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

                           THE FUTURE OF FORECASTING:
                              BUILDING A STRONGER
                            U.S. WEATHER ENTERPRISE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 16, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-20

                                   __________

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

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    36-302 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2021

                  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

                                  May 16, 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............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    11
        Written statement............................................    12

    Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
      House of Representatives.......................................    13

                                   Witnesses:

    Hon. 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...............................................    15
        Written Statement............................................    17

    Dr. Louis Uccellini, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services
      and Director of the National Weather Service, NOAA
        Oral Statement...............................................    32
        Written Statement............................................    17

    Dr. Shuyi Chen, Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences,
      University of Washington
        Oral Statement...............................................    33
        Written Statement............................................    36

    Dr. Christopher Fiebrich, Associate Director of the Oklahoma
      Climatological Survey and Executive Director of the Oklahoma
      Mesonet
        Oral Statement...............................................    46
        Written Statement............................................    48

    Mr. Rich Sorkin, CEO, Jupiter Intelligence
        Oral Statement...............................................    55
        Written Statement............................................    57

    Discussion.......................................................    71

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Hon. 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.    96

    Dr. Louis Uccellini, Assistant Administrator for Weather Services
      and Director of the National Weather Service, NOAA.............    96

    Dr. Shuyi Chen, Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences,
      University of Washington.......................................   112

    Dr. Christopher Fiebrich, Associate Director of the Oklahoma
      Climatological Survey and Executive Director of the Oklahoma
      Mesonet........................................................   116

    Mr. Rich Sorkin, CEO, Jupiter Intelligence.......................   123

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Letter submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman,
      Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................   130

                           THE FUTURE OF FORECASTING:

                              BUILDING A STRONGER

                            U.S. WEATHER ENTERPRISE

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2019

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

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
    room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lizzie
    Fletcher [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) 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 afternoon, and welcome to today's hearing,
    entitled, ``The Future of Forecasting: Building a Stronger U.S.
    Weather Enterprise''. I would like to welcome and thank all of
    our witnesses for being here today to discuss the important
    topic of the U.S. weather enterprise, and how we can leverage
    the partnerships between the sectors to improve U.S. weather
    forecasting and modeling capabilities.
        The U.S. weather enterprise is one of the most robust
    globally, with NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration) estimating the value of weather data across all
    industries in the U.S. at approximately $13 billion in 2012.
    This enterprise is built upon open communication and
    collaboration between its public, private, and academic
    sectors. Americans across the country rely on data and services
    NOAA and the National Weather Service (NWS) provide every
    single day. This freely available data serves as the basis of
    many of the consumer-facing weather products we regularly
    interact with, ranging from weather apps on our phones to the
    local forecasts on our TV news. This is a prime example of the
    strong existing partnerships between the public and private
    sectors of the enterprise.
        This freely available data is also the foundation of much
    of the research conducted into the--in the academic sector that
    feeds into operations at the Weather Service. We've spoken in
    this Committee about the increased frequency of severe weather
    events that are impacting every part of the country. In fact,
    NOAA has found that, since 1980, the U.S. has experienced
    almost 250 weather and climate disasters in which the overall
    cost and damages have reached or exceeded $1 billion. A little
    over 2 weeks ago, Dr. Jacobs testified before this Committee on
    the NOAA Fiscal Year 2020 proposed budget, where he informed
    the Committee that the U.S. was not the global leader in
    weather forecasting. This is something that should be of
    concern for all Americans, given the need for accurate
    forecasts due to the wide range of severe weather events we
    experience as a Nation, and the increasing frequency of severe
    weather events due to climate change.
        We've also discussed the need to accelerate research and
    operations at NOAA, but in no place is that more crucial than
    at the Weather Service, as it relates to improving U.S. weather
    models and forecasts. However, NOAA's budget request does not
    reflect this critical need, with more than 40 percent reduction
    in funding for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
    where much of NOAA's internal research is conducted, and
    extramural research is funded. I hope to better understand how
    NOAA and the Weather Service plan to address the significant
    research to operations challenge in light of the priorities
    articulated in this most recent budget request. I'm looking
    forward to this hearing starting the conversation about
    strengthening the enterprise, and I'm pleased to have
    representatives of all three sectors here today.
        While the private sector is perhaps the most diverse of the
    three, we are fortunate to have Mr. Rich Sorkin, CEO of Jupiter
    Intelligence, testifying from the commercial perspective.
    Jupiter provides climate and weather risk analysis based on
    NOAA and other Federal and private sources of data. I would
    also like to welcome Dr. Shuyi Chen, whose research at the
    University of Washington is focused on understanding extreme
    weather events, like hurricanes, and depends on Federal grants
    from agencies like NOAA. With the Atlantic hurricane season
    starting on June 1, I'm glad she's here to answer any questions
    about hurricane forecast improvement.
        I'm also glad to have the opportunity to discuss an issue
    facing the enterprise, particularly NOAA, regarding the
    potential loss of our Nation's valuable weather data from
    interference from 5G operations at the 24 gigahertz band. I
    look forward to asking Dr. Jacobs for more clear cut answers to
    what these impacts will be, the cost to the American public,
    and how NOAA is working to mitigate these impacts. I am
    entering into the record a letter from the Aerospace Industries
    Association in support of this hearing, and the importance of
    addressing the 24 gigahertz issue. So ordered.
        The weather enterprise is a dynamic entity that continues
    to evolve. Given how rapidly our technological capabilities are
    advancing, it is clear that we need to revisit the interaction
    between the sectors of the enterprise and understand how to
    best utilize these scientific and technological advancements
    for public good. That's why today's hearing should be a good
    opportunity to not only understand the current state of our
    weather enterprise, but how the three sectors of that
    enterprise can work together toward a common goal. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Fletcher follows:]

        Good afternoon. I would like to welcome and thank all of
    our witnesses for being here today to discuss the important
    topic of the U.S. Weather Enterprise and how we can leverage
    the partnerships between the sectors to improve U.S. weather
    forecasting and modeling capabilities.
        The U.S. Weather Enterprise is one of the most robust
    globally, with NOAA estimating the value of weather data across
    all industries in the U.S. at approximately $13 billion in
    2012. This Enterprise is built upon open communication and
    collaboration between its public, private, and academic
    sectors.
        Americans across the country rely on the data and services
    NOAA and the National Weather Service provide every single day.
    This freely available data serves as the basis of many of the
    consumer-facing weather products we regularly interact with,
    ranging from weather apps on our phones to the local forecasts
    on our TV news. This is a prime example of the strong existing
    partnerships between the public and private sectors of the
    Enterprise. This freely available data is also the foundation
    of much of the research conducted in the academic sector that
    feeds into operations at the Weather Service.
        We have spoken in this Committee about the increased
    frequency of severe weather events that are impacting every
    part of the country. In fact, NOAA has found that, since 1980,
    the U.S. has experienced almost 250 weather and climate
    disasters in which the overall cost and damages have reached or
    exceeded $1 billion.
        A little over two weeks we ago, Dr. Jacobs testified before
    this Committee on the NOAA Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Budget,
    where he informed the Committee that the U.S. was not the
    global leader in weather forecasting. This is something that
    should concern all Americans--given the need for accurate
    forecasts due to the wide range of severe weather events we
    experience as a nation and the increasing frequency of severe
    weather events due to climate change.
        We have also discussed the need to accelerate research to
    operations at NOAA, but in no place is that more crucial than
    at the Weather Service as it relates to improving U.S. weather
    models and forecasts. However, NOAA's budget request does not
    reflect this critical need, with a more than 40 percent
    reduction in funding for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Research where much of NOAA's internal research is conducted,
    and extramural research is funded. I hope to better understand
    how NOAA and the Weather Service plan to address this
    significant research to operations challenge in light of the
    priorities articulated in this most recent budget request.
        I'm looking forward to this hearing starting the
    conversation about strengthening the Enterprise and am pleased
    to have representatives of all three sectors here today. While
    the private sector is perhaps the most diverse of the three, we
    are fortunate to have Mr. Rich Sorkin, CEO of Jupiter
    Intelligence, testifying from the commercial perspective.
    Jupiter provides climate and weather risk analysis based on
    NOAA and other federal and private sources of data. I would
    also like to welcome Dr. Shuyi Chen, whose research at the
    University of Washington is focused on understanding extreme
    weather events, like hurricanes, and depends on federal grants
    from agencies like NOAA. With the Atlantic hurricane season
    starting on June 1st, I am glad that she is here to answer any
    questions about hurricane forecast improvement.
        I am also glad to have the opportunity to discuss an issue
    facing the Enterprise, particularly NOAA, regarding the
    potential loss of our nation's valuable weather data from
    interference from 5G operations at the 24 gigahertz band. I
    look forward to asking Dr. Jacobs for more clear-cut answers to
    what these impacts will be, the cost to the American public,
    and how NOAA is working to mitigate these impacts.
        I am entering into the record a letter from the Aerospace
    Industries Association in support of this hearing and the
    importance of addressing the 24 gigahertz issue.
        The Weather Enterprise is a dynamic entity that continues
    to evolve. Given how rapidly our technological capabilities are
    advancing, it is clear that we need to revisit the interaction
    between the sectors of the Enterprise and understand how to
    best utilize these scientific and technological advancements
    for public good.
        That's why today's hearing should be a good opportunity to
    not only understand the current state of our Weather
    Enterprise, but how the three sectors of that enterprise can
    work toward a common goal.
        Thank you.

        Chairwoman Fletcher. I will now recognize Ranking Member
    Lucas of the Full Committee for his opening statement.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, for holding this
    hearing. As I stated in the NOAA budget hearing, weather
    forecasting is among the most important matters in this
    Committee's jurisdiction, and one of our top priorities in
    Congress. We rely on accurate weather forecasting for
    everything from efficient crop planting to protecting life and
    property. From hurricanes, to wildfires, to tornadoes, we have
    an obligation to provide our citizens the most accurate
    information on weather events so they can make informed
    decisions for their own wellbeing.
        Weather forecasting is especially important in my home
    State. Two of Oklahoma's finest universities, Oklahoma State
    and the University of Oklahoma, have long histories of
    researching weather patterns. The National Weather Center is
    based in Norman, and is a national leader in researching
    climate and weather. This year marks the 25th anniversary of
    the creation of Oklahoma's Mesonet, founded as a partnership
    between the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. The
    Mesonet consists of a series of environmental monitoring
    stations that provide data to customers across the State of
    Oklahoma. Our Mesonet is a valuable climate tool, and enjoys
    broad public support. I believe the Mesonet can serve as a
    model for improving forecasting across the Nation, and I look
    forward to discussing this with our witnesses.
        This Committee has a bipartisan history of weather research
    and forecasting policy. During the 115th Congress, we passed
    the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. This
    legislation provided NOAA important tools to help address is
    sub-seasonal and seasonal forecasting abilities by partnering
    with the private sector to collect weather data and integrate
    it into the forecast. More recently Congress passed the
    National Integrated Drought Information System, known as NIDIS,
    the reauthorization built on previous efforts to help monitor
    and predict droughts, and attempt to mitigate those effects.
        While Congress has taken steps to improve weather
    forecasting, we must be certain that other policies aren't
    undercutting our abilities. We've heard concerns from NASA and
    NOAA about the recent FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
    wireless spectrum auction could potentially undermine the
    quality of weather forecasts due to the overlap of frequencies
    used to detect moisture. We all support the many benefits of
    5G, including faster and more reliable connections, but we must
    develop it in a way that doesn't lower the quality of our
    satellites' remote sensing abilities. I hope the FCC will work
    to address concerns raised by the science community.
        I want to thank our witnesses for sharing their expertise
    today. We have a panel of government, private-sector, and
    academic witnesses whose perspectives should inform this
    Committee's actions moving forward. In closing, let me state
    that working toward improved weather forecasts will be a top
    priority for me in this Congress. While we have made progress
    in improving the accuracy of weather forecasting, many
    challenges remain. This Committee should be a leader in helping
    the Federal Government, the private sector, and the academic
    community pool its resources to take the next step in
    continuing American leadership in weather forecasting.
        With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

        Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, for holding this hearing.
    As I stated at the NOAA budget hearing, weather forecasting is
    among the most important matters in this Committee's
    jurisdiction and one of my top priorities this Congress.
        We rely on accurate weather forecasting for everything from
    efficient crop planting to protecting life and property. From
    hurricanes to wildfires to tornadoes, we have an obligation to
    provide our citizens the most accurate information on weather
    events so that they can make informed decisions for their own
    well-being.
        Weather forecasting is especially important in my home
    State. Two of Oklahoma's finest universities--Oklahoma State
    and the University of Oklahoma--have long histories of
    researching weather patterns. The National Weather Center is
    based in Norman and is a national leader in researching climate
    and weather.
        This year marks the 25th anniversary of the creation of
    Oklahoma's Mesonet, founded as a partnership between the
    University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
        The Mesonet consists of a series of environmental
    monitoring stations which provide data to customers across the
    State of Oklahoma. Our Mesonet is a valuable climate tool and
    enjoys broad public support. I believe the Mesonet can serve as
    a model for improving forecasting across the nation and I look
    forward to discussing this with our witnesses.
        This Committee has a bipartisan history of weather research
    and forecasting policy. During the 115th Congress, we passed
    the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. This
    legislation provided NOAA important tools to help address its
    sub-seasonal to seasonal forecasting abilities by partnering
    with the private sector to collect weather data and integrate
    it into its forecasts.
        More recently, Congress passed the National Integrated
    Drought Information System (Ny-dis) Reauthorization Act. The
    NIDIS reauthorization built on previous efforts to help monitor
    and predict droughts and attempt to mitigate these effects.
        While Congress has taken steps to improve weather
    forecasting, we must be certain that other policies aren't
    undercutting our abilities. We've heard concerns from NASA and
    NOAA that the recent FCC wireless spectrum auction could
    potentially undermine the quality of weather forecasts due to
    the overlap with frequencies used to detect moisture.
        We all support the many benefits of 5G, including faster
    and more reliable connections. But we must deploy it in a way
    that doesn't lower the quality of our satellite's remote
    sensing abilities. I hope the FCC can work to address concerns
    raised by the science community.
        I want to thank our witnesses for sharing their expertise
    today. We have a panel of government, private sector, and
    academic witnesses whose perspectives should inform this
    Committee's actions moving forward.
        In closing, let me state that working toward improved
    weather forecasts will be a top priority for me this Congress.
    While we have made progress in improving the accuracy of
    weather forecasting, many challenges remain. This Committee
    should be a leader in helping the federal government, the
    private sector, and the academic community pool its resources
    to take the next step in continuing American leadership in
    weather forecasting.
        Thank you, I yield back.

        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.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Thank you, Chair Fletcher. I would also like to thank our
    witnesses for joining us this afternoon.
        The U.S. Weather Enterprise is comprised of academic,
    private, and public sectors. Our federally funded suite of
    environmental observations and weather and climate forecast
    models are complemented by a robust private sector. These
    private partners distribute National Weather Service watches,
    warnings, and advisories to ensure the widest dissemination of
    this information in order to adequately protect the public. The
    academic sector conducts cutting-edge research that feeds into
    our weather models and forecasts. They also train the next
    generation of scientists and engineers for the workforce of the
    Weather Enterprise.
        Despite the strength and unique nature of our Weather
    Enterprise, our country is falling behind in weather
    forecasting.
        Two years ago, Congress passed the Weather Research and
    Forecasting Innovation Act, which included, among other things,
    a focus on regaining U.S. leadership in weather modeling and
    forecasting. I hope our panel will touch upon the extent to
    which this legislation has moved the Weather Enterprise towards
    achieving this goal, and what remains to be done.
        In order to keep up with other countries and be prepared
    for the weather risks associated with a changing climate, we
    need to optimize our investments in weather forecasting. It is
    vital that all sectors of the Weather Enterprise effectively
    coordinate to ensure efficiency and innovation. Setting clear,
    long-term, enterprise-wide goals can prevent duplication or
    gaps in capability.
        The challenge of how to improve our weather models and
    forecasts will not be solved by the federal government alone.
    NOAA and the Weather Service must find ways to capitalize on
    the rapid development of new science, technology, observational
    capabilities, and high-performance computing both internally
    and within the private and academic sectors. Successfully
    making these innovative approaches operational is a key step to
    achieving this goal. Today's hearing will be a good starting
    point to understand the best path forward.
        I look forward to hearing from our expert witness panel on
    how best to address this challenge and learn where we should
    prioritize federal investments in the Weather Enterprise to
    build upon the leadership and contributions of all three
    sectors. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

        Chairwoman Fletcher. At this time I'd like to introduce our
    witnesses. Our first 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 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 degrees in atmospheric science from
    North Carolina State University.
        Our second witness from NOAA, Dr. Louis Uccellini, serves
    as the Assistant Administrator for Weather Services, and the
    Director of the National Weather Service. Prior to this
    position, he served as the Director of the National Centers for
    Environmental Prediction (NCEP) for 14 years, where he directed
    the operations at nine NCEP centers. Before that, Dr. Uccellini
    has been the director of the National Weather Service's Office
    of Meteorology, chief of the National Weather Service's
    Meteorological Operations Division, and section head for the
    Mesoscale Analysis and Modeling Section of the Goddard Space
    Flight Center's Laboratory for Atmospheres. Dr. Uccellini
    received his Ph.D.,master's, and bachelor's of science degrees
    in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
        Our third witness, Dr. Shuyi Chen, is a Professor of
    Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. Her
    research focuses on understanding extreme weather, like
    hurricanes, and intraseasonal variability that affect the
    global weather and climate system, and improving their
    prediction. Dr. Chen has led national and international
    research programs in both field observations and coupled
    atmosphere ocean modeling. Currently she serves as the vice
    chair of National Academy's Board on the Atmospheric Science
    and Climate. She received her Ph.D. in meteorology from Penn
    State University, her master's in meteorology from the
    University of Oklahoma, and her B.S. in geophysics from Peking
    University.
        The last witness that I will introduce is Mr. Rich Sorkin,
    the co-founder and CEO of Jupiter Intelligence. Jupiter
    provides data and analytic services to better predict and
    manage risks from weather and sea-level rise, storm
    intensification, and changing temperatures caused by medium- to
    long-term climate change. Mr. Sorkin has been involved in
    Silicon Valley startups for 3 decades, commercializing
    technologies in a wide variety of industries. Mr. Sorkin
    received his MBA from Stanford, and his bachelor's in economics
    from Yale.
        The Chair will now recognize Ranking Member Lucas to
    introduce Dr. Christopher Fiebrich, who hails from his home
    State of Oklahoma.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, and I am pleased
    to welcome Dr. Fiebrich to our panel of witnesses today. Dr.
    Fiebrich is the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Mesonet and
    the Associate Director of the Oklahoma Climatology Survey of
    the University of Oklahoma. He oversees all activities of the
    Mesonet, ranging from sensor calibrations to research. Dr.
    Fiebrich has published 26 peer-reviewed articles on Mesonet
    activities and research in his career. His Oklahoma roots run
    deep. He has a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and a
    Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma, so thank you for being
    here today, Doctor. Yield back.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. Each witness
    will have 5 minutes for their spoken testimony. Your written
    testimony will be included in the record for the hearing. When
    you've completed your testimony, we'll begin with questions.
    Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel. We'll
    begin with Dr. Jacobs.

                     TESTIMONY OF HON. 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 Lucas, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. Accelerated advancements in NOAA's global
    forecast system is a top priority. The future of forecasting in
    the U.S. weather enterprise is dependent on the success of this
    program, as this model serves as the underpinning for the
    majority of products and services offered by the National
    Weather Service and our industry partners.
        A skillful global weather prediction system is based on
    three main components: Observations, code, and high-performance
    computing (HPC). NOAA is embracing new and novel in situ
    observing systems, such as smartphone pressure, as well as
    commercial aircraft and ship data. Many of these valuable
    observations are obtained from industry, academia, and State
    partners through the national Mesonet program. The commercial
    weather data pilot has proven successful, and NOAA is now
    planning to acquire GPS RO (radio occultation) data for
    operational use. Satellite data are the most critical inputs we
    have, and the polar orbiting passive microwave sounders account
    for 90 percent of the data used in the global model, and
    provide up to 30 percent of the forecast scale. How the
    observations are used in the model is based on the code. The
    upgrade to the FV3 GFS is tentatively planned for mid-June.
    Future critical advancements are focused on model physics and
    data assimilation. As part of the input quality control, as
    well as enhancing sub-grid scale output, NOAA is exploring
    cutting-edge artificial intelligence techniques.
        To meet these objectives, NOAA plans to harness external
    expertise across the weather enterprise, from industry software
    engineers to university faculty and students. By standing up an
    outward-facing community model development program through the
    Earth Prediction Innovation Center (EPIC), which was authorized
    in the National Integrated Drought Information Systems
    Reauthorization Act of 2018. Based on the Weather Research
    Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017, EPIC will serve as the hub
    for building and maintaining a true community model. EPIC will
    significantly enhance our ability to access external expertise
    across the weather enterprise, and place the global modeling
    program on a path to regain U.S. leadership, as directed by the
    NIDIS Reauthorization ACT of 2018.
        None of this sophisticated code can be developed, tested,
    or run without substantial HPC resources. On the operational
    forecasting side, NOAA has a 99.9 percent uptime availability
    requirement, with mirrored parallel systems that can fail over
    seamlessly to meet mission critical needs of severe weather
    forecasts. The National Weather Service is often compared to
    the European Center of Medium Range Weather Forecast when it
    comes to models, skill, and HPC resources. While we do have
    comparable systems, the European center only focuses on a
    single global modeling system, whereas the National Weather
    Service runs dozens of models to address a wide range of
    issues, from weather and climate, to short range convection,
    hurricanes, ocean waves, air quality, storm surge, inland
    flooding, solar activity, and space weather.
        Transitioning research to operations requires a significant
    amount of HPC. One option NOAA is exploring is cloud-based
    virtual HPC provided by commercial cloud vendors. The potential
    public-private partnerships can solve a wide range of problems,
    from limited availability of internal research compute, to
    providing systems that are accessible to the external model
    development community throughout the weather enterprise. Pilot
    programs within NOAA's satellite division, or NSDIS, have shown
    that the pre-processing of critical satellite data can be
    performed securely and reliably within these cloud-based
    architectures. By moving the processing to the location of the
    data, the potential exists to extract more value from existing
    satellite observations. Likewise, initial testings show that
    running the global model code in the cloud can offer a
    technically feasible and cost-effective alternative to internal
    HPC needed for research and development.
        Finally, NOAA's Big Data Project has proven that commercial
    cloud-based storage is an extremely cost-effective solution for
    hosting and disseminating petabytes of environmental data.
    Making NOAA's data more easily accessible to the American
    public will create a substantial untapped opportunity for
    academic research and economic growth. Thank you again for the
    opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared joint statement of Dr. Jacobs and Dr.
    Uccellini follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. Dr. Uccellini?

