 from the Program Review Team (PRT) of June, 2002, recommended, ``the
establishment of corporate level oversight of research (Research
Committee) regardless of the manner in which the research is conducted.
The new structure would replace the Office of the Chief Scientist, with
appropriate redistribution of that office's roles and
responsibilities.'' NOAA recognizes the vital role of research in the
agency. To better coordinate its research enterprise, NOAA has a
Research Council in place. This Council is charged with ensuring all
NOAA services are based on sound science and all NOAA research programs
are integrated, coordinated and consistent with the NOAA Mission and
NOAA's Strategic Plan much in the same way intended by the proposed
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology in H.R. 4546. We
would be pleased to discuss with members of the Subcommittee how we
believe this function is being met through the new Research Council
mechanism.
Q2. In your testimony you list four priorities that NOAA adopted: none
of the priorities lists conservation. What role does conservation play
in ecosystem approaches to managing the environment?
A2. The concept of conservation is included in NOAA's ecosystem goal
and in Section 105 of the Administration's proposed organic act, which
encompasses living marine resources, habitat, and management of ocean
and coastal areas. The primary mission of NOAA's ecosystem approach to
management is to protect, restore, and manage the use of coastal and
ocean resources. NOAA defines an ecosystem approach to management as
one that: (1) is adaptive, (2) is regionally directed, (3) takes
account of ecosystem knowledge, (4) takes account of uncertainty, (5)
considers multiple external influences, and (6) strives to balance
diverse societal objectives.
Conservation of a living marine resource is defined by some as the
protection of that resource. Others would define conservation to
include the concept of planned management. In either case, NOAA's
ecosystem approach to management includes a strong conservation ethic.
Q3. In your testimony, you stated that the administration has placed
an emphasis on science that has a clear application to NOAA's programs.
The tension between doing research with medium to long-term potential
application and doing research to serve the immediate needs of the
operational line offices at NOAA is legendary. Do you see a continued
role for long-term research done through the Oceans and Atmospheric
Research labs at NOAA? What research does the administration propose to
phase out or de-emphasize because of a limited utility to NOAA's
mission?
A3. NOAA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) has just completed a review of
NOAA's research effort. The SAB found that, ``long-term, visionary
research for discovery is a crucial part of NOAA science.'' Further,
the report found that a sustained research program is essential for a
science-based agency with long-term operational responsibilities, and
it recommends ``retaining and strengthening a line office with the
predominant mission of research, i.e., OAR [Oceans and Atmospheric
Research].'' NOAA needs to carry out research on all timescales: near-
term (less than two years), mid-term (two-to-five years), and long-term
(more than five years). Some research might not have a near-term
operational application, yet provides cutting-edge solutions for the
future.
Research in NOAA is constantly evolving. Research is phased out
when it has been transitioned into operations or provided to a user to
meet a particular need. Research is also ended when more promising
research opportunities are identified. NOAA's Planning, Programming,
Budgeting, and Execution System analyzes research related to programs
and applies guidelines to determine if the research should be enhanced
or phased out.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by D. James Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, The
Academy of Natural Sciences
Q1. What assurance do we have that whoever assumes the role of Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Science will have more success and influence
than the former Chief Scientists at NOAA?
A1. In my experience, Chief Scientists at NOAA have been effective in
two ways: external advocates for the agency (Dr. Sylvia Earle and Dr.
Kathleen Sullivan both helped enormously in promoting NOAA issues from
fisheries to satellites) and as internal advisors (Dr. Al Beeton was a
superb trouble shooter and chair of the NOAA Science Advisory
Committee). Others, who were not effective in one of these two roles,
had little impact. The title of Deputy Assistant Secretary helps raise
the political awareness of the position, and may help attract the kind
of person needed.
Q2. What programs are most problematic in terms of overlap with other
agencies? How can this problem be resolved?
A2. The main problems arise in coastal waters, in jurisdiction of
fisheries management, and in remote sensing. The overlap of coastal
responsibilities among NOAA, EPA, and the Department of Interior needs
to be sorted out soon--it is a complex tangle of historical
responsibilities that only causes delay in resolving important issues.
I suggest a Congressional hearing with each of the subject agencies
asking them their responsibilities and how they might reduce the
overlap.
Land remote sensing is an area where the responsibilities lie with
NOAA, USGS, and NASA, with considerable interest from DOD and the
intelligence agencies. The fits and starts with Landsat management
shows that the system is broken, and only now starting to get resolved
with a Landsat sensor flying on a joint NOAA/Airforce satellite
(NPOESS). Once again, I would suggest a Congressional hearing to hear
from all these agencies.
Fisheries management is also a multi-agency problem, mainly between
NOAA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife. This problem is less urgent than the
coastal issues, but still needs to be watched.
Q3. What safeguards can we put in place to ensure NOAA's scientific
independence?
