    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
                          ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION'S
                        FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 30, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-12

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    36-093PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois                Ranking Member
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             MO BROOKS, Alabama
    AMI BERA, California,                BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan              ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
    KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma                RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 JIM BAIRD, Indiana
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                   Rico
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                VACANCY
    KATIE HILL, California
    BEN McADAMS, Utah
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
                                     ------

                          Subcommittee on Environment

                    HON. LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas, Chairwoman
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas, Ranking
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania                 Member
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JIM BAIRD, Indiana
    BEN McADAMS, Utah                    JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
    DON BEYER, Virginia                      Rico

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                 April 30, 2019

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

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     9
        Written statement............................................    11

    Statement by Representative Roger Marshall, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    13
        Written statement............................................    14

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    16
        Written statement............................................    18

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    20
        Written statement............................................    21

                                    Witness:

    The Honorable Neil Jacobs, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of Commerce
      for Environmental Observation and Prediction, performing the
      duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
      Atmosphere, NOAA
        Oral statement...............................................    23
        Written statement............................................    26

    Discussion.......................................................    31

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    The Honorable Neil Jacobs, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of Commerce
      for Environmental Observation and Prediction, performing the
      duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
      Atmosphere, NOAA...............................................    44

                      A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
                      ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL
                            YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019

