[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 958, H.R. 959 and H.R. 984
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 27, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
86-098 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Rob Bishop, Utah Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
officio ex officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 27, 2003................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey, Prepared statement submitted for the record. 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Baker, D. James, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Academy of Natural Sciences................................ 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Lautenbacher, Vice Admiral Conrad C., Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 958, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN
HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICES PROGRAMS, TO NAME A COVE IN ALASKA IN HONOR OF
THE LATE ABLE BODIED SEAMAN ERIC STEINER KOSS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;
H.R. 959, A BILL TO IMPROVE THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF COASTAL
AND OCEAN RESOURCES BY AUTHORIZING NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS; AND H.R. 984, A BILL TO IMPROVE
THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF COASTAL AND OCEAN RESOURCES BY
REENACTING AND CLARIFYING PROVISIONS OF A REORGANIZATION PLAN
AUTHORIZING THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.
----------
Thursday, March 27, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.
Gilchrest, [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Pallone. and Bordallo.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee of Fish, Wildlife, and
Oceans will come to order. Welcome, everybody, here this
afternoon. Admiral Lautenbacher, Dr. Baker, we appreciate your
attendance here this afternoon.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was
created as a result of the recommendations included in the 1969
Stratton Commission report. Those recommendations were designed
to create an agency with broad ocean authority and to make
several existing programs work together in a more coordinated
manner to improve our understanding and management of the ocean
and atmosphere. Two of the bills we are considering today, the
NOAA Oceanographic Act and the NOAA Act further that purpose.
H.R. 984, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Act of 2003 updates and replaces the
reorganization plan under which NOAA was created in 1970,
establishes NOAA's primary mission, and authorizes
appropriations for the agency's program support functions. H.R.
959, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Oceanography Amendments Act of 2003 authorizes appropriation
for several of NOAA's coastal and ocean research programs that
are not authorized under other statutes. These bills address
programs under the joint jurisdiction of the House Science and
Resources Committees. These bills provide an up-to-date
baseline from which the Committee can work later this year and
next year when it considers recommendations of the National
Commission on Ocean Policy.
Today we will also hear testimony on H.R. 958, the
Hydrographic Services Amendments of 2003. Last year Congress
enacted a 5-year reauthorization of Hydrographic Service
Improvement Act of 2003. This bill addresses several minor
issues on which final action was not taken last year, including
authorization of navigation response teams and the joint
hydrographic institute and the treatment hydrographic services
volunteers. The bill also names a cove in Alaska for Eric
Steiner Koss, a crew member of the NOAA ship Rainier who was
killed in a work-related accident at that cove last summer.
Finally, the bill authorizes NOAA to replace two aging
hydrographic survey vessels and three aging fishing survey
vessels. These vessels are crucial if we are to ensure safe
navigation in U.S. waters and if we are to have the fishery
data necessary to make wise ecosystem management decisions.
We look forward to your testimony this morning especially
on -- all three bills actually, and the details of all three
bills. We know that the Ocean Commission has not completed its
work, yet the Pew Commission is working to review a number of
things that we are also interested in. So as we move through
the process of reauthorizing NOAA and dealing with Mr. Saxton's
bill and ours as well, we will take much of what they recommend
and say into consideration, both prior to bringing this bill to
the floor and certainly after.
Dr. Baker and Admiral Lautenbacher, we appreciate your
input on these issues today. I yield now to Mr. Pallone.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, on H.R. 958, H.R. 959,
and H.R. 984
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was created as
a result of the recommendations included in the 1969 Stratton
Commission report. Those recommendations were designed to create an
agency with broad ocean authority, and to make several existing
programs work together in a more coordinated manner to improve our
understanding and management of the ocean and atmosphere. Two of the
bills we are considering today, the NOAA Oceanography Act and the NOAA
Act, further that purpose.
H.R. 984, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act,
updates and replaces the reorganization plan under which NOAA was
created in 1970, establishes NOAA's primary missions, and authorizes
appropriations for the agency's program support functions. H.R. 959,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Oceanography Act
authorizes appropriations for several of NOAA's coastal and ocean
research programs that are not authorized under other statutes. These
bills address programs under the joint jurisdiction of the House
Science and Resources Committees. These bills provide an up-to-date
baseline from which the Committee can work later this year, and next
year, when it considers recommendations of the National Commission on
Ocean Policy.
Today we will also hear testimony on H.R. 958, the Hydrographic
Services Amendments of 2003. Last year, Congress enacted a five year
reauthorization of the Hydrographic Service Improvement Act of 2003.
This bill addresses several minor issues on which final action was not
taken last year, including the authorization of navigation response
teams and the joint hydrographic institute and the treatment
hydrographic services volunteers. The bill also names a cove in Alaska
for Eric Steiner Koss, a crew member of the NOAA ship RAINIER who was
killed in a work-related accident at that cove last summer. Finally,
the bill authorizes NOAA to replace two aging hydrographic survey
vessels, and three aging fishery survey vessels. These vessels are
crucial if we are to ensure safe navigation in U.S. waters, and if we
are to have the fishery data necessary to make wise ecosystem
management decisions.
I look forward to the hearing from the distinguished witnesses and
I would now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Frank
Pallone.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. NOAA's activities and
programs obviously are of great interest both to me and the
Democratic members of the Subcommittee and I am looking forward
to hearing from all of our witnesses or our two witnesses
today.
NOAA is tasked with the enormous responsibility of managing
our Nation's coastal and ocean resources. However, the Nation's
responsibilities for managing our coasts and oceans have
changed over the three decades of the agency's existence and
our operative policies should accurately reflect this
evolution. Therefore I support the intentions of the
legislation that we have before us insofar as they mostly
modernize and clarify existing authorities. But I must express
some apprehension at acting prior to the release of
comprehensive reviews of our ocean policy by both the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission.
In the Oceans Act of 2000, Congress tasked the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy to complete a comprehensive
evaluation of ocean and coastal policies, programs, and
activities, and subsequently, to recommend modifications to
Federal laws and the structure of Federal agencies. This leads
me to question why the Subcommittee at this time is considering
legislation to authorize the existing up administration and
organizational structure of NOAA which will assuredly fall
under this commission's recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not implying that these bills are without
substance or merit. On the contrary, authorization of a program
to establish a coordinated ocean and coastal observing system
has been warranted for several years, and particularly I have
long been a strong supporter of the National Undersea Research
Program and the fisheries management oriented research that the
program supports in New Jersey and the Mid-Atlantic region. But
before acting to authorize NOAA as a whole, the Subcommittee
should first consider the broader context surrounding these
issues, and consequently it is my belief that a more thorough
vetting of these ideas among States, local governments, and the
private sector is essential.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your interest in having this
hearing today. I look forward to working cooperatively with you
and the other members of the Subcommittee to ensure that NOAA
remains the Federal Government's pre-eminent ocean authority,
and I also look forward to future hearings later this year when
the Subcommittee convenes to consider the final recommendations
of these two national commissions. Thanks.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Just one other issue
before we get started. Mr. John Rayfield, a staffer who worked
on the old Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee--a Committee
which we all hope will be here again sometime soon--is leaving
us. From 1995 to the present, John has worked on the Resources
Committee. He is not retiring, I do not think. He is going to
the Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure. So thanks, John, for all of your service on
this Committee.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, can I --
Mr. Gilchrest. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Pallone. I just realized that I haven't introduced a
new staff person for the Subcommittee, Katherine Ware, who is
actually here for the first time today, so we want to welcome
her to the Subcommittee as well on the Democratic side. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey
Thank you Mr. Chairman. NOAA's activities and programs are of great
interest to me and the Democrat members of this Subcommittee. I am
looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Welcome to you
all.
NOAA is tasked with the enormous responsibility of managing our
nation's coastal and ocean resources. However, the nation's
responsibilities for managing our coasts and oceans has changed over
the three decades of the agency's existence, and our operative policies
should accurately reflect this evolution.
Therefore, I support the intentions of this legislation in so far
as they mostly modernize and clarify existing authorities. But I must
express some apprehension at acting prior to the release of
comprehensive reviews of our ocean policy by the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission.
In the Oceans Act of 2000, Congress tasked the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy to complete a comprehensive evaluation of ocean and
coastal policies, programs, and activities, and subsequently to
recommend modifications to Federal laws and the structure of Federal
agencies. This leaves me to question why this Subcommittee at this time
is considering legislation to authorize the existing administration and
organizational structure of NOAA, which will assuredly fall under this
commission's recommendations.
I am not implying that these bills are without substance or merit.
On the contrary, authorization of a program to establish a coordinated
ocean and coastal observing system has been warranted for several
years. In particular, I have long been a strong supporter of the
National Undersea Research Program and the fisheries management
oriented research that the program supports in New Jersey and the mid-
Atlantic region.
