[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 163 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 LETTER TO NOAA ADMINISTRATOR JANE LUBCHENCO REGARDING HER INACCURATE 
    AND UNCONSTRUCTIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                              LEGISLATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 27, 2011

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I submit a letter that I have sent to National 
Ocean and Atmospheric Administration administrator Jane Lubchenco in 
response to inaccurate and unconstructive remarks about the House 
Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee recommended 
funding for the Joint Polar Satellite System.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                                  Ocober 26, 2011.
     Dr. Jane Lubchenco,
     Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere,
     Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Lubchenco: I was disappointed by your recent 
     remarks to the Guardian newspaper accusing congressional 
     Repub1icans of endangering the Joint Polar Satellite System 
     (JPSS). I want you to know that your reported accusations 
     were neither accurate nor constructive.
       According to the article, ``Republican budget-cutting 
     measures would knock out that critical capacity by delaying 
     the launch of the next generation polar-orbiting satellites, 
     said Jane Lubchenco.'' You are also quoted as saying, ``It is 
     a disaster in the making. It's an expression of the 
     dysfunction in our system.'' Your remarks mirror similar 
     comments made by deputy administrator Kathryn Sullivan to the 
     Washington Post earlier this summer.
       Perhaps you are unaware that the Republican-authored House 
     FY 2011 bill recommended a higher level of funding for NOAA's 
     satellite acquisition account than the Democrat-authored 
     Senate bill despite the House having a lower allocation than 
     the Senate. Further, for FY 2012, the House Commerce-Justice-
     Science Appropriations subcommittee recommended $901 million, 
     a nearly $430 million increase--91%--above the FY 2011 level 
     for JPSS. Despite having an allocation $2.5 billion higher 
     than the House, the Senate recommended an amount only 
     slightly above the House recommendation, $920 million. To my 
     knowledge, you have never criticized Senate funding levels 
     for JPSS. While the House did not provide the full $1 billion 
     requested, the House level is a significant amount of funding 
     given these austere budget times when other programs in the 
     Commerce-Justice-Science bill were significantly reduced or 
     eliminated altogether.
       Finally, I would call your attention to the fact that any 
     gap in satellite data is not due to lack of funding, 
     ``Republican budget-cutting measures'' or ``the dysfunction 
     in our system,'' but rather years of poor interagency 
     management that resulted in the cancellation of the National 
     Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 
     (NPOESS) satellite program after being more than five years 
     behind schedule, twice as expensive with fewer satellites and 
     less capability. The caution shown by the Congress with 
     regard to funding the successor program, JPSS, is fully 
     justified in light of this record of waste and mismanagement. 
     I have noted below portions of September, 2011 GAO testimony 
     to the Congress on NPOESS mismanagement, from GAO-11-945T:

       ``When its primary contract was awarded in August 2002, 
     NPOESS was estimated to cost about $7 billion through 2026 
     and was considered critical to the United States' ability to 
     maintain the continuity of data required for weather 
     forecasting and global climate monitoring. However, in the 
     years after the program was initiated, NPOESS encountered 
     significant technical challenges in sensor development, 
     program cost growth, and schedule delays. By November 2005, 
     we estimated that the program's cost had grown to $10 
     billion, and the schedule for the first launch was delayed by 
     almost 2 years. These issues led to a 2006 restructuring of 
     the program which reduced the program's functionality by 
     decreasing the number of planned satellites, orbits, and 
     instruments. The restructuring also led agency executives to 
     decide to mitigate potential data gaps by using NPP as an 
     operational satellite. Even after the restructuring, however, 
     the program continued to encounter technical issues in 
     developing two sensors, significant tri-agency management 
     challenges, schedule delays, and further cost increases. 
     Faced with costs that were expected to exceed $14 billion and 
     launch schedules that were delayed by over 5 years, in August 
     2009, the Executive Office of the President formed a task 
     force, led by the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to 
     investigate the management and acquisition options that would 
     improve the NPOESS program. As a result of this review, the 
     Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy 
     announced in February 2010 that NOAA and DOD would no longer 
     jointly procure the NPOESS satellite system; instead, each 
     agency would plan and acquire its own satellite system.''
       Your reported inaccurate and partisan comments are 
     unhelpful. I urge you to publicly correct these inaccurate 
     statements. I await your prompt response.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,

                                                Frank R. Wolf,

                                Chairman, Commerce-Justice-Science
     Subcommittee, Appropriations Committee.

                          ____________________