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

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lizzie
    Fletcher [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fletcher. This hearing will come to order.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time.
        Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing entitled, ``A
    Review of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
    Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request.'' I would like to welcome Dr.
    Neil Jacobs to the Committee and thank him for coming to
    testify today on the President's budget request for Fiscal Year
    2020 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
    NOAA.
        NOAA's mission is to ``understand and predict changes in
    climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, to share that knowledge
    and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal
    and marine ecosystems and resources.'' NOAA strives to meet
    this mission through its six line offices that collect
    environmental observations through satellites and specialized
    marine vessels and aircraft; analyze, store, and disseminate
    this data; provide weather forecasts and climate predictions;
    protect our coastal and marine resources; and conduct cutting-
    edge scientific research.
        Many Americans utilize NOAA's publicly available data on a
    daily basis. That is why NOAA's budget request for Fiscal Year
    2020 of $4.5 billion, an almost 18 percent decrease from the
    $5.4 billion provided in the Fiscal Year 2019 enacted budget,
    is deeply alarming. Every line office within NOAA received net
    decreases to their top-line budgets, with significant cuts to
    both NOAA research programs and extramural research grants.
        Many of our constituents are already dealing with impacts
    of climate change, such as sea-level rise, heavy rainfall, and
    rising temperatures in both our oceans and atmosphere. The
    National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated report
    published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, describes
    these and other risks and impacts arising from climate change
    across the United States, in addition to examining the latest
    climate science. The U.S. Global Change Research Program is
    supported by funding contributions from the Federal member
    agencies.
        The increased frequency of severe weather events that are
    impacting every part of the country is also described in the
    National Climate Assessment. We must continue to support
    efforts to enhance both our weather forecasting and climate
    prediction capabilities, which are based on long-term records
    of environmental observation. Across-the-board funding cuts
    endanger NOAA's ability to continue to collect, analyze, store,
    and disseminate this critical data. In order to sustain this
    data stream, we must provide robust and consistent funding for
    data collected by in-situ and remote-sensing platforms.
        The U.S. has been the leader in weather forecasting and
    climate prediction not only because of our cutting-edge weather
    models, but also our uninterrupted record of environmental
    observations and measurements that span decades, which feed our
    models and help provide better, more accurate forecasts.
    Additionally, NOAA has seen large improvements in forecasts by
    focusing on the transition of weather research conducted at
    line offices such as the Office for Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Research, to operations at the National Weather Service.
        The draconian cuts of over 40 percent to the Office of
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would include the complete
    elimination of NOAA's portion of funding for the National
    Climate Assessment. These funding cuts would also significantly
    reduce both intramural and extramural research, and slow down
    the critical research to operations transition.
        Stakeholders in decisionmaking roles at State and local
    levels, including emergency managers, utilize many of the
    products and services developed across NOAA. When Hurricane
    Harvey hit my district in 2017, the National Hurricane Center
    provided direct support to on-the-ground emergency managers and
    to other decisionmakers in Houston and across Texas and
    Louisiana.
        The National Weather Service also issued its first-ever
    storm surge watches and warnings during Harvey. These storm
    surge watches and warnings had been under development over the
    past several years. It is important to note that there were no
    storm-surge related deaths from Hurricane Harvey, a category 4
    hurricane. The proposed cuts in this budget to the National
    Weather Service could negatively impact these existing
    successful interactions with local stakeholders.
        The benefits of a well-funded NOAA are clear, which is why
    I am concerned that the widespread cuts proposed in this budget
    will impact NOAA's ability to meet its mission. Consistent and
    reliable funding is required to make significant improvements
    to our weather and climate models, which can be decades in the
    making, and ensure continuous collection of environmental
    observations.
        I'm glad to know that Congress will have the final say on
    the budgets of Federal agencies so that we can ensure that NOAA
    can continue to meet its critical mission by providing robust
    funding to an agency that touches the lives of every American
    on a daily basis. I hope today's discussion will shed some
    light on how this budget will help support NOAA's long-term
    priorities.
        I look forward to a productive discussion with Dr. Jacobs
    to better understand the Administration's justification for its
    proposed Fiscal Year 2020 budget for NOAA. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Fletcher follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fletcher. The Chair now recognizes Ranking
    Member Marshall for an opening statement.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, for holding
    this hearing today. It is important that we, as Members of
    Congress, remember it's the responsibility of Congress to vet
    budget requests, hear from the relevant agency leaders, and
    make the final decision on funding levels.
        I also want to add my thanks to Dr. Neil Jacobs for being
    here today and for his continued service. Coming from the
    private sector, Dr. Jacobs brings a unique and valuable
    perspective to NOAA. On top of that, he's graciously taken on
    the responsibility of being the acting head of NOAA, performing
    the duties of Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
    Atmosphere.
        NOAA has a wide-ranging mission from fisheries management
    to atmospheric observation. Their products and services have a
    tremendous economic impact and affect more than one-third of
    America's gross domestic product.
        As we've heard, the President's budget request for NOAA is
    $5.4 billion, an 18 percent decrease from last year's enacted
    funding. Like all other agencies and departments, NOAA was
    forced to make tough decisions, but the budget request reflects
    an attempt to be more efficient in its delivery of services in
    a constrained budgetary environment.
        One area I'm pleased to see prioritized is NOAA's research
    in improving forecasting. America's leadership has slipped in
    severe weather forecasting, and European weather models
    routinely predict America's weather better than we can.
    Critical weather data is a lifeline for many of my constituents
    that make their living in the agriculture industry.
        This spring, NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory will
    join with several partners in the Environmental Profiling and
    Initiation of Convection, or EPIC, field project. I'm
    particularly interested to hear how this project, authorized by
    this Committee last Congress and supported in the President's
    budget proposal, could have an impact on agriculture and
    production.
        I do have some modest concerns about the growth of NOAA's
    satellite division, the National Environmental Satellite Data
    Information Services, or NESDIS. At $1.4 billion, or roughly 33
    percent of NOAA's total R&D budget, it's the largest and
    highest-funded area. Not too long ago, in 2008, the satellite
    budget came in at under $1 billion. Let me say, I do think this
    increase is warranted, as NESDIS provides critical data and
    services, but we must ensure the office is equipped to handle