A3. The best safeguard is to make NOAA an independent agency. Short of
doing that, there needs to be a channel for NOAA to appeal scientific
issues--OSTP would be a good option--if there is censorship or
suppression of scientific information.
Q4. What additional duties should the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Science and Technology have?
A4. I believe that H.R. 4546 fully covers the range of duties and
authorities necessary for this position. The key element for success is
to get the right person.
Q5. How can the independence of the NOAA Science Advisory Board be
assured?
A5. I like Dr. Friday's suggestion of appointments in consultation with
the National Academy of Sciences. This could be a good model for this
and other science advisory bodies.
Q6. How should the Nation organize its research and development of
civilian Earth observing satellite programs?
A6. Since NOAA is so critical in providing information and warnings to
the public, I believe it should play a stronger role in civilian Earth
observing systems. But this means adding to the budget of NOAA. For
example, the idea of transferring NASA's Earth observing satellites to
NOAA is good, provided that the funding is also transferred. NASA's
support of Goddard and JPL for Earth remote sensing is also critical
and should not be lost in any case. Thanks to the NPOESS system which
was set up in my administration, the relations between NOAA and DOD/Air
Force are good with respect to weather satellites. The Nation needs a
similar agreement for land remote sensing that includes USGS so that
the Landsat problem can be correctly addressed. The Congress could help
here, as I mentioned earlier, by holding a hearing from all the
agencies involved, NOAA, NASA, USGS and Air Force, to discuss what
relationships and interagency cooperation need to be formed.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Rear Admiral Richard D. West, President, Consortium for
Oceanographic Research and Education
Q1. In your testimony you support the addition of a Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Science and Technology to NOAA's leadership, as called
for in H.R. 4546. Do you believe there are additional duties or
authorities this position should have?
A1. In my overview to the Subcommittee on the results of the work
undertaken by the NOAA Research Review Team, I expressed the review
team's support for the creation of a position that we called Associate
Administrator for Research. This person would report directly to the
NOAA Administrator. Although H.R. 4546 calls for a Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Science and Technology, the position functions are
largely the same. While the bill defines the functions of the position
very clearly, it is still worth emphasizing how important it is that
the person in this position be entrusted with both mission and budget
authority for all NOAA research. CORE and the Research Review Team also
support making this position a career-reserved position.
Q2. In his testimony, Dr. Friday suggested that members of the NOAA
Science Advisory Board be appointed in consultation with the National
Academy of Sciences. His concern is to avoid the Science Advisory Board
being a ``rubber stamp'' for the NOAA Administrator. Is this a major
problem? If so, what are other ways to ensure the independence of the
NOAA Science Advisory Board?
A2. Probably the best way to prevent the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
from acting as a ``rubber stamp'' for the NOAA Administrator is to
ensure that most accomplished and respected members and leaders from
the oceans and atmospheric research communities are appointed to it.
Involving the National Academy of Sciences might be one way to achieve
that goal. The Committee also may wish to consider alternative
nomination or appointment procedures to ensure the independence of the
advisory board members. One approach would be to make the positions
Presidential nominations with Senate confirmation, similar to the
National Science Board of the National Science Foundation.
Question submitted by Democratic Members
Q1. NOAA has had a position of Chief Scientist in the past. Although
qualified people served in this position, the existence of the position
did not appear to have much impact on NOAA's scientific enterprise. If
we created the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science position included
in H.R. 4546, what assurance do we have that whoever assumes the role
will have more success and influence than the former Chief Scientists
at NOAA?
A1. First and foremost, the bill calls for the creation of a career-
reserved position with far greater authority than that with which
current Chief Scientist position is entrusted. If the Deputy Assistant
Secretary position defined in H.R. 4546 is enacted, the position will
carry both mission responsibility and budget authority for all NOAA
research. These two key features of the position, along with the other
seven functions delineated in the legislation would ensure that those
serving in this position would have real and effective authority over
NOAA's research enterprise.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, Jr., Former Assistant
Administrator, National Weather Service
Q1. In your testimony you support the addition of a Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Science and Technology to NOAA's leadership, as called
for in H.R. 4546. Do you believe there are additional duties or
authorities this position should have?
A1. The position should be the equivalent of a corporate Vice President
for Research and Development and not a Chief Scientist as in a previous
NOAA organizational structure. The individual should be charged with
the overall NOAA R&D program, having budgetary authority for the
research and development activities. The individual should be charged
with oversight of the major `programs' for R&D such as the National Sea
Grant College Program, the US Weather Research Program, the Coastal
Ocean Program, etc.
Q2. This committee has received many suggestions about the interaction
of NASA and NOAA, particularly concerning the transition of research to
operations. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended that NASA
transfer operation of research satellites to NOAA once they are
launched. The National Research Council suggested establishing an
interagency NASA-NOAA planning office to facilitate transition of
research satellites into operations. Given the various proposals,
please elaborate on how you think the Nation should organize its
research and development of civilian Earth observing satellite
programs.