Before acting to authorize NOAA as a whole, the Subcommittee should
first consider the broader context surrounding these issues, and
consequently, it is my belief that a more thorough vetting of these
ideas among states, local governments, and the private sector is
essential.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your interest in NOAA. I look forward to
working cooperatively with you, and with the other members of this
Subcommittee, to ensure that NOAA remains the Federal Government's pre-
eminent ocean authority. I also look forward to future hearings later
this year when this Subcommittee convenes to consider the final
recommendations of these two national commissions. Thank you.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I would also like to
ask unanimous consent that the statement will be submitted to
the record by Mr. Saxton.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, on H.R. 984, H.R. 958 and H.R. 959
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I commend
you for introducing H.R. 984, a bill to authorize NOAA's basic
structure and missions. Such legislation is long overdue. This bill
provides a baseline from which the Committee can more effectively
review the recommendations of the Ocean Commission later this year. I
hope you will move it quickly. I also appreciate your including in
today's hearing H.R. 959 which authorizes NOAA's oceanographic research
programs.
When NOAA was created in 1972, it brought together Federal ocean
and environmental monitoring and prediction programs into one agency.
The Stratton Commission, which recommended the creation of the agency,
believed that bringing these programs into one agency would encourage
them to work more effectively together. This has occurred in some areas
within the agency. However, budget pressures to support fishery
management, weather prediction, and satellite construction, have often
left NOAA's ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research programs to fight
over whatever budget scraps remain after those larger programs are
funded. H.R. 959 provides a separate authorization for these research
programs. I hope this bill will highlight the important work done by
these programs, and help provide them a fairer slice of NOAA's budget
pie.
Of particular concern to me, is the authorization included in the
bill for the National Undersea Research Program, popularly known as
NURP. There are 6 NURP Centers around the country, most importantly, in
my view, is the Mid-Atlantic Bight Center located in Tuckerton, N.J..
This Center works in conjunction with the Navy and the National Science
Foundation to operate the Long-term Environmental Observatory at 15
meters (LEO-15). LEO serves as a test-bed for cutting edge undersea
research technologies. Once proven, these technologies are used in
other locations to establish integrated long-term ocean observing
systems. The development and implementation of these systems are
crucial if we are to understand the role of the ocean in long-term
climate change, if we are to significantly improve weather forecasting,
and if we are to understand the natural dynamics that govern marine
ecosystems.
The bill also authorizes
the Coastal Ocean Program which funds the Ecology of
Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) program;
NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, and Atlantic Oceanographic and
Meteorological Laboratory;
the Coastal Observing Technology System; and
the Ocean Exploration Program.
The bill also directs the National Ocean Research Leadership
Council to provide Congress with a plan to implement the President's
Panel on Ocean Exploration recommendation for a dedicated multi-year,
multi-disciplinary voyage of ocean discovery.
Finally, I am pleased to see Don Young's hydrographic services bill
on the schedule today. This bill authorizes several important additions
to NOAA's navigation services programs. I hope to have a chance later
today to ask the Admiral about NOAA's plans expanding implementation of
its real time tide and current measurements program, and air-gap and
visibility sensors.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, once again thank you coming this
afternoon to give us your insight into this upcoming
legislation. Admiral, you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL CONRAD C. LAUTENBACHER, UNDER
SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Pallone, distinguished members of the staff, thank you very
much for having the opportunity this afternoon to testify on
behalf of NOAA and the three bills that are up for discussion
this afternoon that will authorized some of our very important
activities. I have a lengthier statement which I ask to be
submitted for the record and included.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Admiral Lautenbacher. We will just go over a couple of high
points in order to allow more time for questions. I view the
issue of NOAA's organization, mission, and role as a very
critical one, certainly to the Administration and to Congress
and to the country. In one of my first acts as the
Administrator of NOAA was to call for a bottom-up fundamental
review that would examine the agency's missions, roles, and
organizations for the future. We completed that 3 months later.
I had asked three questions which I thought were very
pertinent to--and they are pertinent to our discussion today.
First of all, is the NOAA organization aligned with its current
missions and positioned for future missions? Second of all, are
there any significant imbalancs in our resources versus
requirements? And third, are we being as efficient as possible
in meeting current and future mission tasking?
That review was completed and was passed up through my
organization, through the Secretary. We issued 68
recommendations from the program review and several of which
were then forwarded to Congress for reprogramming authority to
change some of our structure, and I am delighted to say it was
agreed to. We're very pleased with Congress's support of these
changes which have been codified in the bill that we are
talking about today. So I am very grateful for that support in
both houses of Congress as well as from the Administration.
They, I think, are important pieces of building NOAA as a
functional organization for the future.
Three of the items that were in there I mentioned that were
particularly important I think were the creation of an office
of program, planning, and integration to begin to bring down
the NOAA stovepipes and build cross-mission tasking and bring
what I would call a common corporate practice to government,
that of matrix management; allowing us to set up teams to meet
the missions requirements of the future. Realignment of
permanent positions, 66 of which were brought into important
areas such as education, and interagency and intergovernmental
coordination. Many of the challenges we face are in building
coalitions and partnerships across agencies and within other
parts of our Federal and State Governments.
Third, the separation of regulatory and research functions,
particularly within our fisheries area where we have taken the
science offices and separated them from those that are doing,
offices that are doing regulation and management in order to
ensure the integrity of the science and the management. Those
changes were made based on the reprogramming authority that we
received from Congress and we are grateful for that support.
The three bills today before us do represent a
comprehensive overview of NOAA and just let me make a couple of
comments on each one here. Let me say, we are very grateful for
the efforts of the staff and the members to support changes in
our authorizing legislation, and the opportunity to build an
organic bill for NOAA. It is the support of the staff here and
this Committee that allows us to get to this point we are at
today and I appreciate that very much.
We want to work with the Committee as we go through this
process for all three of the bills that we have today. I think
there is a great deal of merit in all three of them and that we
can come to a successful conclusion in all of them.
The first bill, the first one on my agenda here, the
Hydrographic Services Amendments of 2003, I want to thank the
Subcommittee for their support for the reauthorization of our
Hydrographic Services Improvement Act last year. This is a very
important bill. The efforts over the last several years have
allowed NOAA to completely convert our 1,000 paper charts to a
computer-based digital system. The bill before us allows us to
go even further. It picks up on some of the provisions which
were left out of the legislation last year and it is important
for us to deal with those issues.
The second bill, H.R. 959, the NOAA Oceanography Amendments
Act, which clarifies the roles and responsibilities of NOAA
line offices with regard to ocean and coastal responsibilities
is extremely important as well. For instance, one of the labs
that would be authorized in this bill is the lab that allowed
us to predict the 1997, 1998, and the 2002 and 2003 El Nino
months in advance. The work done by this laboratory is critical
to the country and to the future of our economy. We would ask
in this case, because not all of our labs are authorized, we
would ask some flexibility in the legislation to allow
authorization for our other lab structure as well in order that
we can have the flexibility to meet some of the scientific and
research challenges that we will meet in the future.
The third bill, the NOAA Administration Act, H.R. 984,
extremely important because it lays out the organization of our
office and authorizes the functions of the line offices, is
extremely important. I am grateful again to the changes that
have been made to the bill that we have asked for. I am
particularly happy about the inclusion of the assistant
administrator for programming, planning and integration. That
is an important function that will allow us to meet the
challenges of the future. And also the authorization of the
science advisory board, another very important key piece which
was begun by Dr. Baker and has turned out to be very valuable
to our organization.
I do believe that we have a couple of things that we would
ask to consult with and work on between the Administration,
between the Committee, but I think that this is a great
opportunity to move forward and to provide an organic act as
well as the oceanography and the hydrographic services act that
we have here to help the agency and help the country.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support, and
Congressman Pallone, for the support of the minority as well. I
too want to thank John Rayfield, before I close, for his many
years of support, dedication, talent, energy that he has put
into this whole effort. On behalf of all of the employees at
NOAA, we are very grateful to John for his hard work on our
behalf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Lautenbacher follows:]
Statement of VADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret.), Under
Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
INTRODUCTION
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for this
opportunity to appear before you to testify on three bills to
reauthorize many of the ocean and coastal programs of the Department of
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA
appreciates your continued support and interest in ensuring that it has
the appropriate authorities and organization to address its ocean,
coastal missions, as well as its atmospheric and climate prediction
responsibilities. My testimony will address the three legislative
proposals before the Subcommittee today: H.R. 958, the Hydrographic
Services Amendments of 2003; H.R. 959, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Oceanography Amendments Act of 2003; and H.R. 984, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act of 2003. NOAA is
pleased to provide initial comments on these three bills, and to work
with the Committee as it deliberates.
The three bills would authorize the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and its line and program offices, the Office
of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (NOAA Research), the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), the Office Marine and
Aircraft Operations (OMAO), and the National Ocean Service (NOS). The
legislation would also authorize NOAA programs and laboratories
including the Coastal Ocean Program (COP), Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory (GLERL), Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
(PMEL), Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML),
National Undersea Research Program (NURP), and Office of Ocean
Exploration. The bills also authorize NOAA Research to conduct research
and monitoring in support of coastal observations and hydrographic
related services. They also authorize the Science Advisory Board (SAB)
and the Fleet Replacement and Modernization program.
A number of provisions in these bills are currently under review
with the Administration, we will work with the Committee, and inform
them as positions are developed. For example, the Administration is
considering alternative options to the volunteer authority in section
102 of H.R. 958, the Hydrographic Services Amendments.