    this booming growth and use all resources in the most efficient
    way.
        NOAA is a mission-oriented agency, and this Committee
    supports these core priorities. We face fiscal constraints that
    force us to make difficult choices about our science and
    technology services. I believe that this Committee, regardless
    of a political affiliation, should always support NOAA's desire
    to emphasize protecting life and property.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
        The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the full
    Committee, Ms. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Chair Fletcher,
    and good morning, everyone. I'd like also to welcome Dr. Jacobs
    and thank him for being here today to testify on NOAA's Fiscal
    Year 2020 budget request.
        For decades, NOAA's research and services have played a
    critical role in protecting American lives through accurate
    weather forecasting and climate prediction, improving our
    environmental knowledge and stewardship, and supporting a
    thriving United States economy. It seems obvious to say that
    the NOAA budget should reflect its mission and ensure NOAA can
    fulfill its obligations to the American people.
        NOAA's mission is ``to understand and predict changes in
    climate, weather, oceans, and coasts; to share that knowledge
    and information with others; and to conserve and manage coastal
    and marine ecosystems and resources.'' Yet NOAA's budget
    request for Fiscal Year 2020 is $1 billion lower than its
    current budget, which is an 18 percent reduction. These cuts
    are felt across nearly every program and activity across the
    agency. This budget would also terminate approximately 547
    civilian positions. How will NOAA deliver on its mission with
    these drastic cuts?
        We don't have time to go into every detail, so I'd like to
    use part of my time to highlight some of the greatest concerns.
    The first is with NOAA's delivery on climate research. Climate
    change is real and happening right now. Rising temperatures and
    sea levels, and changes in ocean chemistry and ecosystems, pose
    a real threat to public health. These climate impacts also
    affect the management of our fisheries and coasts and the
    overall resiliency of our communities to extreme weather
    events. NOAA's activities, tools, and services are central to
    our ability to understand, to adapt to, and mitigate the
    impacts of a changing climate.
        As climate and severe weather events increase in frequency
    and intensity, so do the costs to human lives and the economy.
    In 2017, a record-breaking year, the U.S. had 16 weather and
    climate events that each cost at least $1 billion and a total
    cost of $300 billion and 362 fatalities. This budget proposes
    to cut almost $500 million from its climate laboratories and
    cooperatives--institutes and nearly dismantles NOAA's Climate
    Program Office. How will this impact the ability of communities
    across the United States to prepare for and respond to climate
    change and severe weather?
        It also proposes to eliminate the agency's funding for the
    National Climate Assessments. These assessments represent years
    of work and extensive review. In our first full Committee
    hearing on the State of Climate Science, we heard from experts
    who contributed to the Fourth National Climate Assessment. What
    does it mean when the leading Federal agency studying the
    climate drops out of the main Federal report on climate change?
    I look forward to hearing from Dr. Jacobs on how NOAA intends
    to continue working on this congressionally mandated report
    without any dedicated funding for it.
        I recognize that Dr. Jacobs was given a tough budget
    proposal from the Administration and had to make some difficult
    decisions. But we need to think about the lives at risk, and
    the potential economic and environmental harm of such a reduced
    budget.
        I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson.
        The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
    Committee, Mr. Lucas, for an opening statement.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, for holding this
    hearing on NOAA's FY2020 budget request. NOAA has a broad array
    of responsibilities, ranging from weather forecasting and
    climate prediction to ocean and atmospheric observation. NOAA's
    work benefits America's farmers, ranchers, coastal communities,
    disaster personnel, land-use planners, weather forecasters, and
    Americans across the country. NOAA's research and publicly
    available data has immense economic impact.
        The President's budget proposal for NOAA reflects difficult
    decisions made across the Federal Government. I appreciate the
    effort of the Administration to submit a proposal that
    emphasizes NOAA's core priorities, principally, protecting life
    and property. Beyond these basic functions, NOAA is
    prioritizing other areas within its jurisdiction, including
    improving agency efficiencies for satellite management,
    maximizing the economic contributions of our coastal and marine
    resources, and reducing the impacts of extreme weather
    incidents.
        We have heard concerns about some of the proposed cuts
    included in this request. I would remind my colleagues that the
    President's budget request is just a starting point for our
    discussions, and we're here today to learn more about how to
    best prioritize NOAA's resources. It's also important to note
    that in recent years Congress has decided to fund NOAA at a
    higher level than the President's budget request.
        Many of our constituents are interested in NOAA's work,
    particularly the National Weather Service. Oklahoma is home to
    cutting-edge research on weather forecasting and climate
    prediction. Last month, I had the opportunity to tour the
    University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to learn about the
    research being conducted in partnership with NOAA.
        I also toured the National Weather Center in Oklahoma and
    heard from many dedicated researchers working to improve our
    weather forecasting abilities. There was one unmistakable
    conclusion from this trip: The work done by the National
    Weather Service is very important and must be a focus of this
    Committee's work in this Congress.
        As a rancher--and, in all fairness, my wife prefers to
    refer to me as a farmer; she's the rancher--I can tell you that
    accurate weather prediction is critical for our Nation's
    agricultural producers. So I have a keen interest in the
    Committee's work to help improve weather forecasting. During
    the 115th Congress, this Committee passed my Weather Research
    and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017, which was subsequently
    passed into law and is being implemented by NOAA. I look
    forward to hearing about NOAA's continued implementation
    efforts for this Act.
        I want to thank Dr. Jacobs for appearing before the
    Subcommittee today. His enthusiasm for his work is apparent,
    and he brings a unique perspective to NOAA's leadership thanks
    to his extensive experience in the private sector.
        Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
        If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
        At this time, I would like to introduce our witness. Dr.
    Neil Jacobs was confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of
    Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction in
    February 2018. He's been performing the duties of Under
    Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere since February
    2019.
        Prior to joining NOAA, Dr. Jacobs was the Chief Atmospheric
    Scientist at Panasonic Avionics Corporation. He was also
    previously the Chair of the American Meteorological Society's
    Forecast Improvement Group and served on the World
    Meteorological Organization's aircraft-based observing team.
        Dr. Jacobs has a bachelor's degree in mathematics and
    physics from the University of South Carolina and a master's
    and doctoral degree in atmospheric science from North Carolina
    State University.
        Dr. Jacobs, you will have 5 minutes for your spoken
    testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the
    record for the hearing. When you've completed your spoken
    testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will have
    5 minutes to question you.
        Dr. Jacobs, you may begin your testimony.