A2. In at least two separate reports, the National Research Council has
recommended a formal establishment of a division of mission
responsibilities for Earth remote sensing between NASA and NOAA. One
report recommended the recreation of the very successful Operational
Satellite Improvement Program (OSIP) in which NASA flew development
versions of weather satellite sensors on the NIMBUS spacecraft for
subsequent implementation on the NOAA TIROS weather satellites. The
OSIP program was formally terminated in 1982. The most recent
recommendation was for the development of the NASA-NOAA planning
office. Both recommendations were rejected by the Associate
Administrator for the Earth Sciences Enterprise. Now that there is no
Earth Science Enterprise at NASA, I am even more concerned about NASA's
willingness to continue to develop instruments for future Earth remote
sensing. To specifically answer your question, I believe that NOAA
should be given the mission of developing the technology necessary to
provide for the Earth remote sensing capabilities. This would be a
transfer to NOAA the former NASA ESE mission WITH THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AUTHORITY, CEILING, and APPROPRIATION. The present Integrated Program
Office IPO for NPOESS has proven the possibility of developing and
procuring a major environmental satellite system under NOAA leadership.
The IPO has tapped into the same contractor support capability that has
been used by NASA. This would free NASA to focus fully on its
exploration mission and focus the Earth mission in NOAA.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Richard J. Hirn, General Counsel, National Weather Service
Employees Organization
Q1. All witnesses were asked for their opinion whether the proposed
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science will have more success and
influence than the former Chief Scientists.
A1. The National Weather Service Employees Organization does not feel
that it can offer an authoritative opinion on this issue. However,
NWSEO does note that the Department of Commerce already has at least 29
Deputy, Under, Associate, Assistant and Deputy Assistant Secretaries
for what may be the smallest cabinet department.
Q2. These Committee Members asked whether the organic act should
specify some structure and authorize some positions of responsibility
tied to specific functions other than the National Weather Service,
such as the Fisheries and Oceans Services.
A2. The case for establishing specific agency structures for other
existing line agencies is not as compelling as the case for specific
statutory authority for the National Weather Service. As noted in our
earlier testimony, it is necessary to preserve the identity of the
National Weather Service because it has earned its well deserved public
reputation for the ever increasing timeliness and accuracy of its
forecasts and warnings. Loss of that identity will confuse the public
who have grown to trust the forecasts and warnings issued from ``the
National Weather Service.'' Nonetheless, statutory specification of
other line agencies within NOAA will require DOC to make more specific
budget requests, and would require DOC to reveal specific FTE
allocations, than it would otherwise be required to do if existing NOAA
agencies were fully consolidated. This would enhance Congressional
programmatic and appropriations oversight, and would increase agency
accountability.
However, consolidation of certain existing NOAA agencies based on
their existing functions seems logical. The missions of the NMFS and
NOS overlap in many regards. The Oceans Commission recommended a
restructuring of the entirety of NOAA based on ``Assessment, Prediction
and Operations,'' ``Management'' and ``Research and Education.'' But
the Commission really only considered the oceans function--not the
atmospheric services provided by NOAA. NWSEO suggests that the more
logical restructuring may be to divide NOAA into two separate agencies:
the National Oceanic Administration, which would
include NOS, NMFS, the NOAA Corps and vessels, those OAR labs
whose primary mission in oceanic research and the existing NOAA
Office of General Counsel (whose primary mission is to provide
legal services to NMFS and NOS);
the National Weather Service, which would include
NESDIS (which tracks and command the Nation's weather
satellites), the NOAA Aircraft Operations Center (which flies
hurricane reconnaissance missions), the National Climatic Data
Center, and those OAR labs whose primary mission is atmospheric
research.
The restructuring model proposed by the Oceans Commission could be
applied to the internal structure of these two agencies.
Such a division of NOAA would facilitate Congressional oversight.
Presently, different Committees of the House, and different
Subcommittees of the Senate Commerce Committee, have jurisdiction over
the oceanic and atmospheric portions of NOAA. This restructuring would
more closely align the agency with the Congressional committee
structure.
NWSEO recognizes that such a division of NOAA into two agencies
would not be consistent with the recognition that the oceans and the
atmosphere are an integrated ecosystem. However, an integrated NOAA
will not be able to administer a comprehensive ecosystem management
plan because it will still not have jurisdiction over land and
tributaries. The agencies who are responsible for these systems, the
Forest Service, the National Geologic Survey, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, remain in other cabinet departments. Furthermore, although the
``wet'' side of NOAA is responsible for ensuring the environmental
quality of the oceans through stewardship and environmental
enforcement, the atmospheric side of NOAA has no responsibility for the
environmental quality of the air, because the EPA enforces the Clean
Air Act. While the ``wet'' side of NOAA has a clear environmental
protection mission, the National Weather Service is primarily a public
safety, rather than an environmental, agency. NWSEO believes that the
public will be better served by two smaller, flatter, agencies, rather
than one, larger, hierarchical agency.