NOAA is concerned that the language in Sections 3, 6, 7, and 8 of
H.R. 984, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act of
2003, may unnecessarily restrict the Secretary's ability to manage the
agency, and we would be happy to work with the Committee to modify this
language. We would also like to work with you regarding some technical
changes to the provision dealing with the Director of Marine and
Aviation Operations and the Commissioned Officer Corps.
H.R. 984, THE ``NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT OF
2003''
NOAA appreciates this opportunity to provide initial comments on
this proposed legislation. I commend the Subcommittee for recognizing
the need to facilitate the integration of ongoing research and
management programs in order to meet diverse national needs and
requirements. NOAA has a proud past and a promising future. I look
forward to working with the Subcommittee as this bill makes its way
through the legislative process. Before I address specific sections of
the legislation at hand, I would like to spend a few moments discussing
the NOAA Program Review Team report which gathered suggestions on
organizational, resource, and business process changes for building a
better NOAA to serve the American people.
Upon coming to NOAA, I called for a bottom-up, fundamental review
that would examine the Agency's strengths and opportunities for
improvement. On February 1, 2002, I asked all NOAA employees to respond
to three questions about NOAA and the way we were doing business at
that time. These three questions were:
1) Is the NOAA organization aligned with its current missions and
future missions? If not, what are your recommendations for change,
near-term and/or long-term?
2) Are there significant imbalances in resources versus
requirements? If so, what are your recommendations for change, near-
term and/or long-term?
3) Are we being as efficient as possible in meeting our current and
future mission tasking? If not, what are your recommendations for
change near-term and/or long-term?
The Program Review Team (PRT), comprised of 16 representatives of
NOAA line and staff offices, deliberated for three months, and made
recommendations to address many of the responses. In June 2002, under
my signature, NOAA issued 68 recommendations from the Program Review
Team process.
There are many other PRT management improvements that are crucial
to improve the way we do business at NOAA. I look forward to working
the Committee to coordinate these activities with your efforts. These
include:
Creation of the Office of Program Planning and
Integration, which would be comprised of 10 permanent positions
reprogrammed from the Under Secretary and Associate Offices and 13
staff detailed from NOAA's line offices. The creation of this office
will result in enhanced research and planning functions, reduce
duplication of effort, provide better alignment of missions, and fill
voids in NOAA's corporate capabilities.
Realignment of 66 permanent positions within the Under
Secretary and Associate Offices to consolidate NOAA education efforts
under the Office of Education and Sustainable Development, and realign
interagency and intergovernmental coordination under the Office of
Public, Constituent and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Separating as much as possible regulatory and research
functions within the Line Offices. This activity also entails creating
a science position within top NOAA Fisheries management, and shifting
the reporting of regional Science Center Directors from the Regional
Administrators to top management within NOAA Fisheries.
Developing a formal corporate decision making process by
establishing two corporate boards: the NOAA Executive Council (NEC) to
review NOAA-wide policy and management issues and NOAA Executive Panel
(NEP) to manage NOAA operations and make policy recommendations to the
NEC.
Establishing a sequential planning, programming and
budgeting process. A new requirements review of NOAA activities will be
part of the programming process.
Managing cross-cutting programs, such as climate and
corals, through a matrix approach that provides managers dual reporting
authority and budget authority.
Instituting needed administrative service improvements.
These would, for example, significantly reduce the time needed to award
grants to your constituents and would put funding increases into the
hands of NOAA program managers within 20 business days after an
appropriations bill is signed by the President. We are also working to
improve facilities maintenance and safety.
Establishing a working group to develop an Observing
System Architecture.
Implementation of this effort will begin to position NOAA to meet
the critical resource and environmental challenges that the Nation will
face in the 21st century. It is intended to unlock the full potential
of this talented organization by providing an improved management
structure and new strategic management processes. These actions will
improve integration across our line offices, increase efficiency,
provide more management visibility, promote increased responsiveness to
customer needs, and be totally supportive of the President's Management
Initiatives. By infusing a set of corporate business practices in the
near-term and focusing and strengthening capabilities in the long term,
NOAA will improve mission delivery and develop a ``corporate NOAA''
identity.
Section 10. Science Advisory Board
Sec. 10 of H.R. 984 authorizes the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and
its activities. The language would authorize the SAB and its operation
within NOAA to provide advice to the agency on strategies for research,
education, and the application of science to resource management and
environmental assessment and prediction. NOAA is pleased to see
Congress' recognition of the importance of the SAB. The Secretary of
Commerce initially approved the establishment of the SAB on August 15,
1997. The Board was initially chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) on September 25, 1997, with the General
Services Administration's concurrence. Since its inception, the SAB has
operated under a charter that is consistent with that proposed in this
legislation.
We request two modifications to Section 10. First, in Section 10
(c) (1), strike ``appointed by the Under Secretary'' and insert
``appointed by the Secretary.'' Second, in Section 10 (c) (3) (A),
strike ``and shall serve at the discretion of the Under Secretary'' and
insert in lieu thereof, ``and shall serve at the discretion of the
Secretary.'' With these changes, the Secretary of Commerce will appoint
the members of the SAB, SAB members will serve at the discretion of the
Secretary, and the Secretary may reappoint SAB members, or not, to
additional terms on the SAB. We believe these changes provide the
Secretary the appropriate flexibility to ensure that the SAB is
effective in its role of advising the Under Secretary on strategies for
research, education, and application of science to resource management
and environmental assessment and prediction. Also, we believe that the
issue of term limits for board members would be better addressed
through the charter for the particular board, rather than through
legislation.
Section 11. General Authorities, Grants, Contracts and Cooperative
Agreements
NOAA requests that H.R. 984 be amended to include alternative
language authorizing the Joint and Cooperative Institutes similar to
that included in Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations approved by Congress,
as follows:
``Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce may
hereafter enter into cooperative agreements with Joint and
Cooperative Institutes as designated by the Secretary to use
the personnel, services, or facilities of such organizations
for research, education, training, and outreach.''
As currently drafted, the proposed language may unduly restrict
NOAA's ability to pursue additional needed research in other fields
with the Joint and Cooperative Institutes in the future. The suggested
language allows for greater flexibility that could enhance NOAA's
ability to fulfill its mission.
This section allows NOAA to continue to collaborate with Joint and
Cooperative Institutes across the country on long-term research
programs. Each of these Joint and Cooperative Institutes are formal,
collaborative long-term research partnerships established under a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Agreement (MOA) between NOAA, through
the Office of the Under Secretary of Oceans and Atmosphere, and
participating universities and non-profit research institutions with
programs dedicated to oceanographic and/or atmospheric research,
education and outreach. By design, most of the Institutes are
geographically co-located with one or more NOAA facilities to promote
scientific exchange and collaboration. The Joint and Cooperative
Institutes bring together the resources of a research-oriented
University or institution and NOAA in order to develop and maintain a
center of excellence in research relevant to understanding the Earth's
oceans, the Great Lakes, inland waters, Arctic regions, solar
terrestrial environment, intermountain west, and the atmosphere.
In addition to authorization for NOAA to enter into agreements with
Joint and Cooperative Institutes, I would like to call the Committee's
attention to NOAA's concerns regarding interagency financing issues for
Coastal America and the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
(NOPP). An annual appropriations provision that applies to all Federal
Agencies restricts these organizations' abilities to obtain
contributions from partner agencies for their operations. These two
programs provide models for interagency collaboration on environmental
and oceanographic projects. NOAA encourages the Committee to consider
the broader need for NOAA-wide authorities to facilitate the success of
such collaborative efforts and initiatives. I believe that clarifying
and updating NOAA's authority to enter into cooperative agreements,
contracts, grants, resource-sharing agreements, and joint and
cooperative institutes with a single NOAA-wide authority for these
purposes will enable NOAA work efficiently with public and private
partners, and to keep pace with its evolving responsibilities in this
area.
NOAA would prefer this language: ``(a) In carrying out the programs
and activities authorized for the Administration, the Secretary may
enter into grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with Federal
agencies, States, local governments, regional agencies, interstate
agencies, Federally-recognized Indian Tribes, commercial organizations,
educational institutions, non-profit organizations, or other persons.
In addition, to facilitate the implementation of programs and
activities authorized for the Administration, the Secretary may apply
for, accept, and use grants or funds from other Federal agencies,
States, local governments, regional agencies, interstate agencies, or
other persons.''
The Commissioned Corps of NOAA is one of the seven uniformed
services. It is important that legislation relating to NOAA preserve
explicitly the special functions of the Commissioned Corps, including
its national emergency functions under Sections 251 and 253 of the NOAA
Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002. Accordingly, we request
addition of the following subsection to Section 11, ``(d) COMMISSIONED
CORPS.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to supersede or
otherwise affect the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Commissioned Officer Corps Act of 2002 (Title II of Public Law 102-
372).''
Section 12. Program Support
NOAA generally supports the authorized amounts to be appropriated
for Corporate Services under Section 12 (a). These amounts would be
sufficient to provide corporate services, including management,
administrative support, and policy development. The proposed section
authorizing appropriations for Corporate Services for each of the
fiscal years 2004-2008 should, however, be consistent with the
President's Fiscal Year 2004-FY 2008 budget requests.