                      TESTIMONY OF DR. NEIL JACOBS,

                  ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR

               ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATION AND PREDICTION,

                PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF UNDER SECRETARY

              OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NOAA

        Dr. Jacobs. Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking Member, Members of
    the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
        The President's FY2020 budget request for NOAA is $111
    million above the FY2019 request and emphasizes core programs
    while making targeted investments, which we believe will
    produce a substantial return for the American taxpayer.
        Accelerating advancements in global modeling program is a
    top priority. While there have been many achievements in 2018,
    problems exist with the current structure of weather research
    to operations. The internal and external strategy is fractured,
    the computing procurement process is cumbersome, and the
    funding process disincentives collaboration. The FY2020 request
    addresses many of these challenges through the creation of the
    Earth Prediction Innovation Center, or EPIC.
        Based on the Weather Research and Forecast Innovation Act
    of 2017 and recently authorized in the National Integrated
    Drought Information System (NIDIS) Reauthorization Act of 2018,
    EPIC will serve as a hub for building and maintaining a true
    community model. EPIC's innovative structure will link
    scientists and software engineers in academia, private
    industry, and partner agencies with research, development, and
    operational activities inside of NOAA. EPIC will significantly
    enhance our ability to access external expertise,
    reestablishing preeminence of U.S. forecast model skill, and
    improving our ability to provide accurate watches and warnings.
        The NOAA Satellite Observing System Architecture study, or
    NSOSA, which was completed in 2017, analyzed various approaches
    to better meet mission requirements of greater flexibility,
    responsiveness, and incorporate and involve--evolving
    technologies. Congress recognized the importance of NSOSA,
    codifying the program in the NIDIS Reauthorization Act of 2018.
    The budget initiates NSOSA implementation with investments to
    evaluate innovative space-based solutions and partnerships,
    including $12.3 million for joint venture partnerships and
    hosted payloads on geostationary and polar orbits. It also
    continues the importance of the Commercial Weather Data Pilot
    program, as well as $5 million for the option to purchase data
    after successful testing.
        This budget makes necessary investments for strong coastal
    communities and economies and includes an increase in $2.3
    million for regional fishery management councils to analyze and
    remove outdated or ineffective regulations. To help level the
    playing field for U.S. commercial fishermen in the global
    seafood marketplace, an additional $1.6 million is requested to
    enforce the Seafood Import Monitoring Program and prevent the
    importation of seafood caught using illegal fishing practices.
        Finally, the budget includes an increase of $3.6 million to
    support aquaculture by assisting industry with regulatory
    compliance, conducted research, and insured American-farmed
    fish are safe and sustainable.
        Executive Order 13840 established a National Ocean Policy
    focused on providing tools to coastal communities to
    substantially manage their offshore waters. The budget includes
    an additional $4 million for ocean data platforms, building on
    innovative tools developed by NOAA to improve siting of
    offshore activities.
        NOAA has made great strides in the past 2 years to reduce
    the amount of time needed for environmental review. The time to
    complete formal and informal Endangered Species Act
    consultations was reduced by over 22 and 65 percent,
    respectively. Incidental harassment authorizations under the
    Marine Mammal Protection Act have been reduced by 25 percent.
    The FY2020 budget builds on this success by providing an
    additional $3 million to further reduce the timeline for
    consultations and permits.
        Other sections in the Blue Economy that this budget
    addresses include marine transportation through additional
    precision navigation data, efforts to reduce marine debris,
    accelerating economic benefits of the new and expanded marine
    sanctuaries, and reducing the backlog of natural resource
    damage assessment cases.
        Finally, this budget includes $5 million for the National
    Oceanographic Partnership Program. We intend to use these funds
    to leverage investments from other Federal agencies, private
    industry, philanthropic organizations that have shared interest
    in advancing ocean research. These funds can be used for a
    variety of partnerships ranging from ocean exploration to new
    technology to detect and protect marine mammals.
        NOAA's services touch every American every day. I believe
    this budget request meets NOAA's core mission of protecting
    lives and property, while also positioning the agency to be
    more effective in moving forward.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
    would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Jacobs follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs.
        At this point, we will begin our first round of questions,
    and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I have two general categories of questions, so I'm going to
    try to move through them fairly quickly, Dr. Jacobs. The first
    is on the impact of the budget request to NOAA's mission and
    global leadership.
        Despite NOAA's stated priorities of reducing the impacts of
    extreme weather and water events, maximizing the economic
    contributions of ocean and coastal resources, and advancing
    space innovation, the President's budget for Fiscal Year 2020
    requests a total of $4.5 billion for NOAA, which is 18 percent
    below the Fiscal Year 2019 enacted budget, as we heard
    previously.
        A few questions if you could touch on these, how does NOAA
    intend to meet its mission and priorities with reduced funding
    for every single line office of the agency? How can the U.S.
    remain a global leader in weather forecasting, climate
    prediction, and oceanic and atmospheric research given these
    significant cuts across the board at NOAA? And how will NOAA
    continue to support robust private-sector and academic research
    in the ocean and atmospheric sciences with reduced funding for
    extramural grants throughout the agency?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, the FY2020 request, just going across the
    board, the climate is $88 million, oceans are $98 million, and
    weather is $110 million. I would like to say that a lot of the
    research we're doing on the weather forecasting aspect, we're
    transitioning to a unified forecasting system, which is also--
    the weather model is going to double as a dynamic core for our
    climate model. So while we're funding the research for the
    weather model, that's actually going to benefit the dynamic
    climate modeling system.
        On the weather forecasting side, currently the U.S. is not
    considered the leader. We're actually lagging the European
    Center, and that was the basis for the Earth Prediction
    Innovation Center, which actually sort of answers your last
    question. So the idea in this center would be to harness
    external development through universities and private industry
    and give developers for the model code a cloud-based sandbox so
    to speak to do collaborative model development, so it would
    harness a lot of what's in private industry as well.
        And then on the ocean side, we have the National
    Oceanographic Partnership Program, which would also leverage