                    TESTIMONY OF DR. LOUIS UCCELLINI,

            ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WEATHER SERVICES AND

             DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE, NOAA

        Dr. Uccellini. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking
    Member Lucas, and Members of the Subcommittee, and--for--and
    thank you for inviting me to this very important hearing. It's
    come at a--at the right time. Our Nation is experiencing an
    increase in, and impacts from, extreme weather events, such as
    devastating wildfires and floods, heat spells, snow and ice
    storms, tornado outbreaks, and catastrophic hurricanes. All of
    these events are well forecast, and have been well forecast,
    days in advance by the best forecasters in the world, the men
    and women of the National Weather Service. Weather Service
    forecasts execute their daily mission by working with emergency
    managers and other decisionmakers at all levels of government.
    They do this through a process called impact-based decision
    support services, that connects our forecasters directly to
    decisionmakers, communicating critical information so they can
    prepare a community in advance of extreme weather and water
    events to save lives and mitigate property loss.
        Decision support is a major component of our updated
    strategic plan, that envisions building a weather-ready nation
    to ensure communities are ready, responsive, and resilient in
    the face of upcoming extreme events. This plan is embraced by
    our workforce, who now incorporate decision support into their
    daily work. The vision is also embraced by a large component of
    academic, research, and private-sector components of the
    weatherprise, as reflected by the growing list of 9,300 plus
    Weather-Ready Nation Ambassadors, organizations all working
    with the National Weather Service to achieve this formidable
    goal.
        Executing our mission requires a comprehensive forecast
    process that begins with global observations, as you've just
    heard. Processing those data, running weather, water, and
    seasonal climate computer models on supercomputers, forecasters
    applying their expertise and training to use that information
    to develop accurate forecasts and warnings, disseminating the
    information, and then supporting critical decisions made by our
    core partners. Underpinning all of this work are many research
    and development activities, and the critical facility
    infrastructures that support advancing the Weather Service to
    stay at the top of our operational capabilities, for we are
    only as strong as our weakest link.
        We are pushing the limits of scientific understanding of
    the interactions of space, atmosphere, oceans, land, hydrology,
    and ice. More research needs to be done to understand how these
    Earth system elements interact to enable us to improve our
    model-based predictive capabilities of weather and water from
    the short term to the seasonal timeframe. Our partners have
    told us that communicating and delivering consistent and
    accurate forecasts to them is key. To facilitate consistency
    and allow our forecasters to work more with decisionmakers, we
    are developing a new tool called the National Blend of Models
    (NBMs). This tool will combine the best aspect of over 170
    national and international forecast model members at any one
    time to produce a blended 7-day forecast. The goal of the NBM
    is to serve as a scientifically valid common starting point to
    drive more accurate and consistent forecasts across the Nation.
        Disseminating our environmental information internally and
    externally is critical to making the entire weather and water
    enterprise function. We established the Integrated
    Dissemination Program to transfer the organization's
    communication capabilities into an integrated, common
    operational service, with 100-percent backup capability for the
    first time in the history of the Weather Service. Data delivery
    services were upgraded, and the bandwidth to all Weather
    Service officers and external users increased tenfold.
        The level of demand on this system has far exceeded what
    was anticipated, and is now reaching its maximum capacity as
    user demands continue to grow. We need to continue system and
    infrastructure enhancements to ensure future capacity and
    reliability meet these additional user requirements. Hiring
    expert forecasters and other critical operational positions is
    a top priority for us. Through a focused program of policy and
    programmatic innovations, we have turned a corner. Calendar
    year 2018 was the first year in nearly a decade that hiring
    outpaced attrition for that year.
        In summary, moving forward depends on fundamental
    advancements across a full spectrum of activities, including
    our forecasts--our forecasters embracing decision support, the
    Weather Service engaging the private sector across the entire
    value chain, advancements in science and technology, improved
    partnerships with academic research and the broader research
    communities that reach across many disciplines in the physical
    and social sciences, transitioning these research activities
    into operations. As directed by the 2017/2019 Weather Act, the
    Weather Service is evolving to provide more than just weather
    and water forecasts and warnings. It is also providing decision
    support services for Federal, State, local, tribal,
    territorial, emergency managers, and water resource managers.
    Emergency managers have told us that their partnership with us
    has revolutionized the emergency management community from one
    that reacts to events to one that proactively prepares and
    stays ahead of extreme events.
        I am proud of the National Weather Service, especially our
    people, who are on the front lines delivering critical products
    and services every day to help keep our citizens safe. We have
    come a long way, but there's more we need to do for communities
    to be ready, responsive, resilient for the next event, to be a
    weather-ready nation. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Uccellini. Dr. Chen?

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. SHUYI S. CHEN,

             PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES,

                        UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

        Dr. Chen. Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking Member Lucas, and
    all other Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today. Based on the questions from the Committee in my
    invitation to testify, I organized my testimony around four
    topics: Building a stronger U.S. weather enterprise and working
    toward a common goal, enhanced national forecast capability and
    meeting workforce need to support national forecasting
    capabilities, and, finally, we would like to chart a way
    forward for the U.S. weather enterprise.
        Accurate, actionable weather forecasts and warnings can
    help save lives and reduce economic loss. Over the past 2
    decades, weather research has enabled tremendous progress in
    better understanding weather process and our ability to observe
    and predict weather. Atmospheric scientists of the United
    States are among the best in the world. However, the United
    States no longer leads the field of numerical weather
    prediction, as documented clearly by a number of National
    Academies reports. I believe that we have the ability to fully
    realize our potential in weather forecasting, be the best in
    the world. We must first understand the challenges we're facing
    so we can identify our weakness, find a solution, making
    progress. We need to build a strong U.S. weather enterprise
    working toward a common goal. I applaud the Committee for
    taking such an important initiative to address this issue in
    today's hearing.
        So I projected on the screen--you can see the weather
    enterprise is complex, has changed significantly over the past
    15 years, and continues to evolve rapidly. We're facing
    challenges to meet the growing need for weather and climate
    information in society. To address these challenges, we first
    should recognize we have some specific things we need to do,
    for instance, model development. We need weather forecasts with
    long lead time. Weather knows no boundaries. What happens over
    the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean can influence rainfall
    and flooding, heat wave, drought, and the potential for
    wildfires in the United States on a time scale of weeks to
    months, so to--predicting these phenomena, we will need to
    represent the slow varying part of the Earth's system, ocean,
    land, and sea ice in our weather forecasting model. On the
    other hand, impact of weather is all very local. Hurricanes
    Harvey, Irma, and Maria showed us very clearly we need the
    level of forecast detail down to the street level for storm
    surge and flooding, and that aid for the decisionmaking, like
    in emergency management, and the electrical grids, and the
    infrastructure, and for recovery process as well.
        The other challenge we have is the research-to-operation,
    which is an unmet challenge. We have tried to communicate it
    for many years now. That remains to be a problem because many
    of the research product has no pathway--go into operation as we
    know today. Advancement in technology, such as high-performance
    computing, cloud-based computing, artificial intelligence, new
    observing capability, and communication capability present a
    number of opportunities for us to really meet these challenges
    of the system. So, in order to move forward, I would like to
    see the uncoordinated enterprise, as we see in the top left (on
    the slide), move toward enterprise that works toward a common
    goal. To do that transition, from my perspective, I would have
    a few recommendations.
        One, we would like to launch a study by the National
    Academies on the future of the weather enterprise. This study
    can help us to assess the current state of enterprise, and the
    way forward with experts from all different areas. Second, we
    need to develop a national unified modeling system to address
    the entire timescale, cross-scale--from the longer lead time to
    the high-resolution local forecast. To do this, we need a
    consolidated national center, with participation from the
    entire weather enterprise, and multi-agency support. Third, we
    would also like to establish for a sustained resource to
    support research, observation, communication, modeling,
    computing, forecasting, and workforce development.
        So, in closing, I think there's no doubt that improving
    weather forecast to save lives and reduce economic loss should
    be a national priority. Restoring U.S. leadership in weather
    forecasts for the benefit of society is a great challenge. No
    single Federal agency, no single private industry, no single
    university, can do it alone. It will take the entire weather
    enterprise. Thank you for inviting me, and I would welcome any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Chen follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Chen. Dr. Fiebrich?

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. CHRISTOPHER FIEBRICH,

                   ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF THE OKLAHOMA

                       CLIMATOLOGICAL SURVEY AND

               EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OKLAHOMA MESONET

        Dr. Fiebrich. My name is Chris Fiebrich, and I'm the
    Executive Director of the Oklahoma Mesonet, and I'm also
    adjunct faculty in the University of Oklahoma School of
    Meteorology, and I want to thank Chairwoman Fletcher, and
    Ranking Member Lucas, and the Members of the Committee for the
    invitation to speak to you today. The Oklahoma Mesonet was
    established 25 years ago, both to address the needs for
    improved severe weather warnings, and to improve our ability to
    research and better understand the weather. We have one or more
    stations in each of our 77 counties so that no matter where you
    are in Oklahoma, we have local, real-time observations within
    about 10 miles of your location. The power of any Mesonet is
    driven by the high spatial density of its observations, and the
    goal of our Mesonet is to provide timely and useful weather
    information to Oklahoma citizens and decisionmakers.
        The Mesonet is a unique partnership between our State's two
    largest universities, the University of Oklahoma in Norman and
    the Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. Our operational
    home is at the National Weather Center on the OU campus, where
    we share space with OU School of Meteorology and five NOAA
    facilities. This gives our students the opportunity to work
    side by side with NOAA's storm prediction center, the National
    Weather Service, and the National Severe Storms Lab, providing
    unique benefits to both the students and the Weather Service.
    Two additional OU research centers that stand out, with regard
    to their engagement with the Weather Service, are the Advanced
    Radar Research Center and the Center for the Analysis and
    Prediction of Storms. These centers are actively developing the
    prototypes for the next generation of weather radar systems and
    testing new weather models and forecast delivery systems, and
    NOAA's hazardous weather test bed.
        My primary expertise is the Oklahoma Mesonet, which I
    oversee at OU. When the Mesonet began 25 years ago, we knew
    we'd fall short of our potential if all we did was collect the
    weather observations. We knew we needed to synthesize the data
    into useful tools for our citizens, first responders, and the
    State's key economic sectors. In the area of fire forecasting,
    we've trained more than 1,600 wildland fire managers on
    weather's impact on wildfire suppression, prescribed burning,
    and smoke management. Many aspects of wildland fire behavior
    can be modeled with real-time Mesonet observations, including
    predicting the likelihood a fire will ignite, how fast it will
    spread if it ignites, and how high the flames will be, given
    the observed winds, temperature, solar radiation, and moisture.
        Mesonet data are also used to improve production and
    optimize inputs for crops and livestock. The occurrence of many
    plant pests and diseases can be successfully predicted given
    observations and Mesoscale weather conditions. Using the latest
    agricultural research, coupled with real time Mesonet
    observations, allows growers and producers to make efficient
    decisions on spraying for pests and diseases, as well as smart
    irrigation decisions.
        While Mesonets like the one we have in Oklahoma provide
    significant value to numerous economic sectors, the greatest
    value that weather observations and prediction systems provide
    is for protecting lives and livelihoods. We've trained over
    1,400 emergency preparedness managers, police, fire, and
    public-health professionals to use our data to keep Oklahomans
    safe.
        Oklahoma, as you know, is subjected to many forms of
    destructive weather, most of which occur on the very short
    timescales of minutes to hours. These are threats that include
    damaging winds from thunderstorms, flooding rains, and
    crippling ice storms. The Oklahoma Mesonet has proven its worth
    in this role by significantly advancing a special form of
    forecasting known as Nowcasting. Nowcasting is the prediction
    of critical weather details in the next 0 to 6 hours that are
    often difficult to resolve through numerical weather prediction
    models. Subtle atmospheric features revealed by the Mesonet
    show the locations of fronts, dry lines, and moisture plumes
    that allow Weather Service forecasters to pinpoint areas most
    likely for convective initiation.
        On the national scale, the Oklahoma Mesonet is part of
    NOAA's national Mesonet program, comprising 30-such university
    and State Mesonets and additional partners. The national
    Mesonet program has proven to be a successful public-private
    partnership model, in which the Federal Government can leverage
    tens of thousands of additional real time weather observations
    from across the Nation without having to maintain and operate
    them. This allows forecasters to use these additional data to
    improve weather models, and thus every community's weather
    forecast.
        It's essential that Congress and the Administration support
    and expand the national Mesonet to ensure that local
    forecasters have access to these highly localized weather data.
    The University is proud to play a role in these programs, and I
    look forward to answering any questions you have about our
    efforts in Oklahoma.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Fiebrich follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Fiebrich. Mr. Sorkin?