NOAA also supports Section 12 (c) of the proposed legislation,
which authorizes appropriations to enable NOAA to carry out activities
related to maintenance, repair, safety, and project planning and
execution of facilities. Addressing the backlog of facilities
maintenance and repair is critical to NOAA's mission. Since coming to
NOAA, I have focused on our greatest asset, our people. Efficient
mission delivery is highly dependent on a team of skilled and motivated
NOAA employees. In order to attract and retain a competent and
productive workforce, NOAA must maintain state-of-the-art facilities to
which this workforce reports each and every day.
Section 13. NOAA Fleet and Modernization
NOAA's fleet of ships and aircraft support a wide range of ocean
and atmospheric missions, including oceanographic and fisheries
research, nautical charting, habitat mapping and characterization,
ocean exploration, climate studies, hurricane research and
reconnaissance, and air chemistry studies. Most recently, the NOAA
fleet have been supporting the Nation's homeland security efforts.
NOAA's hydrographic survey ships also have been assisting the U.S. Navy
with 100-percent bottom coverage route surveys in strategic ports
around the Nation.
In Fiscal Year 2004, assuming the level of funding specified in the
President's Fiscal Year 2004 request, the NOAA fleet will comprise 16
ships (including the reactivation of the FAIRWEATHER) and 13 aircraft.
Over 50 percent of NOAA's funding for ship support will be met through
outsourcing and over 40 percent of aircraft funding will go toward
aircraft charters. In-house data collection will be supported by 4050
Operating Days on NOAA vessels and 3815 flight hours on NOAA aircraft.
As program requirements for ship and aircraft support increase at NOAA,
and the age of the fleet increases, it is critical that NOAA document
the appropriate mix of outsourcing and in-house data collection and
generate a schedule for the modernization and replacement of NOAA
platforms. Last fall, I directed NOAA Marine and Aviation Operations to
prepare 10-year modernization plans for NOAA ships and aircraft. The
plans document program requirements; new and emerging mission areas,
such as homeland security; outsourcing efforts; and proposes a schedule
for the modernization and replacement of the NOAA fleet. The ship and
aircraft plans are currently in review at NOAA.
Section 13 (b). Fleet Modernization Plan
NOAA plans to continue the fleet planning and modernization effort
described above, and match it to the budget cycle. As such, it is our
intention to develop a 5 year plan that is updated annually. This would
allow NOAA to evaluate annual progress to the current status of the
fleet modernization plan.
H.R. 959, THE ``NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC OCEANOGRAPHY
AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2003''
NOAA conducts a wide array of research aimed at meeting its
missions of protecting, restoring, and managing the use of coastal and
ocean resources through ecosystem management approaches; understanding
climate variability and change to enhance society's ability to plan and
respond; serving society's needs for weather and water information; and
supporting the Nation's commerce with information for safe and
efficient transportation. Our people are working worldwide using some
of the oldest methods, as well as the most modern, to enhance and
further our understanding of our oceans and coasts. Using tools in
space, on the surface of the sea, and on the very depths of the ocean
bottom, NOAA science has provided valuable information for use by
decision-makers and the general public. NOAA is pleased to see
Congress' interest and support of our ocean and coastal programs over
the years and in the bills before us, and we look forward to working
with you further to ensure that the full breadth of our oceanographic
research programs are able to continue their critical work. These funds
will allow NOAA to continue and enhance cooperative research on ocean
and coastal issues with other Federal partners.
NOAA's ocean and coastal research efforts are wide-ranging and have
many significant impacts. Just a few examples include:
The Coastal Ocean Program (COP) is an important
competitive, peer-reviewed research program focused on long-term,
large-scale ecosystem studies necessary to develop alternative
strategies for improving the condition of the coastal ocean. Major
research areas of this program include: coastal fisheries ecosystems,
cumulative coastal impacts, and harmful algal blooms/eutrophication.
The Center for Environmental Health and Biomolecular
Research (CCEHBR) at Charleston, South Carolina, is responsible for
research that leads to the development and improvement in the
ecological indicators from the molecular to the ecosystem level. Major
research areas include: marine toxins and harmful algal blooms;
environmental quality and coastal ecosystem health; land use and
presence of chemical contaminants in the marine environment; and
genetic characterization of fish and shellfish.
The Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program has had several
accomplishments in recent years for hazard assessment, warning, and
mitigation. For example, tsunami inundation maps were completed for 25
additional communities in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and
Washington in fiscal year 02. Evacuation maps are being standardized so
that colors and legends are consistent from state to state for
evacuation brochures. The array of six deep ocean tsunami detectors was
maintained in Fiscal Year 2002 with 98 percent data return using the
NOAA research vessel Kai'imoana. A false alarm was avoided on January
21, 2003 when a large earthquake on the Mexico coastline produced a 1.2
meter tsunami in Manzanillo Bay. A tsunami forecast model is now in
place to begin producing tsunami wave forecasts for selective cities.
Investments in tsunami evacuation maps and state level mitigation plans
have raised the awareness of coastal residents and local decision
makers for tsunami hazards and appropriate response.
Studies are conducted at the Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory (PMEL) to improve our understanding of the complex physical
and geochemical processes operating in the world oceans, to define the
forcing functions and the processes driving ocean circulation and the
global climate system, and to improve environmental forecasting
capabilities and other supporting services for marine commerce and
fisheries.
The Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
(AOML) has addressed such critical issues as rapid hurricane
intensification and helped improve the accuracy of hurricane forecasts,
helping to save lives along the U.S. coastline by contributing
significantly to better warnings and emergency management.
NOAA LABORATORIES
Sec. 5. Oceanography Programs
NOAA is pleased to see that H.R. 959 includes specific
authorization for facilities such as NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory (GLERL), and general authorization for activities
related to coastal environmental health and biomolecular research.
Among these activities is research such as that conducted at the Center
for Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research (CCEHBR), which was
not specifically authorized in this legislation. We appreciate the
interest in NOAA's laboratories. NOAA also requests that Congress
provide language allowing the agency flexibility to create new
laboratories and programs, or reassign tasks as needed, to better meet
its mission as new needs may arise. For example, the NOAA
Environmental Technology Laboratory conducts research into remote
sensing technologies for studying fisheries, and is not mentioned in
the legislation.
NOAA is concerned about the authorization of appropriations in Sec.
208(2) that provides $12 million for ocean and coastal research
activities of laboratories and joint institutes, other than activities
related to GLERL, for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The President's
Fiscal Year 2004 request for these activities among AOML, PMEL, and the
Environmental Technology Laboratory (ETL) is $11.716 million. Holding
the authorization steady at $12 million would curtail the activities
specified by this section in coming years due to inflationary costs
alone. The allowance for GLERL in the authorization of $10 million for
fiscal years 2004 through 2008 may also not allow for necessary
inflationary increases. NOAA requests that H.R. 959 be amended to
provide authorization levels consistent with the President's Budget.
In Fiscal Year 2002 appropriations, Congress directed NOAA to fund
seven university-based programs engaged in the collection and
management of coastal ocean data and in the development and
verification of sensor technologies. Collectively referred to as the
Coastal Observation Technology System, these awards totaled almost $13
M. In addition, NOAA received $475K for program development under the
title of Coastal Observation Technology System. Two of the awards were
administered by NOAA Research and five were administered by NOS. NOAA
worked with these partners to ensure that system development and data
management protocols would be compatible with the national Integrated
Ocean Observing System plan under development at the Ocean.US office
(under the guidance of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council).
In the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations, Congress has directed NOAA
to continue supporting six of the projects funded in Fiscal Year 2002
plus two new related projects, totaling $14.26 M (all in the NOS budget
in fiscal year 03). NOAA receives $1.69 M for program development under
the Coastal Observation Technology title.
It is important to note that elements across NOAA are working with
various partners on issues related to collecting, processing, and
applying observations of the coastal environment. The Coastal
Observation Technology System is but one component of this effort.
While working with these programs, NOAA has also assisted Ocean.US in
the development of a plan for a national coastal ocean observing
system.
RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Sec. 4. Ocean Exploration Program
NOAA would like to suggest one change to the authorities of the
Ocean Exploration Program (OE) highlighted in the new Sec. 206(c)(3).
The language suggests that OE should conduct public education and
outreach activities ``in conjunction'' with the National Sea Grant
College Program (Sea Grant) and the National Science Foundation Centers
for Ocean Science Education Excellence (COSEE). NOAA would prefer that
the language specify ``cooperation'' rather than ``conjunction.'' This
would allow OE to continue to sponsor and conduct public education and
outreach activities that are complementary to Sea Grant and COSEE's
work without having to conduct each activity with them each time, which
might not be the most efficient use of available resources.
NOAA also recommends amending Sec. 206(c)(4) by adding the word
``services'' to the list of donations that OE can accept. This would
allow for individuals with particular expertise in NOAA's issues to
contribute their knowledge to assisting our mission.