    private investment to help further some of our research.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you. And switching gears, the
    other topic that I want to cover with you with the remainder of
    my time is reductions in funding for Hurricane Forecast
    Improvement Project. This Fiscal Year 2020 budget request would
    slow the development of the Next-Generation Global Prediction
    System and Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project by reducing
    research grants for the collaborative research activities and
    NOAA's testbeds. The budget request notes that this $2.1
    million reduction may be offset by the additional funding for
    the Earth Prediction Innovation Center, but it is not clear
    whether that will be the case.
        Hurricane Harvey inflicted $125 billion of damage in
    Houston and southeast Texas, and hurricanes are predicted to
    increase in frequency and intensity with the changing climate.
    Timely and accurate hurricane forecasting will be essential to
    protecting life and property in the face of these oncoming
    disasters.
        Dr. Jacobs, how can NOAA ensure that our communities are
    equipped with the best possible hurricane forecasts given this
    funding cut to the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project and
    the rising threats from more intense and frequent storms?
        Dr. Jacobs. So on the modeling side--so I'll break it in--I
    break it down into three sections to improve the hurricane
    forecasting. We have model code development, which we're doing
    through EPIC now. That includes the Finite Volume Cubed Sphere
    (FV3), which is our global model that we use for hurricane
    track. It also is ultimately going to be the model that we
    transition from the WRF (Weather and Research Forecast) Model,
    which is our hurricane intensity model, to the FV3.
        I'd also like to mention the storm surge forecasting. This
    is something that's really critical. A lot of people don't
    realize when they think of hurricanes, they think about high
    winds, but it's actually the water that is responsible for the
    deaths of most individuals. We have a very sophisticated storm
    surge forecasting model that we're working on. That's actually
    funded through the National Weather Service. Even though it
    would be research, it's funded and it's used operationally in
    issuing watches and warnings.
        The next step--you know, so going back to the observation
    side, we are acquiring more ship observations. We're outfitting
    an acquisition of a second backup capability with the G4
    aircraft. We'll have both of our P3 Hurricane Hunters in
    operation this year.
        The thing that I'd really like to highlight is the National
    Water Model. So one of the things that we haven't done yet but
    we're working on and we've--we saw this in Harvey and we'll
    see--we saw it in Florence and we'll likely see it again is the
    integration between the inland flooding and the storm surge. So
    one of the things a lot of individuals don't realize is,
    particularly in the case of Florence, when these storms produce
    a tremendous amount of rainfall, that rain has to exit the
    coast. And if there's onshore sustained winds from a storm
    surge, the water just piles up. So we're in the process of
    coupling our storm surge models with the National Water Model.
    That's something that we're going to be working on with the
    USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) and the stream gauge data that
    they provide. And while it won't be operational this year, I
    think that that's really going to show some improvements in the
    future.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. And I see that
    my time has expired, so I'll now recognize Ranking Member
    Marshall for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Chairwoman, again.
        Dr. Jacobs, we have a saying back home in Kansas that if
    you don't like the weather, just wait an hour. And then my
    question is how does your new Earth Prediction Innovation
    Center, going to help my constituents, my farmers more
    particularly?
        And just to give you one example, people think of
    agriculture and weather as all that matters is if it's raining
    or not, but take something as simple as alfalfa. You cut the
    alfalfa, there's probably about an hour or two each day that
    the humidity is maximum for locking in all the protein in those
    leaves. If you wait too long, it dries out. If you wait too
    long beyond that, it's going to--that afternoon thunderstorm is
    going to pop up. And if you do it too soon, there's too much
    moisture in it. So how are you--how is this EPIC going to
    impact my farmers?
        Dr. Jacobs. So on--well, there's a couple different ways,
    so starting from the longer range and coming back into the
    shorter range, we are actually looking at seasonal to sub-
    seasonal forecasting with the dynamic climate models, as well
    as some statistical models. I think for long-range decisions in
    agriculture, that's going to be very helpful.
        On the shorter range with the convective-allowing models,
    we're going to be looking at doing probabilistic forecasting.
    Right now, the capability to predict a tornado is not within
    the science, but we can predict the probability of a tornado.
    And so we have a couple of things we're working on here. One of
    them is what we call warn-on forecast where instead of actually
    waiting to see when the tornado appears on radar, we actually
    have the capability in the forecasting to simulate rotation in
    the thunderstorms and issue warnings before the tornadoes
    appear on the radar. That can extend the lead time slightly.
        The other thing is social sciences. So one of the things
    that we learned in some of the social science research was that
    humans aren't necessarily rational, and we have to think really
    smart about how we message the warning. If--you know, if we
    give someone enough lead time to make a decision but on the
    other hand if we give them a lot of lead time, they might not
    make the same decisions. So the last step of this is actually
    interfacing with the emergency management community and also
    looking at the social science aspect of it.
        Your statement about the moisture in the crops is
    interesting and also actually ties into the land surface
    modeling. So one of the things we've noticed with the land
    surface modeling is that the transpiration in plants over
    fields versus plowed fields can actually induce convective
    activity, so this is something that we're looking at, but it's
    at a very high resolution. And some of the satellite data we
    collect is critical to this.
        Mr. Marshall. OK. Maybe we'll move on here. I'm sure we
    continue to have that discussion. There's more to talk about.
    But next, as I understand, NOAA is fast approaching the end of
    its current contract for its Weather and Climate Operational
    Supercomputing System, WCOSS--I'm sure you've got a
    pronunciation for that--a priority of this Administration, and
    we'll need to enter into a new contract. Can you explain the
    importance of this system for NOAA's mission, and are there any
    limitations in how NOAA must enter new contracts such as the
    ability to enter multi-year contracts to reduce costs?
        Dr. Jacobs. So WCOSS is critical to our mission. This is
    our high-performance computing (HPC) where we run all of our
    operational models. The procurement process is a little bit
    tricky. Typically, we will go through a third-party vendor to
    do the procurement, but when they do the procurement, they
    actually acquire the hardware from the actual vendors. And so
    what happens is when they--when this procurement agent goes to
    acquire the hardware from the vendors, they don't want to get
    stuck holding the bill, so they will actually ask us to put
    what's called a cancellation liability fee, essentially money
    in escrow to protect them in the very rare chance we might back
    out of the contract.