                        TESTIMONY OF RICH SORKIN,

                       CEO, JUPITER INTELLIGENCE

        Mr. Sorkin. Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking Member Lucas, and
    Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rich Sorkin, CEO of Jupiter
    Intelligence. Jupiter predicts risks from weather and climate
    change. We work with some of the country's and world's largest
    insurance, mortgage, power, and resource companies, responsible
    for roughly $1 trillion in assets, showing them the risks to
    their assets in their language and relevant timeframes. I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
        I understand the Committee is broadly interested in the
    weather enterprise, leadership in forecasting, the role of the
    private sector, and all of this against the backdrop of
    increasingly severe weather and impacts due to climate change.
    I have three core points. First, broad sectors of U.S. society
    are increasingly concerned about the growing risks to life,
    well-being, and property caused by climate change. The Federal
    Government should, among other things, do more on preparedness,
    especially in programs related to infrastructure investment and
    the Department of Defense (DOD).
        Events such as Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy,
    Hurricane Harvey, Midwest flooding, and the California
    wildfires dramatically illustrate the need for improvement in
    planning for, predicting, communicating, and reducing the risks
    from extreme weather. Costs for emergency response and disaster
    recovery, especially from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management
    Agency), are increasing much faster than GDP or government
    revenues. Recently the Air Force requested that Congress
    allocate $4.9 billion for repairs at just two bases, Tyndall in
    Florida, and Offutt in Nebraska, from damages due to severe
    weather, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The impacts
    of climate change are not just in the future. They are upon us,
    and getting worse, and the risks are resonating in corporate
    boardrooms.
        Second, while NOAA and the National Weather Service do an
    excellent job of forecasting, they could do even better by
    using technologies widely adopted in the private sector,
    particularly artificial intelligence, or AI, and cloud
    computing. Jupiter, for example, is seeing enormous
    acceleration in transitioning research to operations through
    the use of cloud computing. These technologies assist in global
    collaboration, both inside the company and with our university
    partners, and in rapid prototyping and accelerated-performance
    testing. AI is also benefiting Jupiter in the spatial and
    temporal resolution of our predictions, the speed of developing
    new services, and reductions in costs for computing. China, by
    the way, is making enormous progress in AI. We need to ensure
    that we are not leapfrogged by China, both in the weather
    enterprise, and more generally. The Earth Prediction Innovation
    Center, or EPIC, is an excellent first step in NOAA adopting AI
    and cloud computing.
        Third, the path to renewed U.S. leadership across the
    weather enterprise depends upon stronger collaboration between
    the three sectors of the enterprise. A vibrant private sector
    is emerging for solutions to help customers understand, plan
    for, and mitigate the impacts of severe and worsening weather.
    Investors have deployed billions of dollars in satellites,
    other observations, and analytics, including work like ours,
    and will invest more, especially if the collaborative
    relationship is right, with the Federal Government focusing on
    the core modeling that the private sector can build upon. At
    Jupiter, we have followed a collaborative philosophy from the
    beginning, working with the Federal Government and university
    partners. Going forward, I recommend enhanced investment in
    NOAA's capabilities to produce better weather forecasts, as
    well as expanded observations, to help produce actionable
    climate risk services.
        While NOAA's role in saving lives and property is
    paramount, the private sector can supply hyperlocal climate
    information to our colleagues in the private sector, as well as
    local governments. I also recommend easing the way for public-
    private collaborations, as well as improved mechanisms for
    allowing pilot projects with NOAA, which could provide
    favorable returns on investment for the government and its
    agencies. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sorkin follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Sorkin. At this point
    we will begin our first round of questions. I'll recognize
    myself first for 5 minutes, and I'd like to start with Dr.
    Jacobs.
        When you previously testified before this Subcommittee on
    April 30, you said that the subject-matter experts at your
    agency, NASA, and the FCC are collaborating on a study to set
    out-of-band emissions limits on the 5G spectrum use at the 24
    gigahertz band to prevent interference with weather data. You
    said on the record that the results of the study would be
    decided upon on May 15. When will--a few questions, if you can
    just touch on these--When will the study be released publicly;
    what is the answer on an acceptable out-of-band emission limit
    to protect valuable Federal weather data; and can you explain
    NOAA and NASA's analyses, including how much weather data would
    be lost, and what would be the impact on forecast accuracy from
    emissions bleed over?
        Dr. Jacobs. Thank you for the questions. I don't have an
    answer as to when the actual study will be released. I would
    like to say that NOAA and the Department of Commerce support
    5G. We are dependent on 5G to be very successful in a way to
    distribute our tornado warnings faster to the public, and I'm
    optimistic that we can come up with an elegant solution where
    passive microwave-sensitive 5G can coexist.
        That said, right now the input parameters that we are using
    in the study were provided by the International
    Telecommunications Union, with input from industry. We--
    subject-matter experts at the FCC, NASA, and NOAA are going
    back and forth still, debating the input parameters. I don't
    think there's any debate in the actual algorithms in the code
    itself, it's the input parameters. From what I've seen, any
    change to the assumptions in the input parameters proposed by
    the FCC that have some type of scientific basis produce a
    negligible change to the NOAA/NASA number.
        The number currently proposed by the FCC, minus 20 decibel
    watts per 200 megahertz, according to the study would result in
    roughly a 77 percent data loss from our passive microwave
    sounders. This would degrade the forecast skill by up to 30
    percent, so, if you look back in time to see when our forecast
    skill was roughly 30 percent less than it was today, it's
    somewhere around 1980. This would result in the reduction of
    hurricane track forecast lead time by roughly 2 to 3 days. A
    good example of this is a data denial study that the European
    Center did where they withheld the microwave sounder data
    during the forecast for Superstorm Sandy, and a model, which is
    the most accurate model in the world right now, kept the storm
    out to sea. So it's incredibly important--it's a critical data
    set for us.
        The number that we've been dancing around is in the upper
    40s, lower 50s, depending on when--whether you're discussing
    base stations or user hand-held devices. This number would
    result in roughly zero data loss, and then anywhere in between
    there we are looking at data loss possibly large enough to
    prevent us from meeting our mission requirements with the
    future JPSS (Joint Polar Satellite System).
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Jacobs. I have just a
    short amount of time, so I want to ask just more broadly to
    anyone who wants to answer this on the panel, as you all know,
    our economy is becoming increasingly reliant on accurate
    weather data for decisionmaking. Every American consumes
    weather data in their everyday life, and it's in the interest
    of the entire country to understand how the weather enterprise
    plans to move forward in improving the short-, medium-, and
    long-range forecasts, and adapting the forecasts to best serve
    all Americans in trying to understand how the weather will
    impact them.
        So can you--can--whoever wants to touch on this briefly,
    about the current mechanisms, can you talk about the current
    mechanisms for collaboration and communication between the
    members of the weather enterprise, and how they could be
    improved? Anybody wants to take that up? Dr. Uccellini?
        Dr. Uccellini. So I probably had a long history in this,
    goes way back--in trying to get agencies working together on
    this. I think we're in a good spot right now, with respect to
    agencies recognizing that they have to work together to
    advance. This wasn't always the case. There was this divide
    between research, who didn't want to adopt, let's say, the
    operational goals or be hung--have their results hung by an
    operational success when their success is measured by, you
    know, papers they publish, and the research that they--in fact,
    the Academy did a study on this, and they entitled the study
    The Research to Operations Valley of Death. So--and I've tried
    reaching across that many times.
        I think there has to be some kind of programmatic advances
    that a research organization, operational organization, see
    value in the outcome to both. What's happening in the research
    community now, as Dr. Chen has, I think, illustrated quite
    nicely, is that they are interested in how we're moving forward
    to serve society. So now's the time, from a programmatic point
    of view, to--whether it's focused on types of events, broad
    scale from maybe seasonal down to the Mesoscale, how we can
    move forward in that arena, this whole seamless suite of
    products that the research community has put forward, as a
    basis for getting researchers and operational people to work
    together that, I believe, are out there, and want to do it.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Uccellini. And I've
    exceeded my time, so I'm going to go ahead and recognize
    Ranking Member Lucas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dr. Jacobs, following
    up on the first part of the Chair's series of questions, in
    regards to spectrum and those resources, if NOAA is forced to
    stop work on its polar satellites, is there another type of
    observation that can offset that loss?
        Dr. Jacobs. The--not today. I can't say that one wouldn't
    exist in the future, but there's not an existing capability to
    mitigate that data loss that exists today.
        Mr. Lucas. So this really matters?
        Dr. Jacobs. Yes.
        Mr. Lucas. Dr. Jacobs, I understand NOAA is still
    conducting the Commercial Weather Data Pilot Program. Can you
    give us an update on the program, and is NOAA still considering
    purchasing commercial data?
        Dr. Jacobs. Yes. With respect to the testing of the GPS RO
    data in our models, we're seeing a very promising impact. We've
    transitioned this over to--actually, in the proposed budget, to
    acquire this data as an operational data source. The Commercial
    Weather Data Pilot Program will actually look at additional
    instruments beyond GPS RO, perhaps hyperspectral sounders, or
    other instruments.
        Mr. Lucas. Turning to you, Dr. Fiebrich, the Mesonet is a
    valuable resource which assists Oklahomans across the State in
    decisions ranging from farmers deciding when to plant, that
    soil temperature key being very important, to emergency
    personnel preparing for weather events. Can you describe to the
    Committee what makes the Oklahoma Mesonet unique?
        Dr. Fiebrich. Thank you for the question, Representative
    Lucas. I think one of the big things that makes Oklahoma's
    Mesonet unique is that we have survived 25 years, because it is
    a great challenge for the State networks to find the funding to
    keep these networks going from year to year.
        Mr. Lucas. At least twice in my tenure in Congress I've
    made calls home, I'm a former State legislator, to my old
    friends about how important this is over the course of the last
    decade, absolutely. Do you think we could replicate this model
    on a larger scale to provide the kind of weather forecast thing
    that we do in Oklahoma?
        Dr. Fiebrich. Certainly. Once we developed the Mesonet in
    Oklahoma, others took notice. They saw the dividends we were
    bringing to Oklahoma. And over the years we've worked with 25
    States and countries to help them plan and operate Mesonets in
    their regions across the U.S. Because, as Dr. Chen mentioned,
    the weather doesn't stop at boundaries--at State boundaries. We
    need those observations in neighboring States like Texas, and
    Kansas, and Colorado to help make predictions in Oklahoma also.
        Mr. Lucas. In my home community, we're, of course, on the
    side of the Rockies--Southern Plains, the western part of the
    State, as you well know, prescribed burns are a very important
    part of maintaining the ecology of the national grasslands. My
    colleagues here who have not had a chance to look at your
    website would be amazed at the information that the Mesonet
    provides, and literally no prescribed burn plan in Oklahoma
    starts without a requirement to examine, on a moment-by-moment
    basis, the Mesonet sites before you can move on.
        That said, in your role as Executive Director of the
    Mesonet, and a faculty member at the University of Oklahoma
    School of Meteorology, you're uniquely positioned to offer
    testimony to this Committee about the collaboration between
    Federal, academic, and industry. In your experience, is there
    enough collaboration between the different components of the
    weather enterprise? And, for that matter, what actions could
    this Committee take to promote a more effective collaboration,
    Doctor?
        Dr. Fiebrich. Well, as I mentioned, the national Mesonet
    program that I've been able to witness I think is a perfect
    example of that public-private partnership, that cost-sharing
    model, where you can take the expertise of the universities at
    the State level, work with the private sector, and provide the
    Federal Government tens of thousands of additional observations
    at a fraction of the cost. I think specifically this Committee
    could help promote that collaboration by, you know, steady
    growth to the program, supporting the program, because, as we
    have more observations, the forecasts will improve. As there's
    more support, it'll give researchers the opportunity to look
    into new technologies in Mesonets. I think a really exciting
    one is using UAVs. We've launched over 1,000 UAVs at our
    Mesonet sites in prototype mode to look at how that could
    provide observations of the lower boundary layer to provide to
    Weather Service forecasters.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. Just one more time, Dr.
    Jacobs, let's go back for a moment to the polar satellites. At
    the present time, if we lose the ability to use those, there's
    not another resource of that nature, at the present time,
    available to replace them with that----
        Dr. Jacobs. No. We have no other capability to passively
    observe water vapor.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you. Yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. I'll now
    recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, and thank you to
    the witnesses for being here today. I am deeply concerned about
    the reorganization of the National Weather Service forecast
    offices. My questions about EVOLVE have faced delays,
    misinformation, and many questions remain unanswered. I've been
    requesting some of this information since May 2017, so let me
    state the obvious, that was 2 years ago. These delays have only
    added to my concern about what's really going on at the
    National Weather Service. At various times I have been given
    contradictory, and sometimes clearly incorrect information and
    reasoning for the delays, and, at times, I have received no