Ocean Observations
H.R. 959 also authorizes appropriations for other exciting ocean
and coastal research programs in NOAA. ARGO floats are authorized for
$9M from fiscal years 2004 through 2008. ARGO is part of a larger
observational network dedicated to describing, understanding, and
predicting the earth's climate system. NOAA's climate observation
program is built on the recognition that national and international
partnerships are essential to success. A global observing system by
definition crosses international boundaries and the potential exists
for both benefits and burdens to be shared by many nations. The climate
observation program supports both ocean and atmospheric components, but
the ocean has received the most attention to date because climate
research has left ocean observing system legacies that must be
transitioned to an operational framework. Today NOAA laboratories,
university partners, and volunteer observing ships operate about 60
percent of the in-situ ocean observing system for climate.
NOAA conducts observations in the deep as well as coastal oceans
using a variety of tools. While H.R. 959 discusses in the new Sec. 207
a Coastal Observation Technology System, the only open ocean observing
system authorized by H.R. 959 appears to be ARGO. As part of the larger
system needed to understand our climate and improve the management of
our Nation's coastal and ocean resources, ARGO relies on other critical
components that may be distinct from technologies used in coastal ocean
observing systems. NOAA requests that these components and efforts also
be recognized and authorized as it continues implementing a global
ocean observing system. Together, the coastal and deep ocean observing
technologies paint a much stronger picture of our environment and its
variability that will be of much greater value to decision-makers.
Arctic Research
H.R. 959 authorizes funding for Arctic research partnership
programs. The Arctic Research Office (ARO) serves as a focal point for
NOAA's research activities in the Arctic, Bering Sea, North Pacific and
North Atlantic regions. The office manages the Arctic Research
Initiative, the Study of Environmental Arctic Change Program (SEARCH),
and other funds allocated to it, supporting both internal NOAA and
extramural research. It represents NOAA on the Interagency Arctic
Research Policy Committee, leads U.S. involvement in the Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Program, and provides a point of contact
between NOAA and the Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research and the
International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks.
NOAA is concerned that authorized appropriations in H.R. 959 do not
meet the request currently in the Fiscal Year 2004 budget. As noted
previously for our laboratories, the funding level of $4 million
authorized in the bill is just above the total requested levels for
Arctic research programs and SEARCH. Fiscal year 2004 funding for
SEARCH is actually at $2.074 million, above the $2 million level
authorized by H.R. 959. We would request that the authorization levels
be consistent with the President's Budget.
H.R. 958, THE ``THE HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICES AMENDMENTS OF 2003''
I appreciate and thank the Chairman and members of the Subcommittee
for their continued support for NOAA's hydrographic services, including
your successful efforts in the last Congress to reauthorize these
programs for five years. The efforts of this Subcommittee have been an
essential reason for significant new investment in these programs. The
base budget for these services has increased 80 percent in seven years
from $71 million in fiscal year 96 to $128M in the President's fiscal
year 04 request.
NOAA has used increased support to completely convert to a
computer-based, digital system for maintaining our suite of 1,000 paper
charts. This has allowed us to keep our chart suite updated on an
almost daily basis. It also resulted in the availability of the raster
digital chart, which is basically a digital version of the paper chart.
NOAA has developed new ways of getting this updated information to
mariners. For example, instead of buying a paper chart that gets more
and more outdated every day it sits on a shelf, we have introduced
``print-on-demand'' whereby a chart is printed from our constantly
updated database when it is ordered.
Of course, the advent of new technologies is allowing for
development of a much more dynamic digital chart than a computerized
rendition of the historic paper chart. The objective, as established by
the International Maritime Organization, is for nations to provide a
truly digital, vector chart based on internationally agreed upon
standards. NOAA's IMO-compliant product is called the Electronic
Navigational Chart or ENC. NOAA has prioritized development of these
charts beginning with major ports and waterways. To date, about 240
have been produced and are being regularly updated and maintained. They
are being provided at no cost to the public via the Internet. More than
430,000 have been downloaded since we first posted them on the Web in
July of 2001.
NOAA has made similar progress in our efforts to reduce the backlog
of survey requirements, implement real-time oceanographic systems, and
improve the capability to utilize GPS through the National Spatial
Reference System. Over this same period, we have increasingly relied on
the private sector to achieve our program goals. For example, more than
half of our funding for hydrographic surveys is dedicated to
contracting.
Section 103(a) Quality Assurance Program
This section would essentially require NOAA to promote acceptance
by other nations and international organizations private sector
products certified by NOAA. As was noted in the Administration's views
letter of June 26, 2002, the foreign policy objectives of this section
should be advisory and be included in the Committee Report on the bill.
Section 103(b) Implementation of Executive Order and OMB Circular
As was noted in the Administration's views letter of June 26, 2002,
this section should be advisory and be included in the Committee report
on the bill. The Department is aware of, and currently implementing,
its Executive Branch policies on geospatial information.
Section 104 Plan Regarding Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
As was noted in the Administration's views letter of June 26, 2002,
this reporting requirement is unnecessary because NOAA is already
planning to increase outsourcing for these services. Development of the
plan has included consulting with relevant private sector
organizations.
Section 105 Acquisition of Hydrographic Survey Vessel
Congress has already provided sufficient authority to acquire
hydrographic vessels, including the authority to procure and lease
hydrographic vessels under Section 303(b)(1) of the Hydrographic
Services Improvement Act.
Section 106 Koss Cove
The NOAA family is very grateful for Section 106, which
memorializes an Alaskan cove in honor of Able Bodied Seaman Eric
Steiner Koss of the NOAA Vessel RAINER, who died in the performance of
a nautical charting mission off the coast of Alaska. As this cove
appears to be in state waters, NOAA would be happy to work with the
Committee to ascertain that the State of Alaska has agreed to the name
change.
Section 107 Depiction of Same Shorelines on Charts and Mapping Products
To reflect the merger of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
into the Department of Homeland Security, in section 107 strike,
``Federal Emergency Management Agency,'' and insert in lieu thereof,
``Secretary of Homeland Security.''
In conclusion, NOAA stands ready to work with the Subcommittee
staff to make the necessary changes to the draft bills to reach our
mutual goal of improving NOAA's service to the Nation. This concludes
my testimony, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you
may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Admiral.
Dr. Baker.
STATEMENT OF D. JAMES BAKER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES
Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pallone, thank you very much
for the opportunity to testify. I am pleased to have served as
Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and as Administrator
of NOAA from 1993 to 2001, and especially pleased to see the
excellent job that Admiral Lautenbacher has done as my
successor. I am also serving as chair of the International
Steering Committee for the Global Ocean Observing System. I
believe it is very important for NOAA to have an organic act,
and I am pleased to testify in favor of both resolutions, 984
and 959, which provide that necessary legislation. This will
provide strength to the vital programs that NOAA carries out.
NOAA has had an important impact on the conduct of national
and world affairs since it was formed in 1970. During my tenure
I was pleased to see Congress support these missions and
increase the budget substantially. Today NOAA leads in civil
satellite operations, in ocean exploration, and in coastal
conservation. Yet at critical times in these and other national
policy debates there have been questions about NOAA's mission
and authority, especially where NOAA's programs appear to
overlap that of other agencies. An organic act would help avoid
these unnecessary debates and allow NOAA to carry out its
mission.
I like what I see here about ocean exploration and believe
that it encompasses well the national mission and role of NOAA.
I agree with Congress that a strong ocean exploration program
is critical for the country and I am pleased that thanks to
Congressional support NOAA has taken the lead in ocean
exploration in the United States and real progress is being
made. As you know, the National Research Council was charged by
Congress with assessing the feasibility and value of
implementing a major coordinated international program of ocean
exploration and discovery.
I am convinced that NOAA will play a critical leadership
role in recommending and implementing whatever program is
recommended and finally funded.
In terms of ocean observing systems, I was pleased to see
the emphasis on both coastal and global observing systems. From
my point of view as chair of the International Global Ocean
Observing System Steering Committee I can say that NOAA's
leadership in coastal and global operations is critical to
success for using ocean data for a variety of purposes. Under
the leadership of Dr. Worth Nowlin at Texas A&M an
international plan has been developed and is being implemented
with strong support through the multi-agency Ocean.US office
ably headed by Dr. Eric Lindstrom. I also want to emphasize the
leadership of Dr. Tom Malone of the University of Maryland who
has been instrumental in putting together the Coastal Ocean
Observing Program, which will need strong support at the
upcoming Intergovernmental Oceanic Commission meeting.
I was also pleased to see a specific mention of ARGO
floats. As you know, Mr. Chairman, when I was head of NOAA I
worked with you and your colleagues to develop a comprehensive
ocean observing system with ARGO floats as a key component.
Today the ARGO program is being supported by the United States
and 15 other countries around the world, and observations are
routinely available. More than 20 percent of the total proposed
global array is operating and that funding is coming at a rate
almost sufficient to complete the global array of 3,000 floats
in a few years. I especially commend the new Administrator,
Admiral Lautenbacher, and Dr. Stan Wilson who have continued to
support and develop the program.