        What happens is we have to essentially park $50 million in
    escrow to protect them from us backing out. That $50 million is
    $50 million less of HPC that we actually can use for computing
    resources. And if we're on a 3-year rolling renewal of the
    lease cycle, we'll almost have to have this money parked
    indefinitely to protect us from that.
        Mr. Marshall. OK. Thank you so much. I'll yield back the
    remainder of my time.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much.
        I will now recognize Chairwoman Johnson for 5 minutes.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Jacobs, you might know that I chaired a hearing on
    NASA's Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request earlier this month, and
    one of the Members asked about FCC's (Federal Communications
    Commission's) 5G spectrum auction at the 24 gigahertz band.
    Administrator Bridenstine was very clear in saying that
    potential bleed over into weather data channels could take us
    back to the 1970s in terms of weather forecast. He mentioned a
    study that NASA did in conjunction with NOAA that determined
    that it's a very high probability that we are going to lose a
    lot of data.
        Do you have any reaction to Mr. Bridenstine's response, and
    what is NOAA's current state of play on the issue, and what are
    we doing to mitigate any potential interference?
        Dr. Jacobs. So the potential interference in the 24
    gigahertz spectrum is essentially out-of-bounds emission from
    the adjacent spectrum. Now, we do passive water vapor sensing
    from our polar orbiting satellites, and if the out-of-bounds
    emissions thresholds are too large, essentially these
    instruments will just blind our satellites and we won't be able
    to detect water vapor.
        We are currently--so our subject matter experts are looking
    at the proposed minus 20 decibel watts of out-of-bound emission
    proposed by the FCC. Our subject matter experts, along with
    NASA subject matter experts and subject matter experts from the
    FCC are collectively collaborating on a study. They're actively
    doing that right now. The results of that study will be decided
    upon on May 15, whereby we will ultimately make a decision on
    what the acceptable out-of-bounds emissions is to protect
    future spectrum. Right now, the number is in flux because
    there's a lot of assumptions that go into the study, but we
    should have a definitive answer in the next couple weeks.
        Chairwoman Johnson. If this budget is enacted, would NOAA
    continue to participate in the NCA (National Climate
    Assessment) process in the absence of the dedicated funding?
        Dr. Jacobs. Absolutely. So we--this won't limit our
    participation in NCA 5 at all. There's several other agencies.
    I would like to note that the NCA budget for NCA 1, 2, and 3
    was originally produced without a budget line, so I don't see
    this impacting our ability to provide expertise and data for
    NCA 5 at all.
        Chairwoman Johnson. OK. With the proposed budget, what do
    you predict would be the impacts that you would have to face?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, a lot of the cuts were made to external
    research grants in favor of maintaining core capabilities so
    that we wouldn't degrade our ability to deliver on our mission.
    So external research, as it pertains to universities and such,
    would likely take the largest hit. Maintaining our core
    capabilities is obviously a top priority, and the core
    capabilities within this budget will be maintained.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Now, this budget proposes to
    aggressively cut grants as it relates to students and graduate
    students for--which really helps to create your manpower. How
    do you plan to address that?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, there's a lot of opportunities through
    external partnerships, through public-private partnerships, as
    well as the public-private partnerships collaborating with
    industry, and then using a lot of industry funding to drive
    academic research. So that's the crux of EPIC, the Earth
    Prediction Innovation Center, and also the backbone of NOPP,
    the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
        Chairwoman Johnson. You have knowledge of this industry
    spending coming about?
        Dr. Jacobs. I do. So when I was at Panasonic, I actually
    did a lot of collaborative model development with the Weather
    Service. We also, through industry, funded five different
    universities, including PIs (principal investigators) and
    postdocs to do research. Granted, we had a financial interest
    as a private company, but the ultimate benefiter was the
    Weather Service in helping improve some of their forecast
    models, as well as different PIs at universities and their
    students who wanted to get research publications out.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. My time is expired.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson.
        I'll now recognize Ranking Member Lucas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman.
        Dr. Jacobs, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation
    Act of 2017, which I sponsored along with many of my colleagues
    here today, prioritized commercial weather data to improve our
    forecast skills. I understand NOAA is continuing the Commercial
    Weather Data Pilot program. Could you discuss with us for a bit
    what is the status of the program, and does NOAA plan to buy
    this data after it's tested?
        Dr. Jacobs. Yes. So thank you very much for the Weather
    Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, as well as the NIDIS
    Reauthorization.
        The Commercial--the Weather Data Pilot program, what we've
    learned through testing is that the GPS-RO (radio occultation)
    data that we were collecting adds value. We haven't quantified
    exactly how much, but we know that it adds enough value to make
    sense to enter into a contract to acquire the data, so we'll be
    transitioning that from a pilot program to an actual data
    acquisition program. The pilot program will still exist, and
    we're using that to explore space-based data sets beyond GPS-
    RO, for example, possibly hyperspectral sound or instruments
    like that.
        Mr. Lucas. Doctor, during my tour of the University of
    Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, I heard from several of my
    constituents that we are potentially on the cusp of a
    breakthrough in our ability to forecast short and long-term
    weather. And I know this is a topic that my colleagues have
    discussed also, but do you agree with this sentiment, and what
    steps can this Committee take to help assist NOAA and the
    private partners in this endeavor?
        Dr. Jacobs. We are very close to making some major leaps
    forward. The primary difference between us and the European
    Center, which is the modeling agency that we're always compared
    to, is the data assimilation of the model. So while I just
    spoke earlier on the upgrade to the dynamic core, we haven't
    upgraded the data assimilation system yet. We're expecting
    that. It's probably 1-1/2 to 2 years away, but we have to
    upgrade a lot of the infrastructure and architecture around the
    software, including the dynamic core, before we upgrade the
    data assimilation system. That's where I think you're going to
    see the biggest leap forward and improvement in forecast skill,
    in addition to that, transitioning all of the code to cloud-
    based architecture.
        One of the biggest hurdles in harnessing external
    collaborator development is they don't have login credentials
    to our machines because of various security requirements, so
    that--the best way to solve the problem was to move the model
    code to a compute architecture that they had access to external
    to NOAA. And I think once that transition is finished, you'll
    see development rapidly occur.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. One last question, thinking