    answer at all.
        Lacking a consistent credible response, I have to think
    that, where there's smoke, there is indeed fire, and there has
    been an awful lot of smoke these past few years. This prolonged
    pattern of misinformation and evasion leaves me wondering, what
    is the agency hiding? So, Dr. Uccellini and Dr. Jacobs, I'm
    looking for a straightforward yes or no. Will you commit to
    providing Members of this Committee with all of the materials
    that have been requested?
        Dr. Uccellini. Yes.
        Mr. Tonko. And Dr. Jacobs?
        Dr. Jacobs. Yes.
        Mr. Tonko. And can I ask what date would be a reasonable
    date by which to receive that information?
        Dr. Jacobs. We'll have to get back with you on the exact
    date, because that depends on the actual materials that we have
    to gather, but it'll be as soon as possible, I can promise you
    that.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, if you could get back to the Committee,
    and at least give us a date in the very, very near future----
        Dr. Jacobs. Certainly.
        Mr. Tonko [continuing]. So that we can understand what that
    threshold date is. Section 410 of the Weather Research and
    Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017 required the agency to
    submit a report on contractor use and the number of civil
    service vacancies at the NWS by October 2017 and to publish an
    annual report on the Internet within 6 months of the end of
    every fiscal year thereafter. Your agency has missed both
    deadlines. Why have you not submitted and published this
    report, and when will you do so?
        Dr. Uccellini. So we keep track of the level of positions
    we have that are appropriated for, and the number of positions
    that we have on a biweekly basis, so I'm not--I'm a little bit
    confused as to why those numbers haven't gotten out. But, as of
    right now, we are appropriated for 4,623, onboard is 4,194,
    which is 429 vacancies, and we have over 300 hiring actions in
    place right now.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And, Dr. Jacobs, I expressed to you
    the last time you were here that I also have some major
    concerns about National Weather Service understaffing. I'm
    especially concerned that any reorganization or reduction of
    hours not result in any degradation of service. For example, I
    recently learned that the proposed changes to how you
    categorize field meteorologist will, in fact, result in fewer
    forecasters in each office. That is not acceptable. The rush to
    implementation of the national blend model, with the purported
    goal of freeing up forecaster time, is concerning. Background
    of all this makes matters even worse. NWS is not filing
    critical--filling critical vacancies.
        Let me be very clear. If you are defying Congress and the
    American people by using this process to diminish the capacity
    and number of our forecasters, Congress will not be silent. Any
    major transition of this kind needs to follow a process backed
    by research and evidence that show the change will not degrade
    service. Some of the new innovations here are great forecasting
    tools, but they cannot replace having enough experienced
    forecasters on the ground. I have heard from many forecasters
    who are worried about the hasty changes being made, and about
    the resulting negative effect that this will have on public
    safety. Their concerns are credible, and deeply disturbing.
    Based on what we already know, the Committee needs to hear
    directly from forecasters on the ground, as well as emergency
    service providers who rely on them.
        I am nearly out of my time here, Madam Chair, but, again, I
    would hope that we can work together on this going forward,
    because there are important constituents--constituencies who we
    should hear from, including the people who work as forecasters
    at the National Weather Service, and from the State and local
    workers, and emergency workers, who work closely with NWS to
    keep our constituents safe. This is a critical service. As a
    person who chairs the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
    Change, there's a direct link, and I want to make certain that
    we're utilizing professionalism to the nth degree, and--in the
    most effective and efficient manner. So, with that, I'll yield
    back.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko, and I
    would just like to underscore the importance of providing the
    documents that Mr. Tonko has requested, and, of course,
    providing all documents as they are requested by Members of
    Congress. Thank you very much. I will now recognize Mr.
    Gonzalez for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
    witnesses for being here today, and for your attention and
    testimony. In my home State of Ohio we have tremendous research
    institutions that are always at the forefront of innovation,
    and I want to turn my question to the role academic
    institutions play in weather forecasting.
        Dr. Chen, what role, in your opinion, should academic
    researchers play in helping the U.S. to improve its poor
    position in weather modeling, and can you tell us a bit more
    about how the institution should play more broadly?
        Dr. Chen. Thank you, that's a great question. We have
    been--really wrestled with this question for a long time.
    Academia play an important role on several fronts. First, the
    innovative research has been done at the university level, and
    academia, broadly speaking. That's always been the forefront in
    the world, and a lot of research products we're very proud of,
    eager to put them into useful tools for operations. This has
    been an unmet challenge, that I had mentioned.
        Second, academics have played a key role in training the
    future workforce. The need for impact forecast and how people
    respond to forecast, it's very much interdisciplinary and
    multidisciplinary research, and this requires our current
    workforce to be up to date, in terms of both computing,
    management, and there's a lot of interface between physical
    science and the social science. We are very active in terms of
    promoting that multidisciplinary research and education to
    prepare for the workforce to meet the challenge, so the
    academic community really taking this very seriously. Although
    we still have a challenge, we would like to reform our system
    to meet the current technology and science advances.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And, Dr. Uccellini, given we're on
    the cusp of new technologies being implemented across different
    applications and parts of our economy, I'm curious to know what
    you see the future role of artificial intelligence and machine
    learning at the National Weather Service. And, Mr. Sorkin, if
    you could talk about it more related to your industry after
    he's done?
        Dr. Uccellini. Well, I think it's going to have a major
    role, and there's a lot of potential in utilizing that to
    assist decisionmaking, both in terms of accessing the data and
    quality control, extracting information from numerical models,
    whether they're the single runs or the ensemble runs. In fact,
    it's no way possible for any human being to extract the--all
    the information out of the myriad of ensemble model runs that
    we access today. And then in the probability aspects, in terms
    of how you affect a decision at key decision points, I think
    it'll be helpful there as well. I do want to emphasize that all
    these systems are better utilized as they're assisting
    decisionmaking by a human being, and that's something that I
    think sometimes gets lost in the enthusiasm for artificial
    intelligence.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Absolutely. Mr. Sorkin?
        Mr. Sorkin. Yes. Jupiter uses a combination of dynamical
    modeling, as is prevalent in the weather enterprise, AI, and
    other forms of modeling. One of the benefits of our cloud-based
    architecture--or infrastructure is the ability to compare the
    results of a dynamical modeling and AI approaches side by side
    in the same modeling chain. We essentially can substitute one,
    see how it performs, versus the other, in terms of the accuracy
    of the predictions, when tested against ground truth data, the
    overall compute load, and the explainability of the results,
    which, in certain regulated industries, is also critical. And I
    would say that overall the private sector, in most other
    domains, is much further ahead primarily because of the amount
    of investment in AI than the weather enterprise generally.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Got it. And then, if you could, how do you
    feel we're doing relative to China on this particular front?
        Mr. Sorkin. Specifically within the weather enterprise?
        Mr. Gonzalez. Specifically AI machine learning. So
    generally.
        Mr. Sorkin. Historically the United States has been a
    leader in AI and machine learning. The Chinese are catching up
    very rapidly. They have fewer constraints on the use of
    consumer data, which in some cases is an advantage in further
    progress on the whole. I think the United States is still
    ahead, however, it's an area that definitely requires very
    careful attention by the Federal Government and the private
    sector on an ongoing basis. And, in addition to that, I would
    emphasize the importance of protecting the country's
    intellectual property, something the President has given
    substantial attention to recently, and that is a critical issue
    for Silicon Valley and the country generally.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Excellent. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. I'll now
    recognize Mr. Crist for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the
    witnesses being here today. We appreciate your attendance. Dr.
    Jacobs, great to see you again, and to have another opportunity
    to discuss the very critical work that NOAA does.
        Today's topic certainly is an important one, Madam Chair,
    and timely as well. We're only 16 days away from the start of
    the hurricane season, so when I heard weather forecasting would
    be the subject of today's hearing, my mind immediately went to
    Hurricane Irma, which, as you know, hit my home State of
    Florida in 2017. Leading up to that storm, the track kept
    shifting. First it was up the East Coast, then up the West
    Coast, and then finally straight up the middle of Florida. The
    entire State of Florida was inside the prediction cone, making
    it difficult for emergency managers to make evaluation
    decisions, and prompting a mass exodus of seven million people
    from the State that clogged our roadways and stressed fuel
    supplies. And while I'm thankful that so many Floridians took
    the storm as seriously as that, some would argue that over-
    evacuation can prompt under-evacuation the next time a storm
    may hit, and that's something I'm extremely concerned about.
        Dr. Uccellini, how can we improve track forecasts for
    hurricanes to shrink the cone, perhaps, and provide the most
    accurate information to the public ahead of a large hurricane
    like Irma was?
        Dr. Uccellini. So a couple of points on that. First of all,
    with Irma, we were actually amazed that the government of
    Florida actually declared a state of emergency 6-1/2 days
    before landfall, recognizing, A, the uncertainty in the track
    forecast, and we try to communicate that, and--especially with
    our users who are embedded in the emergency operation centers
    and the like.
        Mr. Crist. For the record, that was not me.
        Dr. Uccellini. I know.
        Mr. Crist. OK.
        Dr. Uccellini. I know. But it was an amazing event for us
    as well, to have that happen, given the uncertainties between
    the tracks up the East Coast of Florida and the tracks up the
    West Coast of Florida. What we saw was that, on either track,
    there was going to be significant impact to the entire State.
        But you're pointing to a really major problem, that
    decisions are made earlier to try to hit that sweet spot for
    the evacuations. And, given that earlier need for
    decisionmaking, it puts extra emphasis on the need for model
    forecasts, because that's the only thing we have in those
    timeframes to base any kind of decisions at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 days
    in advance. To improve the models, it's all the things we're
    talking about here. You need the global observing network. So
    Dr. Jacobs spoke to the need for the passive microwave sounders
    that any value study of observations into models that I've seen
    rates that as the number one observation for the accuracy of
    the models.
        The--so you have observations, you have--we have to improve
    the models in terms of resolution, the data assimilation to
    ingest the information for those models, and the physics, all
    of the above. And we need--we continually need to press the
    computer industry. For running models operationally we have a
    primary system and a backup system so that it's always there,
    and we're always pushing the envelope on the computational
    capacity that we need to run an operational model system to
    ensure you're getting the best forecast on a timely manner all
    the time. So those three components are there, and we're
    working all three of them. Again, like I said before, we're
    only as strong as our weakest link. We're pressing ahead on all
    three.
        Mr. Crist. Great. Thank you very much. And, Dr. Chen, I'm
    curious, would you have anything to add to this?
        Dr. Chen. Yes. I think Irma taught us lessons for current
    capability. We're not quite--met the challenge of forecasting
    impact. So in hurricane forecasts, we not only need the track
    to be correct, intensity correct, and also the tool to forecast
    storm surge. For instance, Irma--18 hours ahead of Irma, the
    forecast for Tampa Bay area is greater than several foot of
    water, so you know what happened. Tampa Bay not only didn't get
    storm surge, actually water drained out of Tampa Bay. We saw
    the bottom of Tampa Bay, because--wind offshore, and water
    being pulled out of Tampa Bay by ocean currents. This is a
    demonstration that we need a coupled model with ocean, and
    atmosphere, and storm surge capability to make that level--
    forecast. So that is the lessons we needed to learn.
        And, at the same time, I do want to tell you that that
    morning the BBC called me about explaining this, because we
    have a publication already describing the full coupling impact
    on storm surge. So the academic community does have research
    results. We're--currently have no direct paths to have that
    function in the National Weather Service at this stage. So I
    want to emphasize the point we need a mechanism to make
    research to operation transition.
        Mr. Crist. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you. I'll now recognize Dr.
    Baird for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    witnesses, for your testimony and discussion of these issues
    about weather. Dr. Chen, you mentioned the changing landscape
    of the U.S. weather enterprise, and the challenges that's
    presenting. You also mentioned, just as kind of an example,
    that these include the shifting balance between government and
    private sector, so I guess my question deals with this. What do
    you foresee, and could you prioritize those for the future
    needs of the U.S. weather enterprise, and how and what Congress
    might do to be able to facilitate that?
        Dr. Chen. Thank you for the question. That's a great
    question. We've been--wrestled with this for--long time. The
    weather enterprise is broad. We have both--we have three
    sectors, the government, and the private, and the academic. So,
    in fact, I want to go back to an example we just discussed, the
    5G. The weather enterprise is broad. A lot of times our
    challenge is even broader because the 5G, that actually showed
    us an example, the weather enterprise interface with other
    sectors. So I think National Academies have the capability to
    bring in all three sectors, and, outside of weather enterprise,
    to really make this assessment--currently.
        For instance, this 5G issue, it is complex. We interface
    with a different part of the technology and economy, so the