Let me say also that as we look to the future it will be
critical to have other ocean observations; namely, the
satellites that measure the shape of the ocean, altimeter
satellites such as the multinational JASON-2 program; more
tropical moored buoys such as the TOGA-TAO array that gives us
information for forecasting the El Nino; coastal moorings, sea-
level gauges, surface drifting buoys, and measurements from
ships of opportunity. These are all critical for understanding
the ocean. Such observations coupled with data management are
critical for dealing with coastal and global issues.
Let me conclude with a word about details of the
legislation. From my experience, I would suggest that is
important to have the Under Secretary report directly to the
Secretary with no intermediary. This is critical for
functioning of the agency. I notice that the assistant
administrators are to be appointed by the Secretary. I believe
that this appointment authority should be delegated to the
Under Secretary.
Finally, I was pleased to see the strong support provided
to the Science Advisory Board. This has been a critical element
for NOAA as it reaches out to a broader community. With the
excellent leadership of Dr. Al Beeton, that group was able to
provide very good guidance for a variety of programs and I am
glad to see that it will continue.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 959 speaks strongly about the need to
have a heightened scientific literacy and public appreciation
of the oceans and the need for NOAA to conduct public education
and outreach activities that improve public understanding of
ocean science, resources, and processes. I believe this can
best be done in collaboration with existing institutions, and
there are many institutions that NOAA reaches out to today.
Among those are my own institution, The Academy of Natural
Sciences, where we carry out environmental research on a
national scale as well as in Pennsylvania and on the Chesapeake
Bay. Our laboratories work closely with NOAA on a variety of
issues and we depend, as does the general public, on a healthy
Federal research structure as exemplified by NOAA. Our
Estuarine Research Center works closely with NOAA's Chesapeake
Bay office, with the University of Maryland, and with other
local and regional institutions. We believe that by working
together we can find a way to bring our strengths to bear on
the important issues that you have shown leadership on for such
a long time. We hope we can develop some new public programs in
Maryland and Philadelphia to build the scientific literacy that
is highlighted in the bill, and we look forward to working with
NOAA to improve the public understanding of oceans.
We are looking to reinvent our natural history museum to
show the excitement and commitment of this important research.
I am looking for ideas about how we might do this, and we are
talking to you and your colleagues and the staff about what
might be done. Our two institutions, NOAA and The Academy
actually do have a connection and it comes through Thomas
Jefferson because, of course, it was Thomas Jefferson who
established the original coast survey that started NOAA, and it
was Thomas Jefferson who in fact sent Lewis and Clark out on
their famous expedition. At The Academy of Natural Sciences we
have all of the original plant specimens from Lewis and Clark.
So if you will pardon me for putting in a plug for an exhibit
in November 2004, I want to say that we will have the first
bicentennial exhibit of the Lewis and Clark exhibit in
Philadelphia. It will also be coming to Washington in 2006.
So thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and let
me also say a word in praise of John Rayfield. Most of what I
know about how to deal with Congress I learned from John over
the many years that I was working with him before I came to
NOAA and while I was at NOAA. John, thank you for your help and
congratulations on your new job with the Coast Guard. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
Statement of D. James Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on H.R. 959
and H.R. 984
1. Introduction
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify at this
important hearing. I am D. James Baker, President and Chief Executive
Officer at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. I am
pleased to have served as Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and
as the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) from 1993 to 2001. I am also serving as the Chair
of the international Steering Committee for the Global Ocean Observing
System sponsored by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of
UNESCO, the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations
Environment Program, and the International Council for Science. I
believe that it is very important for NOAA to have an Organic Act, and
I am pleased to testify in favor of House Resolutions 984 and 959 which
provide the necessary legislation. The Congress has always strongly
supported NOAA, and I hope that this resolution will also pass, because
it will provide strength to the vital programs NOAA carries out.
From weather and climate to fisheries and coastal zone management,
NOAA has had an important impact on the conduct of national and world
affairs since it was formed in 1970. During my tenure, I was pleased to
see Congress support these critical missions and increase the budget
substantially. Today NOAA leads in civil satellite operations, in ocean
exploration, and in coastal conservation among other issues. Yet at
critical times in these and other national policy debates there have
been questions about NOAA's mission and authority especially where
NOAA's programs appeared to overlap that of other agencies. An organic
act would help avoid these unnecessary debates and allow NOAA to carry
out its mission. I would like to divide my testimony into three parts:
(1) the importance of NOAA nationally in ocean exploration, (2) the
role of NOAA in coastal and global ocean observations, and (3) the need
for NOAA to make its case to the public.
1. Ocean Exploration
I like what has been written here about ocean exploration, and
believe that it encompasses well the national mission and role of NOAA.
I agree with the Congress that a strong ocean exploration program is
critical for the country. Thanks to Congressional support, NOAA has
taken the lead in ocean exploration in the United States, and real
progress is being made. As you know, the National Research Council has
been charged by Congress with assessing the feasibility and value of
implementing a major, coordinated, international program of ocean
exploration and discovery. I am convinced that NOAA will play a
critical role in implementing whatever program is recommended and
finally funded.
2. Ocean Observing Systems
In terms of ocean observing systems, I was pleased to see the
emphasis on both coastal and global observing systems. From my point of
view as Chair of the International GOOS Steering Committee, I can say
that NOAA's leadership in coastal and global observations is critical
to success for understanding, predicting, and using ocean data for a
variety of purposes. Under the leadership of Dr. Worth Nowlin at Texas
A&M University, an international GOOS strategic plan has been developed
and is being implemented with strong U.S. support through the multi-
agency Ocean.US office, ably headed by Dr. Eric Lindstrom. I want also
to emphasize the leadership of Dr. Tom Malone of the University of
Maryland who has been instrumental in putting together the Coastal
Ocean Observations Program, which will need strong support at the
upcoming IOC meeting.
I was pleased to see a specific mention of ARGO floats. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, while I was head of NOAA I worked with you and your
colleagues to develop a comprehensive ocean observing system with ARGO
floats as a key component. Today, the ARGO program is being supported
by the U.S. and 15 other countries around the world, and observations
are routinely available. I understand that more than 20 percent of the
total proposed global array is operating, and that funding is coming at
a rate almost sufficient to complete the global array of 3000 floats in
a few years. I especially commend the new Administrator and Under
Secretary, Admiral Lautenbacher, and Dr. Stan Wilson, who have
continued to support and develop the program.
Let me say also that as we look to the future, it will be critical
to have other ocean observations--namely the satellites that measure
the shape of the ocean, altimeter satellites such as the multinational
JASON-2 program, tropical moored buoys such as the TOGA-TAO array and
coastal moorings, sea level gauges, surface drifting buoys, and
measurements from ships of opportunity. Such observations, coupled with
data management, are critical for dealing with both coastal and global
issues.
3. Legislation
Let me say a word about the details of the legislation in H.R. 984.
From my experience I would suggest that it be made clear that the Under
Secretary report directly to the Secretary with no intermediary--this
is critical for functioning of the agency. I noticed that the Assistant
Administrators are to be appointed by the Secretary--I would suggest
that this be done with the advice of the Under Secretary. Finally, I
was pleased to see the strong support provided to the Science Advisory
Board. This has been a critical element for NOAA as it reaches out to a
broader community. I established the first such Board, and with the
able and excellent leadership of Dr. Alfred Beeton, it was able to
provide very good guidance for a variety of programs. I am glad to see
that it will continue.
4. Public Programs
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 959 speaks strongly about the need to achieve a
heightened scientific literacy and public appreciation of the oceans,
and the need for NOAA to conduct public education and outreach
activities that improve the public understanding of ocean science,
resources, and processes. I believe that this can best be done in
collaboration with existing institutions. At the Academy of Natural
Sciences, we carry out environmental research on a national scale as
well as in Pennsylvania and on Chesapeake Bay. We carry out research in
systematic and evolutionary biology, we care for major collections, and
we operate a major public museum. Our laboratories work closely with
NOAA on a variety of issues and we depend, as does the general public,
on a healthy Federal research structure as exemplified by NOAA. In
Maryland our Estuarine Research Center works closely with NOAA's
Chesapeake Bay Office, with the University of Maryland, and with other
local and regional institutions. We believe that by working together,
we can find a way to bring our strengths to bear on the important
issues that you have shown leadership on for such a long time.
We also hope that we can find ways to develop new public programs
both in Maryland and in Philadelphia to build the scientific literacy
that is highlighted in the bill, and we look forward to working with
NOAA to improve the public understanding of oceans and their resources
to show our many audiences the importance of this work. We want to re-
invent our natural history museum to show the excitement and commitment
of this important research. I'm looking for ideas for exhibits and
programs, and will be talking to you, your colleagues, and your staff
about what might be done.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify, and look forward to successful passage of the
legislation.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Baker.
I think what we will do is we will--I think we just lost
the gentlelady from Guam. Maybe we will go back and forth,
Frank. I will take about five, you take you five.
Admiral and Dr. Baker, I would like to ask a few questions
where you feel free to both respond. Admiral, you made
reference to just a couple items in the legislation that we can
work through. Could you just mention one or two of those items
that you think we might want to change in the language that we
have now?
Admiral Lautenbacher. There are a few things in the--I
guess it depends on which legislation you would like to go
through, because there are a couple of comments that we have
for each one of these.