    about the Chairwoman's questions about the spectrum and
    frequency, this Committee has a long history of supporting
    investments in NOAA's satellite systems. If the FCC is going to
    auction off parts of the spectrum that affect the utility of
    the systems, is it worth continuing to fund these billion-
    dollar satellites, Doctor?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, we'll--ultimately, we'll have to wait
    until the final number is decided on the out-of-bounds
    emissions limits, and then we can actually use that number to
    determine how much of the data will be impacted. And once we
    determine how much data is impacted, then we can do an actual
    assessment on whether or not we can meet the mission
    requirements. If it's impacted such that we can't meet the
    mission requirements, then it would be prudent to rethink the
    investments in future polar orbiting satellites.
        Mr. Lucas. And that would be a shame if we lost all those
    billions of dollars in investment and that I would hope the
    other areas of the Federal Government are paying as close
    attention to this issue as you are, Doctor. Thank you very
    much.
        I yield back the balance of my time, Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas.
        I will now recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, and thank you,
    Dr. Jacobs, for joining us today.
        As the global climate crisis continues to press devastation
    beyond our shores and into our communities, countless
    businesses, local news stations, and millions of Americans
    depend upon scientific forecasting from 4,200 National Weather
    Service employees to stay safe. With that in mind, I have some
    major concerns about National Weather Service understaffing.
        In its Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal, the agency sought
    to eliminate 355 positions in the NWS, including 248 frontline
    forecasters, 20 percent of all forecasters, in the NWS's 122
    forecast offices nationwide. Congress soundly rejected these
    proposed reductions, and the House Appropriations Committees
    directed the National Weather Service to continue to hire in
    2019 and to have additional FTEs (full-time employees) on board
    by the end of the fiscal year.
        However, according to reports the agency has provided to
    the National Weather Service employees union, the number of
    FTEs at the NWS is essentially unchanged from the beginning of
    the fiscal year. There were, in fact, fewer nonsupervisory,
    nonmanagerial employees at the NWS at the close of pay period 5
    in 2019--March 16, 2019, to be specific--than there were when
    the fiscal year began. NOAA has once again proposed to
    eliminate some 355 positions in the NWS in its Fiscal Year 2020
    budget request.
        So my question is, is the NWS intentionally failing to fill
    vacancies at the NWS in anticipation that Congress will
    eventually approve this request?
        Dr. Jacobs. So the--during the shutdown--so typically
    this--this shutdown occurred during the end of the year, across
    the end of the year, so a lot of times when individuals retire,
    we will see that happen at the end of December. So prior to the
    shutdown and resuming after the shutdown, this was the first
    time since 2011 that the hiring has actually outpaced
    attrition. We haven't fully gotten back to the number that we
    recovered from what we saw during the shutdown, but during
    FY2019, the onboard rate right now is roughly 91.5 percent.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, will you be committing to doing the
    remaining percent?
        Dr. Jacobs. Yes, we are committed to trying to close that
    gap, but we're also battling attrition and retirement at the
    same time.
        Mr. Tonko. Right, which is nothing new----
        Dr. Jacobs. No, that's expected.
        Mr. Tonko. OK. Last year, the agency informed the
    Appropriations Committee that there were 381 funded vacant
    positions at the NWS. What other items have to be done or what
    other forces have to be engaged to experience progress in
    filling these vacancies? I mean, you described some, but what
    else are you going to do for that percentage that are yet
    unfilled?
        Dr. Jacobs. So if--when you see the cuts in there, that
    actually is largely offset by some money that we're going to
    save by reducing the need to move individuals around, so we
    just recently implemented what's called GS 5 through 12, which
    is a career progression, to go from the GS all--for GS 5 all
    the way to 12.
        Typically, historically, a lot of times what would happen
    is a Weather Service forecaster, in order to receive a
    promotion, would have to move from one forecast office to
    another forecast office. And then many times we would actually
    have to pay the--pay for that move, in some cases buy their
    house. It ended up costing us around $12-$15 million a year.
    With the new GS 5 through 12 career progression, we actually
    will save money.
        Mr. Tonko. Has this all been done in consultation with the
    employees?
        Dr. Jacobs. Yes, this went through the employees union.
        Mr. Tonko. And what effect has the recent shutdown--you
    mentioned that the shutdown was part of the delay, but what--
    can you describe with more detail what the recent shutdown had
    as an impact on hiring at the National Weather Service?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, the--you know, like I was speaking to
    earlier, typically, individuals will work through the end of
    the calendar year, so we see the most retirement right at the
    end of the year, and so that happened to coincide with the
    shutdown. So while they were retiring, there was, you know,
    simultaneously a delay in onboarding people. There was not just
    a delay in the direct hiring but a delay in the onboarding
    process. So the people who were actually already hired but not
    fully onboarded, that process was also delayed, and we're still
    digging out of that right now.
        Mr. Tonko. So what happens if we have a future shutdown,
    and what impact can we anticipate or have we learned from that
    shutdown?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, it really depends on when it is during
    the calendar year. If it happens during the--in the end of the
    calendar year across a transition, then we'll likely see a
    fairly large number of retirements that we will, you know, be
    delayed in onboarding new individuals and, you know, once the
    lapse in appropriation is over.
        Mr. Tonko. Madam Chair, I have exhausted my time, so I
    yield back.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much.
        I'll now recognize Mr. Babin for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it.
        And, Dr. Jacobs, I appreciate you being here today as well.
        Can you please talk a little bit about NOAA's relationship
    with NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)? Are
    there opportunities to be more involved in utilizing one
    another's capabilities in the area of weather forecasting and
    predictions, and what could these relationships look like down
    the road?
        Dr. Jacobs. So NASA, we have a fantastic relationship with
    NASA. The two agencies are very collaborative and work on a lot
    of different fronts. I think most people would think of the
    NOAA-NASA collaboration when it comes to our satellite
    programs, whether it's----
        Mr. Babin. Right.
        Dr. Jacobs [continuing]. The geo hosted or the joint
    venture for polar orbiting. We've got some new things that
    we're working on on that front in addition to the commercial
    data buys.
        But on the modeling side, there's a lot of collaborative
    work that we can do at NASA on this. We are trying to go to a
    unified forecasting system, so not just NOAA-NASA but all the
    different government agencies are working off the same model
    architecture so that whenever an agency is doing development