    National Academy now is planning to bring the board radio
    frequency, which is not within our current weather enterprise,
    but we are expanding that because--the need for the society.
    So, if I may, I would like to comment on how should we go
    forward for making this enterprise is so broad, and excellent
    on each individual point--parts, but the total is not making up
    the sum of each component. The total should be better than the
    sum.
        So, in order to do that, I really think we have an
    opportunity to bring this into a new operating model that
    brings in the academic, private, with the government agencies.
    Not only one agency, but the multi agencies. National Science
    Foundation, NASA, Department of Energy, Transportation. Many of
    them can bring their expertise to the table to develop models,
    observing capabilities, computing assessment. That's another
    complex field that we have not been able to do full assessment.
    Whether it's the high-performance computing, or cloud-based
    computing, or a combination of many things.
        So our horizon really is looking down the road 10 years, 20
    years from now, so we need to be totally open, bring all the
    sectors coming to the table to design the system. And, in order
    to do that, we need to have a national center to bring the
    entire community in, and developing this unified model can
    address this complex issue we just discussed, because we're
    facing the weather impacts, local and global prediction--
    increase our lead time. These are huge challenges. Our current
    modeling systems are not capable of doing this for the time
    being.
        If I may, I want to add one more component. So we all have
    our phones in front of us. The phone--I have my first iPhone
    2007. Only--little more than 10 years, this technology has
    changed our entire society. We are looking in the weather
    enterprise, in terms of next decade or 2 decades, we have to be
    completely open minded, embracing all possible sectors to think
    broad and bold, and thinking that we may really need assessment
    now, and how do we anticipate what's happening next. Thank you.
        Mr. Baird. You timed that very well. You used all my time,
    so thank you very much. What a great answer, and we appreciate
    it. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Baird. I'll now
    recognize Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. Dr. Chen's
    clearly a seasoned testifier before Congress. Dr. Jacobs and
    Dr. Uccellini, it's often been the role of this Committee to
    play defense on behalf of the staff, the workers of the
    National Weather Service, and I just want to make sure to echo
    Mr. Tonko's remarks that we want to make sure that any
    reorganization or the reduction of hours don't result in a
    degradation of service. We'd like to work closely with you to
    make sure that that workforce that's so essential is treated
    fairly, and is part of the solution.
        Moving on--and I--again to Dr. Jacobs, Dr. Uccellini, I
    read really carefully your testimony about 85 percent of the
    data is water vapor data that you use for weather forecasts,
    and that, due to the physical properties of water, water vapor
    can only be measured at the frequency bands currently
    allocated, the FCC's proposed radio frequency, etc.--we have
    apparently heard a great deal from the digital community, the
    AT&Ts and others, saying, no, no, this is not going to
    interfere with NOAA. Where's the science on this, and how do we
    respond to the FCC chairman's notion that there's no science to
    back up this idea there's a conflict with this 24 band and
    NOAA's need for the data?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, we've been working together with NASA and
    the FCC for the last couple years on this study, and actually,
    at the request of the FCC, we've reconducted this study
    multiple times, in fact, wholesale rewriting the software in
    Matlab for a second time. I really don't think anyone's
    debating the actual algorithms in the study. The debate tends
    to be around the assumptions of the input parameters. And right
    now we're using the input parameters that were provided from
    industry that meet the recommendations by ITU. So, if there's
    other parameters beyond that, you know, we would have to
    determine whether there's any scientific basis for that or not.
    Again----
        Mr. Beyer. Is----
        Dr. Jacobs. Go ahead.
        Mr. Beyer. Is this the kind of thing that you would
    encourage Congress to take an active role in protecting the
    weather data, and therefore pushing back on the FCC's intent to
    go forward?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, I, you know, I haven't seen any
    scientific evidence to support the minus 20 decibel watt per
    200 megahertz number, so right now the only scientific studies
    I've seen out there are the ones produced by NOAA/NASA which
    have been concurred with by the Navy, as well as an independent
    European Space Agency study, which actually concluded a more
    restrictive number than we came up with.
        Mr. Beyer. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Sorkin, in Dr.
    Davis--Dr. Uccellini's testimony, they also talked about the
    availability of the unique data sets developed by the
    commercial sector, the private sector, could potentially
    jeopardize not only academic research, but also the market for
    specialized weather products and services. So I think they were
    trying to do the yin and the yang. On the one hand, we want to
    have all this data available to the researchers, on the other
    hand, what do you have left to sell? What's the private
    sector's perspective on the data sharing?
        Mr. Sorkin. The private sector is a diverse and complicated
    entity. It's not one particular viewpoint. So, for someone like
    Jupiter, we are consumers of the data from the Federal
    Government, and in particular NOAA and NWS, and it would be
    substantially disruptive to our business if some of that data
    and the modeling that NOAA does, based on that data, were no
    longer available. On the other hand, like Dr. Jacobs, we see
    that technologies, like GPS RO, are quite promising in
    improving the skill, or overall performance, of the weather
    forecasts, and so I would take a blended approach. It's kind of
    case by case. Certain data is of great value add to both NOAA
    and the private sector. Other data might be directly
    competitive. From our perspective, we kind of sit on top of
    that, and will use whatever the best available data is, whether
    it's coming from the Federal Government or the private sector.
    And that then translates into the best available services for
    citizens in places like New York, and Houston, and Puerto Rico,
    and throughout the country, in terms of understanding these
    risks, and we're really agnostic as to where the data comes
    from.
        Mr. Beyer. Great, thank you. And later, Dr. Jacobs, I'd
    love--explain to me cubing the sphere, and how parallel that is
    to squaring the circle, but my time is up, so----
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. I'll now
    recognize Ms. Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    all the witnesses here. And, coming from an island that
    suffered two hurricanes in a row, Irma and then Maria, I'm
    really grateful for all the help NOAA and the rest of the
    agencies gave to the island. Not just to the reconstruction--we
    lost our power, we lost our communication, we lost our radars.
    And we actually lost our Doppler, and the airport as well, with
    the radars at the airport. So it was because of the U.S.
    Marines Corps radar units and the Department of Defense that
    were lended to us on a temporary basis for a few months, I
    think 9 months until you repaired the Doppler and the radar.
    And we allocated funds for that during the bipartisan bill,
    plenty in different areas for repairing new technology, and the
    sensors.
        My first question will be, all the Dopplers and the radars
    are repaired using new technology, or they were just repaired
    as they were before the hurricane?
        Dr. Uccellini. So, first of all, you know, thank you for
    your comments. We actually worked with the Department of
    Defense, and we're very thankful for the interaction of
    bringing their X-band radars to you, and it was more than one,
    and--remind everyone you were still in the middle of the
    hurricane season when we were able to do that. And we got the
    Doppler reconstituted.
        In that process, we actually improved the receivers and the
    transmitter components of the radars. That was part of an
    ongoing effort for the Service Life Extension Program for all
    the radars in the United States. So we built that new
    technology in, but still operating on the same principles,
    including the inclusion of the dual pole, so----
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Yes. The reason I'm asking this
    question is I remember working with you guys, and the rest of
    the Federal agencies, to make that happen, and remembering when
    you used military planes to have the pieces to work that out.
    And when you've got no radars, no commercial planes flying to
    the island, no water, no electricity, and no telecom, it was a
    complete theater of war, what we experienced at that time.
        So my next question to you will be in terms of making all
    the funds that were assigned for the marine debris assessment
    and removal, the repair and replacement of certain assets, the
    physical property mitigation, improved weather forecasting, all
    those funds that were allocated to the repairs across, you
    know, not just Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Florida, and the
    rest of the States, all those repairs have been done?
        Dr. Uccellini. Yes. We're working according to the spend
    plans that were submitted to Congress.
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. So we don't need any more funds for
    that?
        Dr. Uccellini. That I can't answer right now.
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. OK. That was the point of one of the
    question directly. My second question will be, then, how can
    we--if we can elaborate on any other new improvements that we
    may need in order to have a better position to withstand
    similar hurricanes affecting the same structures, do we have
    any other new way to maintain those units on the island?
        Dr. Uccellini. I'm sorry, are you talking about--the means
    for measuring and providing the information, we are working to
    build--we, you know, the capacity of that is always something
    that we're trying to improve.
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Let me better explain what I meant----
        Dr. Uccellini. OK.
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon [continuing]. In my question, maybe. We
    are part of the Caribbean belt, we are in the hurricane area,
    so this is something that, every year, we will have our
    hurricane seasons. My question is, the units, the radar, the
    Doppler, and all the equipment that we've got on the island can
    withstand another hurricane of the same magnitude. Do we
    improve the way they were built, or that's something that, of
    course, may happen?
        Dr. Uccellini. I'll have to get back to you on the specific
    specifications for that, but a Cat Five hurricane----
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Is complete destruction.
        Dr. Uccellini [continuing]. Will still have its destructive
    capabilities, I'm afraid.
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Actually, I agree with you. My question
    will be if there are any other opportunities that we may have
    to improve the location of the radars? I know that when you
    brought one of the radars, you established a pilot program in
    Aguadilla, and you can come back to me on that. I know my time
    is expired, so I will submit the rest of my questions for the
    record. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr.
    Casten for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our panel.
    So when I was starting my career as a young chemical engineer,
    I had a colleague who used to like to tell a story that--about
    a boy who walks by a cave, and he sees a dragon, and he taps
    the dragon with a pencil, and the dragon stays asleep. And he
    said, only the dumbest kid on the planet would say, you know
    what, I can linearly extrapolate that I can probably safely
    punch the dragon in the nose. I tell that story because over
    the course of my lifetime, atmospheric CO2
    concentrations have gone from 325 to 415, almost 30 percent,
    and we have behaved like that dumb little kid. We have linearly
    extrapolated that first 10 ppm, 20 ppm, didn't seem to do
    anything, and so we've just kept burping CO2 into
    the atmosphere, and we have now woken up the dragon. The nerd
    version of this is do not perturb volatile systems.
        Fourteen billion-dollar weather events last year, wildfires
    on the West Coast, the bomb vortex in the Midwest, which
    followed shortly the polar vortex in the Midwest, Midwest
    flooding. Every year is the hottest year on record. And in an
    increasingly volatile system, we depend increasingly on having
    accurate weather forecasting for our farmers, for folks on the
    coast, folks in--like my daughter wondering how to seal the
    door when the bomb vortex was coming in.
        I am really concerned, in light of that history, that the
    Trump FY 2020 budget request slashes our ability to do weather
    forecasting. I think it's a 7 percent total cut. It's a $12.5
    million cut in Mesonet funding, sorry, Dr. Fiebrich. I believe
    it's a halt in HPC resources for hydrological prediction, which
    is a concern about Midwest flooding, and almost a 10 percent
    cut in full-time employees at the National Weather Service. Dr.
    Jacobs and Dr. Uccellini, were you consulted on that budget
    request?
        Dr. Jacobs. So we spent a lot of time working very hard
    trying to put this budget together, and, in a situation that
    required really tough choices, and trying to balance
    priorities, we made the decision to implement these cuts
    primarily on external grants. So we are going to----
        Mr. Casten. But hang on, you say hard choices. You--did you
    make a decision programmatically to cut those services, or were
    you told to meet a dollar value?
        Dr. Jacobs. So we have a number that we have to work
    within----
        Mr. Casten. No, excuse me, you don't. You can propose
    whatever budget you want. We're going to decide whether you
    like it. Did you request--did you formally request that budget,
    or were you told by the Trump Administration this was the
    budget you had to manage to?
        Dr. Jacobs. So this budget was our formal request----
        Mr. Casten. OK. So you requested those cuts in programmatic
    resources?
        Dr. Jacobs [continuing]. But these cuts do not pertain to
    our actual operational capabilities. There's not going to be
    any degradation in our forecasting capability.
        Mr. Casten. Did you formally model that?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, there will probably be a delay in some of
    the research capability, but that was the reason why we
    implemented the Earth Prediction Innovation Center. That was an
    additional $15 million to harness the external development----
        Mr. Casten. No, but hang on, you just said this is not a
    diminution in the--I mean, I heard you talk about the
    importance of the HPC program, which is being cut. I heard a
    lot about Mesonet, which is being cut. You're saying that there
    will be no diminution of our modeling resources. How did you
    come to that conclusion?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, a lot of the research side of the compute
    we can actually work in the cloud. There's also another thing
    that we're looking at, in the interest of doing acquisition of
    HPC, is a cancellation liability fee. So that's something
    that's actually----
        Mr. Casten. OK, but we're tight on time. I'm asking a
    quantitative question, and you're giving me a qualitative
    answer. How do we--you know--how do we know, on this side of
    the dais, how does the American public know that in a world
    with more and more volatile weather, that these draconian cuts