Mr. Gilchrest. H.R. 984.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Let me get to my page here with
those. I think the issue of designating--again we are still
working through this within the Administration--designating
specific positions for whether they are SES, general positions,
that we would like to work on language that keeps flexibility
for the Administration yet provides the intent of Congress to
ensure that we have the right organizational set up. So the
specificity of whether positions are SES, general, political,
whatever, we would like to talk about which ones fit into
various categories instead of designating each one. So those
are some changes that we would like to--
Mr. Gilchrest. So the language as it stands right now as
far as designating the specificity of positions is a little too
restrictive?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, that is the Administration's
current position at this point. But I believe that we can work
this out with some conversation back and forth as we go through
this.
There are some issues, as Dr. Baker mentioned, about
whether the Secretary appoints people or whether it is
delegated to the Under Secretary. The Administration's position
would be that the Secretary, levels of appointments should be,
in the authorizing language, at the Secretarial level and then
allow the executive branch to redelegate as necessary. There
are many things that work that way now internal to the
Department of Commerce where the Secretary is named in
legislation to be responsible for something which is in the
NOAA purview and then it is relegated from the Secretary and
that works fine. So I think those are, again, areas where we
can discuss specifically.
Again, the Science Advisory Board we would like to have it
say it is authorized or appointed by the Secretary because that
is the normal way the rest of the boards are set up within the
Department of Commerce. I think this is just a language issue.
So we are not talking about major substantive changes. I am
talking about language changes to ensure that the flexibility
and prerogatives of both Congress and the Administration are
properly safeguarded as we go through this.
There are a couple of things here regarding joint and
cooperative institutes, language in Section 11. We would like
to see language which is probably fairly close to what the
appropriations language has now that we have been working under
because that will give us the most flexibility in terms of
having these partnerships, very productive partnerships with
universities to create joint institutes for research together.
That has been a productive area for us.
We would also like to call the Committee's attention to
some concerns regarding our interagency financing issues for
two programs that I think are really good; the Coastal American
Program and the NOPP, the National Oceanographic Partnership
Program. There is some restrictive legislation that causes us
an issue when we try to get interagency support for these
programs. In other words, these are interagency programs that
try to leverage the various expertise that is available across
a wide variety of agencies to help with regional problems, and
to help with research in the case of NOPP. Right now we have
difficulty setting up those agreements to allow other agencies
to contribute. This is a mechanical issue more than it is
anything else, but we are in need of some help in that area if
we are to realize the benefits from Coastal America and the
Oceanographic Partnership Program.
Mr. Gilchrest. I might just ask, Admiral Lautenbacher, in
Dr. Baker's testimony he made a suggestion that it be made
clear that the Under Secretary report directly to the Secretary
with no intermediary; critical for the functioning of the
agency. Is that something that you would agree with? I do not
know how we would put something like that in the legislation. I
guess we could do almost anything.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Or try. Would you like to comment on that
and then maybe a clarification from Dr. Baker?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. I believe that I feel that
I do work for the Secretary. I do not see--in the situation
that I have come into in the current Administration if feel
that that is the system that we have in place so I am not--I
agree with Dr. Baker in a sense that the Under Secretary should
report to the Secretary. That is in fact the right way to do
business and it is the way we do it today. I do not have a
formal comment as the how to set that up in legislation itself.
Let me pass to Dr. Baker.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Baker.
Mr. Baker. Having had experience with four Secretaries, I
can say that I had a variety of different interactions. What I
would say is there is that some Secretaries are great in terms
of delegating the responsibilities of the agency to the head of
the agency; everything works fine. Other Secretaries would like
to step in and make decisions sometimes which are not
justified. I think it is important that you have a statement
something like: ``the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
shall be the Department of Commerce official responsible for
all ocean and atmosphere issues.'' In this way there is not a
tendency to set up an unofficial adviser through which the
Under Secretary has go through in order to get to the
Secretary.
The only reason I mention this, is that this has happened
to me, and it has happened to previous administrators. So some
statement about the fact that this responsibility for ocean and
atmosphere, this is the official responsible for it, I think
would be a useful thing to have. I think some language could be
worked up along those lines.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Baker. That is interesting
and we will take that into consideration. I think some of the
other areas, Admiral, that you have some concerns with
probably, I would guess, can be worked through ourselves and
with the staff.
I yield now to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, you heard in my opening statement that I
mentioned the two national commissions, the National Commission
on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission which are
scheduled--both are scheduled to release a broad series of
recommendations to modernize our ocean policy in the
foreseeable future. So my questions really relate to that. The
Subcommittee, obviously, has three bills collectively that
would authorize NOAA's organizational and administrative
framework. The question really is, knowing that these other two
commissions are going to come out with their reports, should
Congress consider this legislation now, should we defer action
on these bills until these commissions transmit their
recommendations to Congress? Either one of you or both of you.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir. I am very aware of the
deliberations by the Oceans Commission, President's commission
and the Pew Commission. I have been a supporter of the
legislation and the role that they are performing and I am
looking forward to hearing their recommendations and to working
to do whatever we can to improve the situation based on those
recommendations.
I do believe, however, that there is a need to consider the
bills that we have today in today's context and to use that as
a baseline. NOAA is an extremely important organization or
agency to this country. It has been working very hard over many
years under a piecemeal authorization type of situation. Dr.
Baker said it very eloquently as he talked about the need to
ensure that our missions and roles are characterized in today's
world as the rights ones and that we are empowered to be able
to do them both in context with the Administration and
Congress.
I also think it would be beneficial as the commission gives
their report, and we already know that the President's
commission will be late and probably later this year before we
even see the report, which means that this could take awhile to
get through the system. That having the work that this
Committee has done set up as a baseline from which to compare
and work would probably be a good benchmark. Do not try to bite
off the whole thing at once; let us work in stages and this is
a good stage to set as the next floor from which to work. So I
would support continuing to deliberate on these bills. Thank
you.
Mr. Pallone. Dr. Baker.
Mr. Baker. Congressman Pallone, having watched NOAA for a
long time, and worked with Congress and the agency and been
part of it, I believe that it very important for the United
States to have a strong ocean agency. I think the issues are
important. We work best in our system by having a single agency
with a single responsibility. Frankly, I think the best thing
that we could have is an independent NOAA with an Oceans
Committee in Congress. That is really what we ought to be
working for. If we could direct our legislation to help us get
there, that would be great. I do not know what these
commissions are going to recommend. I have told them, both
commissions, that that is really what we ought to be aiming
toward, because we are only going to be able to address oceans
issues in the United States with a very strong NOAA. NOAA is
the agency that has these things. NOAA has the expertise and it
is the place to reach out and make it happen. So the more that
we can do in terms of outlining roles and mission, and
focusing, I think the closer we will get to that goal.
Mr. Pallone. I am not going to be able to--I am not going
to ask you about the congressional Committee because, as you
know, Mr. Chairman, I was not an advocate for abolishing the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. When I heard your idea
about reestablishing it, it certainly sounds good. But I know
that is going to have to be the Republicans since they are in
the majority. They are going to make that decision so I will
not go there today.
Mr. Gilchrest. If the gentlemen would yield just for a
second.
Mr. Pallone. Of course.
Mr. Gilchrest. I will give you my line to the former
Speaker on that issue before the swearing-in ceremony of 1995.
It was from Oliver Cromwell's last moments where he said, I
beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you
might be mistaken. So that phrase was used to preserve the
Merchant Marine, Fisheries Committee and it will be reenacted,
we hope, in the coming sessions.
Mr. Pallone. I wish you luck. I always felt the only reason
it was abolished was because the Speaker, who was then
Gingrich, felt he had to abolish some Committees and a lot of
emphasis was not placed on which ones to abolish.
But in any case, you mentioned that you would support an
independent agency. In other words, have NOAA be similar to,
say, the EPA as an independent agency. Can I ask, Admiral,
would you comment on that as well? Would you favor a similar
type of thing?
Admiral Lautenbacher. The Administration has not been
developed a clear position on that at this point. It is not a
recommendation of the commission yet. We have testified, Dr.
Bodman has testified to the Ocean Commission and I have
testified to the Ocean Commission that there are pros and cons
on both sides of that issue. Obviously, as Dr. Baker said,
there is a very strong argument to have an independent NOAA in
terms of having a strong ocean agency with the empowerment and
independence to work in those areas which are so vital to our
country.
On the other hand, an agency to be strong and function
independently needs to have a certain level of resources, a
level of scope and span of control, a certain empowerment at a
level where they can compete in terms of working with OMB,
working with the President, working with the Committees, the
structure in Congress.
Mr. Pallone. So it would have to be different, in other
words, if it is going to be independent.
Admiral Lautenbacher. I think we need to think about that
very carefully, when you make an independent NOAA, what it
would contain and how it would function as an independent
agency versus being under the wing of the Commerce Department.
So that there are models on both sides and I have expressed my
opinion that we need to think carefully which model makes,
sense. Obviously, the Administration will be prepared to
comment when the Ocean Commission comes out with their--we will
work through that inside the Administration.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, both.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Intriguing
questions; thoughts for our future road map.