    work, whether it's NOAA and NASA, DOD (Department of Defense),
    DOE (Department of Energy), it all gets bundled into the same
    framework.
        A lot of other interesting things we're working on with
    NASA are the data assimilation. We're looking at observation
    impacts through their forecast sensitivity to observation tool,
    which is extremely useful.
        There's also work we're doing with them, as well as DOE, on
    looking at GPUs (graphics processing units) instead of CPUs
    (central processing units) for different type of processor work
    as well, in addition to that, exploring cloud compute
    architecture.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much. Also, I represent
    southeast Texas where the Chairman had mentioned that we got
    hit so hard, decimated by Hurricane Harvey almost 2 years ago.
    We're still in the midst of recovery from this storm. And
    there's been a couple of severe storms already this year, and
    it's incredibly important to accurately predict storms and
    their magnitudes. How accurate is the state of our severe
    weather forecasting? And do you think that we can do it better?
        Dr. Jacobs. I--we absolutely can do it better. There's
    always room for improvement. Right now, the model that we would
    typically use for the high-resolution convective forecasting
    only runs out a day. We rapid cycle that model so it refreshes
    every hour. There's a lot of work to be done on the physics in
    the model, as well as observing system capability. Once we
    eventually transition to a global model, a lot of our
    convective forecasts will be driven by data that we collect
    over the Pacific Ocean because the longer we predict out, the
    further west we have to do observations. So there's work to be
    done on the observing system side, as well as the modeling
    side, and parallel to that, utilizing HPC better because, as we
    go to higher resolutions, it requires more and more compute
    resources.
        Mr. Babin. OK. And then how do you plan to incorporate
    emerging commercial capabilities, especially in space weather
    area and in NOAA's long-range planning?
        Dr. Jacobs. So when it comes to commercial space-based
    observing systems, essentially what we would do is look at the
    impact of the data and the models very much like we did with
    the GPS RO data and determine how much value it adds to the
    forecasting skill. That's a little bit of work on our part,
    too, because we have to make sure that the model is accepting
    of the data and can extract value out of it. Assuming that the
    commercial market to produce space-based weather observations
    is seeing value in selling the data to us, it's in my mind a
    more viable path to acquire the data. We can do it for less
    money. And, as long as they meet the thresholds that we set for
    quality and reliability, I think it's a definite path forward.
        Mr. Babin. OK. And then, lastly, what suggestions do you
    have for us Members of Congress, to help you maximize the best
    resources provided to NOAA?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, to maximize the best resources on the
    compute side, the cancellation liability fee is obviously a
    large concern because that's $50 million extra HPC that we
    could be using that we're just sticking the money in an
    account. Transitioning to cloud-based architecture is, I
    believe, the future because it solves a bottleneck of compute
    resources on the research side. And there will be some upfront
    work to transition that code over. And then continuing to
    support scientists both on the modeling side and the software
    engineering side, both internal and external to NOAA, that's
    where I think we'll see the biggest improvements in
    forecasting.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much, Doctor, and I yield
    back. My time is expired.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you.
        I'll now recognize Dr. Baird for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And, Dr. Jacobs, we really appreciate you being here today.
        My district is home to Purdue University, which administers
    the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant college program, and that's in
    partnership with the University of Illinois. And this Sea Grant
    is funded through NOAA, and that works on aquatic invasive
    species and their control, pollution prevention, and economic
    opportunity. It also monitors weather and lake conditions using
    two buoys, which I understand they have their own Twitter
    account. Is that correct? But anyway, out in Lake Michigan
    where real-time data about windspeed, lake temperatures, and
    wave height is collected and sent to NOAA.
        So my question, Dr. Jacobs, is, how does NOAA strike a
    budget balance between the internal research that stays with
    NOAA and the extramural research that goes out to NOAA's
    private and academic partners?
        Dr. Jacobs. So in the tough budget situation we're in, we
    really had to prioritize maintaining our core capabilities of
    protecting life and property. And while the Sea Grant program
    is a fantastic program, I'm a huge supporter of it--we have Sea
    Grants Knauss fellows on our staff--it was one of the things
    that we ended up having to cut just to maintain our core
    capabilities.
        Mr. Baird. Then my second question in that same area,
    historically, has more extramural research money been provided
    to universities by NOAA's research office or by their weather
    service?
        Dr. Jacobs. Typically, the money for the research side, as
    well as the cooperative institutes, runs through the research
    side, not the forecast side, so the Weather Service budget was
    relatively flat. It was the research side.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. My next question then deals with the
    National Integrated Drought Information System, and I think
    that was reauthorized in December. So when Congressman Marshall
    made reference to the impact of EPIC on agriculture, because we
    have a lot of agriculture in my district--my question deals
    with how is this interagency partnership assisting farmers in
    the agricultural industry across the country?
        Dr. Jacobs. So EPIC, while originally designed to support
    NOAA's mission, will actually be the transition for model
    development produced by NASA, DOD, DOE, and other agencies. So
    there--there's going to be a lot of development work running
    through EPIC by other agencies that will ultimately help the
    medium- to long-range forecasts.
        So the dynamic model that we're looking at for global
    forecasting runs out 15 days. Then beyond that we have two
    methods for doing seasonal to sub-seasonal forecasting. One is
    a dynamic model and associated ensembles, as well as
    statistical models, which look at the dynamical model output
    and then derives statistical forecast running out 9 months.
    We're looking to extend those possibly beyond 18 months.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. Could you elaborate, though, how the
    National Integrated Drought Information System----
        Dr. Jacobs. So the----
        Mr. Baird [continuing]. Relates?
        Dr. Jacobs. The NIDIS Reauthorization supports--in there
    was the authorization of EPIC but also supporting the seasonal
    to sub-seasonal forecasting as well, and that long-range
    forecasting is what the agricultural community is primarily
    interested in.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs, and I'll yield back my
    time.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Baird.
        Before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank Dr.
    Jacobs for testifying before the Committee today.
        The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
    statements from the Members for any additional questions the
    Committee may ask our witness.
        The witness is excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]