    to the system are, in fact, going to maintain accuracy of
    weather forecasting in an increasingly volatile weather world?
        Dr. Jacobs. We would not make any cuts that are going to
    decrease our forecasting skill. How we prove that to you, I
    suppose you would have to look at our model verification
    scores.
        Mr. Casten. Can you share the--that analysis with the
    Committee?
        Dr. Jacobs. They're posted online. I can share the link.
        Mr. Casten. If you are wrong, how quick is it to restore
    those programs?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, I'm confident I'm not going to be wrong,
    so that's a question that I can't answer.
        Mr. Casten. I don't think any of us should be that
    hubristic, sir. I'm not that confident in my own abilities.
        Dr. Jacobs. Well----
        Mr. Casten. If we cut 110 people, how much institutional
    knowledge is lost? If we are no longer funding the HPC program,
    and all of a sudden a flood comes through that we didn't
    predict, it's a little late to say, well, Dr. Jacobs said he
    was confident he wasn't going to be wrong. How do we get that
    confidence, as we sit here and decide what the budget should
    be?
        Dr. Jacobs. So these cuts were to extramural grant programs
    with cooperative institutes and programs like that. We're not
    making any cuts to our operational capability.
        Mr. Casten. Well----
        Dr. Jacobs. It's not going to get worse.
        Mr. Casten [continuing]. My time is up, but 110 employees
    is a concern. I yield back my time. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Casten. I'll now
    recognize Mr. Lamb for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lamb. If I could just follow up on that same line of
    questioning, I would just like to clarify, because I don't
    know--I also was concerned that there are such serious cuts in
    the 2020 budget request. I have a National Weather Service
    forecast office in my district, with excellent employees who
    just went through a government shutdown and worked without
    being paid this same year, doing, you know, work that we all
    know needs to be done. So under--let me just make it a simple
    question. Under your budget request, as you see it now, do you
    believe that there would be any staff positions cut from the
    National Weather Service office in my district, in the 17th
    District of Pennsylvania?
        Dr. Jacobs. No. We're not planning to cut any staff offices
    or personnel there. We're actually--so this last year was the
    first year since 2011 that hiring has actually outpaced
    attrition. If there was a decrease in actual staff, it was
    because the shutdown happened at the end of the year, and
    typically people retire at the end of the year, so we have to
    cover that gap, and we're still in the process of digging out
    of that hole, but we are certainly headed in a positive
    direction.
        Mr. Lamb. I appreciate that clarification. So you believe
    that the cuts you have requested would not apply to actual
    personnel, but would apply to some of these other research
    programs that you're talking about?
        Dr. Jacobs. It's on the research side. And I would like to
    take this opportunity to also highlight the national blend of
    models. I want to make sure everyone's aware that this is not
    meant to replace forecasters at all. It's meant to be a tool to
    help them.
        Mr. Lamb. I appreciate that. Thank you. Dr. Uccellini, do
    you agree with that same assessment by Dr. Jacobs, that there
    will not be a personnel impact from the budget cuts you are
    proposing?
        Dr. Uccellini. The budget states that they recognize our
    desire to apply personnel to this decision support services,
    but some of those resources will be redirected to other
    administration priorities.
        Mr. Lamb. Would you mind just answering my question with a
    yes or no? His assessment is that it will not affect staff or
    personnel in the weather forecasting offices. Do you agree with
    that?
        Dr. Uccellini. The--there is a decrease in the Weather
    Service that are--that's applied to the particular part of the
    budget that does involve personnel. There is still a question
    as to whether we can absorb that or not, with respect to the
    current staffing levels.
        Mr. Lamb. And which personnel would be affected that you're
    referring to? Which portion of the budget is that?
        Dr. Uccellini. That's the analyze forecast support. It's
    the--in the forecast area. So that--it's not a large cut, but
    it's something that we have to look at and apply within that
    particular portfolio.
        Mr. Lamb. OK. And there are about 434 vacancies at the
    National Weather Service already?
        Dr. Uccellini. 429.
        Mr. Lamb. 429? All right. It's moving in the right
    direction, I guess. My point is this. I've met these people.
    They live and work in my district. They do excellent work. They
    absorbed a very difficult shock in their own personal lives,
    when they had to work through the shutdown this year, doing
    work that the country needs them to do. I think they deserve a
    little bit of clarity on whether they're getting help inside
    their agency or not. Many of these people feel overworked.
    They're working additional hours. Now they realize that, you
    know, the administration that oversees them is proposing cuts
    to their agency, and we're getting two different stories on
    whether those cuts are going to affect the personnel situation
    at that office. So I would request that the two of you
    communicate over exactly what's happening here, and if you can
    follow up with us on exactly what the personnel impact of these
    budget cuts would be, I think we all want to know that before,
    you know, we render a decision on what we think of the budget
    request. And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much, Mr. Lamb. And I--
    again, I want to thank all of the witnesses. This has been such
    a good panel that your prize is a second round of questions
    from Members of Congress. So we agreed up here that this is
    something--we all would like to follow up on a few other
    things, and so I'm going to first yield myself an additional 5
    minutes to ask questions, and I want to do a quick follow up on
    the budget.
        We've already had a budget hearing, but I did want to
    follow up, as we talk about funding levels, about making sure
    that our communities are equipped with an accurate hurricane
    forecast. As we head into hurricane season, that is the number
    one concern in my district. I represent Houston, and we, of
    course, were impacted by Hurricane Harvey. So, on the budget
    question, I just want to ask you, Dr. Jacobs, to follow up, can
    NOAA ensure that our communities are equipped with the best
    possible hurricane forecast, given the funding cuts in these
    areas?
        Dr. Jacobs. There's not going to be any degradation to the
    forecast skill.
        Mr. Lamb. OK. And then my other follow up question, before
    I was asking, and Dr. Uccellini had a chance to answer my
    question, but would anyone else like to comment on mechanisms
    for collaboration and communication between the members of the
    weather enterprise? I think I cutoff some potential answers in
    the last round, so I would love to hear from you, Dr. Chen,
    from Mr. Sorkin, anyone who wants to weigh in on this.
        Dr. Chen. Thank you for the question. If I may, I would
    like to address--several questions came up during this hearing
    specifically addressing to, Chairwoman, your question about how
    we best go forward. One of the difficulties right now is our
    enterprise has this very broad, complex needs for the society
    service. So currently we have--like NOAA and some other
    agencies, the budgetary priority is set year to year, and
    sometimes we are put in this reactive position, which--
    something that National Academy has been proposing the study to
    look long-term at how we best predict these weather extremes,
    and--in the changing climate that will benefit society in the
    long term how do we best position ourself--forecast weather
    to--from the very high-resolution model, like resolving Harvey,
    flooding, if you probably recall, during Harvey much of the
    flooding was due to rain. Storm surge blocked drainage. Also,
    the built environment that actually blocked the drainage to the
    ground. So these are very challenging.
        In my third part of the written testimony, we--asking
    Congress to help. So I think you can really help to organize
    this enterprise, look 10 years, 20 years down the road. We had
    very successful models to do this before. The decadal survey
    from the Earth--observing from space just published last year,
    that map out very long-term plan--200 scientists involved in
    developing that plan, and take a long-term vision. So this way,
    if we have something like that in the weather enterprise, we
    can best organize our entire country to take a long-term plan.
    We do not have to do this reactive thing that--year to year
    that put us in this very difficult position.
        I'm pretty sure the whole country will be saying, well if
    we have weather like the decadal survey we can start acting
    now, and continue to meet our challenges.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Chen. Mr. Sorkin?
        Mr. Sorkin. Thank you. Jupiter looks at this question from
    several perspectives. First, our current product, second, our
    product road map, and third, the difference between
    universities and the public sector. With regard to our existing
    products, the company is 2-1/2 years old. We deployed our first
    service in under a year, and part of that was through
    collaborations with university partners in New York that
    included Columbia University and Brooklyn College, where we
    identified very specific scientific expertise that we wanted to
    leverage into our commercial services. We've done the same
    thing with Rice in Houston, and similarly in Florida and around
    the world.
        Second, from the perspective of our long term product road
    map, so say 3 to 10 years, we identify emerging science that we
    believe will have a positive impact on the predictive quality
    of our services for protecting life, and infrastructure, and
    continuity of mission for things like hospitals, and roads, and
    hotels, and power plants, and the like. And there--we talked
    earlier about cloud computing. One of the things that we're
    working quite aggressively on is helping our university
    partners access cloud compute resource, integrate it into our
    operational infrastructure, and test the models even before
    they're ready for operations to accelerate the research to
    operations process. We can do that because we're very targeted
    on a specific set of customer solutions, and work backward from
    that to the short-term and medium-term science that's required.
        From a government perspective, we have a very good dialog
    with our colleagues at NOAA, and I think they're--the best,
    most useful thing, from a NOAA perspective, is transparency on
    the existing scientific priorities, as well as what's coming
    down the pike, both internally within NOAA, and from a
    scientific funding perspective. I think they do a good job on
    that, and we'll continue to work closely with them to better
    understand what's coming down the road to deliver these risk
    services in places like Houston and Texas generally.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Sorkin. And I've once
    again gone over my time. I'm going to recognize Ranking Member
    Lucas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Jacobs, let's talk
    for a moment more about the spectrum issue, and at the
    conclusion I'd like to offer an observation or two about the
    budget process.
        And while--question to you, sir. While we wait for the
    public release of the NOAA/NASA study, can you explain the
    process you used to validate the study?
        Dr. Jacobs. So typically we would take these algorithms, we
    would use a baseline set of assumptions, first testing things
    that are known quantities, and reproducing outputs that are
    known. That's how we actually verify the code. The actual
    subject-matter experts--this was validated with NOAA subject-
    matter experts. It was concurred with the Navy, and then, most
    importantly, validated by the subject-matter experts at NASA,
    and this is an agency that sent a man to the moon 50 years ago
    using calculators, so I would certainly trust their input. But
    just to convince myself, I actually got a copy of the Matlab
    code myself, and I can tell you it's fairly straightforward.
    You don't even need to compile it. You just have to have Matlab
    and the right toolboxes.
        Mr. Lucas. So you don't even need a slide rule to do that?
        Dr. Jacobs. Or an abacus.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you. Dr. Jacobs, also would you describe
    the timeframe of NOAA's interaction with the FCC leading up to
    the March spectrum auction?
        Dr. Jacobs. So we had assembled subject-matter experts from
    NOAA, NASA, and the FCC as far back as 2017, going back and
    forth on the studies. There was an original study, there was a
    lot of questions about the assumptions that went into the
    software, which was a pre-packaged software, which is
    relatively black box. You couldn't look at the source code to
    determine anything from it. So the FCC requested that we
    reconduct the study with code that you could actually see, and
    you could actually change the input parameters, which was a
    valid request. So we redid that. That began, I believe,
    somewhere last fall, November/December timeframe. Then we had
    the shutdown. On the heels of the shutdown we reconvened, and,
    at that point, had output, and have been going back and forth
    with the FCC ever since, where their subject-matter experts are
    proposing new assumptions, and questioning the inputs, and then
    we re-run the study with those inputs, and come back with the
    results, and we're still sort of stuck in that do loop, so to
    speak.
        Mr. Lucas. The public would call it running the time out,
    so to speak.
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, we haven't seen anything that has been
    proposed by the FCC as far as assumptions that have changed the
    results of the study thus far.
        Mr. Lucas. So you're comfortable in saying that NOAA has
    dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's in preparing this
    information?
        Dr. Jacobs. I'm confident that the study is acceptable.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. And let me touch, for the
    benefit of my colleagues, a little bit on the budgeting
    process. Having been around a little while, I've discovered
    that, generally, when an executive budget comes down, the only
    thing that's ever recognized by people is when on the rare,
    rare occasion an Administration asks for additional spending,
    then we tend to respond to that in Congress. That was a weak
    attempt at humor, but a factual statement nonetheless.
        Typically Presidential budgets, executive budgets, are
    something that are required in the 1974 Budget Act, and are
    examined, and set aside. The 1974 Budget Act gives the U.S.
    House, the U.S. Senate the responsibility, yes, to look at the
    President's executive budget, but to craft our own, and to
    reconcile that final document, and use that as the product for
    the appropriation process to move forward. While we have an
    executive budget that many of us find fascinating, I think the
    focus of this body should be how do we persuade on the Budget
    Committee to do their work so that we'll have a real document
    that the appropriators can move forward with, and fulfill all
    the responsibilities of the 1974 Budget Act?
        So while I, like many Members, have typically been
    underwhelmed by the executive branch budget, whichever
    Administration offered it up, the real onus is on us to do our
    work, and we should try harder to do our work and fulfill our
    responsibilities. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. I'll now
    recognize Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher. The--in May 2017
    a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study confirmed the
    vacancy rate in NWS operational units has already reached a
    point where NWS employees are, and I quote, ``unable at times
    to perform key tasks.'' According to the GAO, NWS managers
    admit, and again, quote, ``that employees are fatigued, and
    morale is low,'' and that employees, quote, ``were demoralized
    because they had to cover the workload for multiple
    vacancies.''
        Service assessments, which the NWS itself conducted
    following 12 major storms that occurred between 2008 and 2017
    found that the ability of the NWS to protect lives during these
    major events was compromised due to already inadequate staffing
    at critical forecast offices, or river forecast centers. Yet
    the Administration has now proposed to cut 20 percent of all
    the forecasters at the Nation's 122 forecast offices, as well
    as close an unspecified number of forecast offices at night and
    on weekends as a result. The President's NOAA budget request
    admits that these closures are a potential risk to the public
    and partners. How do we reconcile these cuts with the stated
    reality that we're hearing from forecasters?
        Dr. Uccellini. Well, since May 2017 we've actually focused
    our hiring on entry level meteorologists and hydrologists, and
    we track every forecast office in terms of the availability to
    cover shifts and do the other tasks. And we--we're in a better
    place now with respect to that than we were in May 2017. I--not
    aware of any plans to part time offices, as it's called, nor--
    or shut down any offices, so I'm not sure where that's coming
    from, but it's certainly not in any of our plans.
        Mr. Tonko. And in terms of vacancies, the number again?
        Dr. Uccellini. The vacancies we have right now are 429,
    compared to the appropriated level. In other words, we just
    heard about the budget process, and we actually staff according
    to what is appropriated. So that's 4,623, and right now we are
    looking at 429 vacancies, and we have about 301 hiring actions
    going. I should also note, for this year, having that 5-week
    shutdown has had a major impact on our abilities to sustain the
    momentum that we had going into December of last year, so we
    are concerned about what--you just--there's not just a light
    switch that you turn this process back on, and the same people
    are waiting in the--are waiting there to be brought on. A lot
    of the people don't stay within that process once it's shut
    down.
        So we do have concerns for the very near term because of
    that, but we were on an upward trend, and that focus that we
    had was on the entry-level meteorologists to account for what
    you reported on from the May 2017 report.
        Mr. Tonko. Right. And I know that the executive budget is
    something that we need to work away at, but a starting point is
    always an important factor. And, with all of these vacancies,
    it would've been good if we had an executive that believes in
    climate change so that the numbers in a budget presented from
    the executive branch would reflect that in the budget planning
    that is envisioned for the agency.
        I've also heard concerns that NWS forecast offices may be
    reduced, and these offices may no longer operate 24 hours a
    day, or 7 days a week. Are any such plans being studied,
    developed, or implemented by NWS to reduce the hours of
    operations at our NWS forecast offices?
        Dr. Uccellini. So what we have seen in analysis and
    experience over the past 2 years is that in meeting the needs--
    increased needs, as specified in the Weather Act, of the
    impact-based decision support services, the forecast offices
    are taking on increased importance in our ability to do that.
    So I'll tell you that, within the Weather Service and NOAA,
    that we are working toward actually supporting those
    forecasters to meet those increased needs, and we've listened
    to the emergency managers, who have expressed the same concerns
    over the last several years, that we're working with them, and
    they're asking for 24 by 7 with respect to those local offices.
    But how we manage the resources within those offices is
    something that we have to do within what's appropriated to us.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, in yielding back, I would just ask that
    you indicate which sites are--if they are going to be
    considered for reductions, if you could share that information
    with the Subcommittee, that would be important. And with that,
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. I'll now
    recognize Ms. Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, again, I
    couldn't finish to say thank you to the agencies that helped us
    out in the moment of need. And, I mean, all of your agencies
    went beyond and above to put us in place after the hurricane.
    And one of the lessons that I want you to tell me about is
    about incorporating relationship within the Federal agencies
    and the private sector to making this happen after the
    hurricane. Because without communication, without the radars,
    without a lot of the assets on the ground, I know you came
    together with Department of Defense and Marines, the agencies
    themselves, and even the private sector, could make things
    happen.
        My question will be, are there any lessons that we need to
    put into law, or in an agreement with the private sector as
    well, in order to face this kind of emergency situation from
    now on?
        Dr. Uccellini. Well, one of the lessons--first of all,
    we're working in partnerships with the Federal agencies. We
    recognize that to--in terms of making a forecast, and providing
    it for decisionmaking, we can't do that alone, and clearly
    there are other agencies that are actually on the ground,
    either preparing a location for an extreme event, or responding
    to it, or working after to restore. So a component of NOAA, the
    National Ocean Service, spends a lot of time working to restore
    the coastal areas and the harbors, as an example.
        With respect to the private sector and the non-profits,
    which are playing an increasingly important role, many of those
    people and organizations are part of the Weather-Ready Nation
    Ambassador number that I spoke to, and we work with them from a
    public safety perspective throughout the year. So there's a
    basis there to be working from, and there's a lot to learn.
        One of the learning experiences from that hurricane season,
    as many of us prepare for a worst case scenario of one Category
    5 storm, what if you have two Category 5 storms? So one of the
    tragedies with respect to Puerto Rico was the aid that was on
    its way had to turn back because there was even another storm
    coming in after the destructive storms that hit that area. So
    we're always there to learn from these events, but we are
    working together in a much better place than we were 5, 6, 7
    years ago.
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. My second question will be, and we saw
    that in the happening, we got FEMA and the Federal agencies on
    the island before, during, and after the hurricane. That never
    happened before, so I thought that was better coordination
    before the hurricane could hit us, and better information.
    People knew what was happening because we got the data in time,
    and that's, I think, the most important thing, in terms of that
    forecast, the weather forecast, not just for Puerto Rico and
    the Caribbean, the whole Nation. And, in our case, the system
    that you installed helped us out, not just Puerto Rico, the
    Virgin Islands, and the rest of the small countries in the
    Caribbean that were using, actually, that data when they were
    cutoff from their communications.
        During the last Congress we approved $120 million for
    operations, research, and facilities of those--more than $40
    million for charting, mapping, improved weather forecasting,
    $79 million for procurement and construction, specifically 29
    for repairs in many areas. Before this turn, I ask the
    question, if we need more resources in those areas, if we fall
    short in making those repairs at that time, and if there's
    anything else that Congress can do, and I completely agree with
    Mr. Lucas, and actually I want to thank him for making the
    legislation possible of the Weather Act--more than 25 years
    without having a comprehensive law that can permit--forecasting
    these kind of issues. Is there--anything else that you can
    recommend to us? And thank you, Dr. Jacobs, for your work in
    the agency as well. Dr. Chen?
        Dr. Chen. Yes. If I may add a point to that? So former FEMA
    director Craig Fugate always pointed out that, with all the
    heroic response to emergency, we, you know, are really grateful
    for these, but on the other hand, he will always remind us, we
    got to that situation tells us we haven't prepared ourselves.
    We should try to prevent these things to happen in the first
    place. So this brings me back to this long-term planning, in
    terms of future climate change. With the sea level rises,
    hurricanes are only going to be much more destructive. So how
    do we prepare ourselves for the situation that--avoiding the
    current situation, reacting to each storm the way we are? So
    that is the goal of the national priority, and I think Congress
    can help us do--to take a long-term approach. We don't want to
    put our society in that vulnerable position year after year.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. I will
    now recognize Mr. Babin for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'm
    sorry I'm running a little bit late today. And thank you,
    witnesses, for being here. Dr. Jacobs, I'd like to ask you the
    first question. In addition to serving on this Subcommittee,
    I'm the Ranking Member and former Chairman of the Space
    Subcommittee. NASA manages the development and launch of the
    reimbursable satellite programs, projects, and instruments for
    NOAA through the Joint Agency Satellite Division. One of the
    programs they developed is the Joint Polar Satellite System.
    JPSS is an $11 billion investment from taxpayers in our weather
    observation capabilities that protect lives and property. These
    satellites provide the bulk of the observations needed to make
    our medium- and long-range weather forecasting successful.
    Eighty-five to 95--to 90 percent of all data that's used in
    numerical weather prediction models come from polar orbiting
    satellite data.
        One of the most important measurements that JPSS makes is
    microwave sounding. Recent reports indicated that the FCC's 24
    gigahertz auction would effectively jam NOAA's use of that
    spectrum for microwave sounding that serves as the very
    backbone of our weather prediction capabilities that protect
    lives and property. If appropriate protection limits are not
    placed on the use of the spectrum sold at auction by the FCC,
    should NASA and NOAA issue stop work notices to contractors on
    JPSS?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, we're still in the process of working
    with NOAA, NASA, and the FCC to hopefully reach a solution that
    we can all live with, but with the ATMS instrument on the
    current JPSS, as well as the proposed JPSS 2, 3, and 4, the
    mission requirements are 98 percent data, so if we see a
    projected loss of 2 percent or more, then it's highly likely we
    would issue a stop work order.
        Mr. Babin. OK. And if NASA and NOAA continued to fund the
    development of JPSS that are effectively unusable as a result
    of the FCC auction, could this constitute a misappropriation of
    funds by these agencies?
        Dr. Jacobs. Well, it probably would not be the best use of
    taxpayer money if we were paying for instruments we couldn't
    use.
        Mr. Babin. Right. OK. Thank you very much. And also, again,
    Dr. Jacobs, listening to the testimony from our panel, it seems
    that NOAA has a lot to do in order to take the next step in
    improving weather forecasting. From my vantage point, this
    should be among the agency's very top priorities in the coming
    years. Years ago the Office of Space Commerce and Office of
    Commercial Regulatory Affairs were buried in NOAA. Do you
    support consolidating them, and moving them back to the
    Department of Commerce, where they were originally placed by
    statute, in order to allow NOAA to focus on its core mission?
        Dr. Jacobs. Yes. There's a lot of different bureaus within
    the Department of Commerce that would equally share and be very
    benefited by this being at the DOC level, so yes.
        Mr. Babin. Excellent, thank you. And, Dr. Uccellini, is
    that it? OK. Thank you. As you are aware, the Congress
    appropriated a great deal of additional funding to the National
    Weather Service after Hurricane Sandy. This money was intended
    to help the Weather Service improve its hurricane models for
    future cycles. As a Member representing a district that was hit
    hard, very hard, by Hurricane Harvey, can you explain how this
    additional funding made a difference in forecasting, and what
    should the Congress do to improve severe weather prediction
    capabilities for future hurricane seasons?
        Dr. Uccellini. So, first of all, thank you for the support
    after Sandy. That covered a whole spectrum of activities,
    including numerical modeling for the Hurricane Forecast
    Improvement Program, and an operational computer that allowed
    us the capacity to actually run the model operationally that
    the research community could transition as part of the R2O.
        When it came to Harvey, Harvey was a tricky storm up front,
    when it was developing near the Mexican coast, east of the
    Yucatan Peninsula, but--first of all, the global models
    starting picking up on--that this storm would not only be
    moving toward the northwest, toward Texas, but also
    intensifying, but it was the new hurricane--the--what we call
    the HWRF, the new finer scale hurricane model, that picked up
    that this storm would rapidly intensify as it approached the
    coast. And it was one of these nightmare scenarios that that
    storm actually intensified from a Category 2 to a Category 4 as
    it was approaching the coastline. And we were ready for that,
    and--up to a certain amount. I don't think we quite had the 4,
    but we had that it was intensifying as it approached the coast.
        The reason this was important was that we were co-located--
    we were embedded with the emergency management community in
    Corpus Christi, and we were briefing them on when they would be
    able to go out and rescue people, and when they would not,
    because this was not going to be a storm that they wanted to be
    out on the outer islands for. So we actually worked with them,
    and when--between the satellite data--first of all, the model,
    satellite data, and radars, they actually went out during the
    eye, when the eye wall passed over the coast, and went out and
    rescued over 250 people, and brought them back before the back
    wall came in. So, all things mapped out, the modeling component
    of that sequence was actually the benefit of Sandy's
    supplemental funding.
        Mr. Babin. Great. I really appreciate that, and I'll yield
    back my negative amount of time. Thank you very much. Thank
    you.
        Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Babin, and thank you to
    all of our witnesses for coming today, and hearing us out, and
    answering not one, but two rounds of questions. You have a
    special distinction now in this Committee. But I really
    appreciate the testimony. It was very helpful, and this is a
    critically important issue.
        The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
    statements from Members, and for any additional questions from
    the Committee to the witnesses. With that, the witnesses are
    excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Hon. Neil Jacobs and Dr. Louis Uccellini

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Shuyi Chen

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Christopher Fiebrich

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Mr. Rich Sorkin

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

               Letter submitted by Representative Lizzie Fletcher

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]