Admiral, I would like to ask just a couple of questions
on--you made a comment about separating the regulatory arm of
NOAA and the research arm of NOAA. I was wondering if you could
tell us how that might work, let's say with the Magnuson Act.
There has been a great deal of discussion up here on the
Magnuson Act over the last 2 years. We are going to try to
reauthorize it in this Congress. Some people's comments about
the Magnuson Act would be that the Magnuson Act is an Act that
regulates fishing. It is not an environmental act. I would not
agree with that but that is a certain understanding from many
members up here.
In the Magnuson Act it deals--it is highly dependent upon a
great deal of understanding about how the ocean works which
comes from the research arm as far as the habitat needs of the
fishery. It also depends and will continue to--the Magnuson Act
that will be reauthorized will emphasize more than it has in
the past on pursuing an ecosystem approach to managing the
fisheries, which seems that the regulatory arm and the research
arm would have to be collaborating. So if you could just
comment in general on separating the research arm from the
regulatory arm, and then in specifics about how it might work
with Magnuson.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir, I hear you. It is an
important question. The specific instance I was talking about
was just with regard to our national marine fisheries service
science centers. The marine fisheries service is basically a
regionalized, decentralized type of operation. It has a number
of regional offices and then each region has a science center.
The way that has worked in the past is the science center has
been reporting to the regional office, and the regional office
is the office that supports the local councils, does much of
the work in helping them build the plans, and is involved daily
in regulatory matters and the functioning of the council with
regard to its mandatory responsibilities under Magnuson-
Stevens.
We have a research arm that does a great deal of the
research for both oceans, mostly oceans and atmosphere. Not so
much living marine resources, but some. In the other line
offices we also have specific research. So the objective here
is to ensure that the research that we have is done on a basis
which is recognized, completely recognized as sound science by
the entire scientific community, everybody that is involved, to
ensure that our science is the best available and is done in an
environment in which there is no pressure from outside sources
to corrupt that to meet some parochial need along the way. So
that is the higher level issue that we have.
We have set up a research council now that includes all of
our lines, and a head of that council to build policies and
directives that are going to keep this, I think, at a level
where it needs to be for sound science.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am sure that would be very helpful in the
process of the council meetings.
Dr. Baker, do you want to comment on that at all?
Mr. Baker. Let me just say a couple of words. One is that I
think it is a good idea to do this kind of separation. I saw
that tension when I was at NOAA and I am glad to see a
separation happening. But I think there two other issues in
terms of management of marine fisheries, particularly
commercial fisheries, that are important. One is not
necessarily doing the science. I think NOAA does a good job of
doing the science. But it is translating the issues of science
to policymakers, to the Deputy Secretary and Secretary of
Commerce, to the White House, to Members of Congress, trying to
make sure that it is fully understood what the scientists are
trying to say.
Mr. Gilchrest. You are saying that is difficult?
Mr. Baker. That is difficult. It is very difficult. I had a
hard time--
Mr. Gilchrest. Why is that difficult?
Mr. Baker. Well, I am a scientist. I am a physical
oceanographer, not a biologist, but I had a hard time
understanding what some of the fishery scientists are trying to
tell me because it was too complicated. I had to get them to
simplify so that I can understand what are the things where you
really understand, where are the uncertainties, how can we make
the case that we are trying to make, what is the case you are
trying to make, and how do we make it to the Secretary so that
we can have the right kind of quota for spiny dogfish, for
example.
Mr. Gilchrest. And then to the fisherman in Gloucester.
Mr. Baker. It is the same thing.
Mr. Gilchrest. Right, on both sides.
Mr. Baker. I think we have a big issue of translation of
science. We do a lot of good things in science but there are
complex issues and I think we have to work on this problem.
That is why I think it is good that we have regulatory and
science issues in the same agency so that somebody like the
Admiral can think about how you bring these two things
together.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to volunteer my wife for that.
If my wife can understand it then it would probably be OK.
Mr. Baker. This would be good. You should sign her up.
Mr. Gilchrest. I go home and try to explain things and I
try to have the patience of Christ when I do that. Actually,
part of this is comical, but when I sat in Gloucester at the
last New England Fishery Management Council meeting and I heard
the scientist explaining a whole range of issues dealing with
the health of the stock, whether it was cod or what have you, I
sat there with all my faculties and tried to understand what
they were talking about, having some limited experience in the
process. And it was difficult, if not impossible.
So the ability to communicate that kind of information to
the Secretary, to the President, to the fishermen--and you
mentioned something, you made reference to that in your
testimony about the need to communicate this through the
educational process is really vital. We have that same
situation where we try to explain these kinds of things to
members. So a goal that is oriented toward that kind of
critical communication certainly would be worthy.
Mr. Baker. Absolutely. One of the things we are doing in
our museum in Philadelphia is setting up what we call a town
square for translation of science issues, and we are focusing
on that question. What are the tough problems? How can we
explain where we are in terms of science, and then how do we
bring people together? I think you have put your finger on
exactly what the issue is there.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Baker.
Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I am listening very attentively
here to the translation as well as the comments about when you
go home because I do not try to explain anything if I can avoid
it.
I wanted to ask about the National Undersea Research
Program. This is to the Admiral. In H.R. 959, the bill provides
authorization for several important NOAA programs including the
National Undersea Research Program and also the Ocean
Exploration Program, which is relatively new. I just wanted to
ask about the distinction, Admiral. What is the distinction
between the two? And whether the programs should be combined.
Admiral Lautenbacher. As a matter of fact, it is
interesting, in our matrix management scheme we are managing
them together now. So that is a good point that you bring up
because they are complementary, in a sense. The Undersea
Research Program has been fairly well-established and it
includes a great deal of specific types of deep diving
expeditions and coverage of a variety of issues but, generally
speaking, confined to deep diving technologies that go with it
and then what I would call undersea observatories. Those
pieces, in fact one in New Jersey is one of our prime stars of
the system. So the NURP program has been focused in those
areas.
The Ocean Exploration Program has been designed on a much
broader scale to cover the entire ocean for that matter. This
is a large-scale program. We know more about the dark side of
the moon than we do about the bottom of the ocean. So we are
talking in ocean exploration about the organization of what I
would call large-scale expeditions that only an organization
like NOAA in company with NSF and the Navy and other large
organizations can put together to explore Mid-Atlantic ridges,
to look at new life forms, to look at seismic activity at the
bottom of the ocean, to map the bottom of the ocean, to look at
habitat, specific ecosystem habitats in the ocean. It is a very
large-scale program.
Your point about them being managed together is a good one
because part of my matrix management initiative for NOAA
includes managing those together to ensure that they are
complementary and supportive of each other, not duplicative.
Mr. Pallone. I wanted to ask about submersibles, too.
Basically, what is the appropriate role for NOAA in the
encouragement and development of new generations of the
underwater submersibles, both the manned and the unmanned, if
you would comment on that?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, I think NOAA has a very
important role in the area. We have in the past been a leader
in the technologies and we have done that in collaboration and
partnership with the major oceanographic institutions of this
country, academic and otherwise, such as Woods Hole and
Scripps, independent organizations. But those partnerships are
very important. So NOAA has a role in working on the
technology, working on sponsoring large-scale expeditions, and
working on the empowerment of a large-scale partnership to
ensure that the country has a lead and has the proper lead in
oceanographic exploration.
Mr. Baker. I wonder if I could just make a comment about
that.
The NURP program, the National Undersea Research Program I
think is a very important program for NOAA, has been for a long
time and it has developed in a strong way. But it has never
reached the potential that was really identified for it at the
beginning. One of those things was to develop the technology
for doing the kinds of things that the ocean exploration
program talks about doing on a global scale. The NURP program
has worked well as far as it has gone but it really needs
substantially more funding to provide the kinds of ocean
technology so that we have really do all these things that we
are talking about.
I would love to see here a stronger NURP program that
underpins the ocean exploration program. I think they do need
to go together, but if we could get back to the original goals
of NURP and provide that kind of support then NOAA could play
this role as the civil ocean technology agency, that it was
envisioned when it was first set up in the 1970's.
Mr. Pallone. I agree. I think funding is a major issue
there. Dr. Baker, I wanted to ask you a question too. In the
previous Administration under President Clinton there was a
reinventing government initiative and there was a proposal to
abolish the NOAA Corps and mothball the NOAA fleet. Now
conversely, legislation passed last Congress and legislation
before the Subcommittee today provides authorization to
modernize the fleet and construct new vessels. So first of all,
why has the attitude changed toward NOAA's fleet of research
vessels in both the Congress and at NOAA? Can you give us any
insight into that?
Mr. Baker. There were two pieces to the question. One is
the NOAA Corps. It was my belief and the belief of the
Administration, that the NOAA ships, the operations of NOAA
could be carried out just as well by civilians as by a
uniformed corps. We believed that the functions had to be
carried out but we did not see the need of a small uniformed
corps. We tried to see if we could make arrangements whereby we
could transfer the functions of the NOAA Corps over to a
civilian group. In the end, a lot of things did not work and we
were not able to make that happen.
But I was always, and the Administration was always in
support of having sea-going capability for NOAA, and we looked
at a variety of ways of doing that. One of those was to improve
the quality and number of NOAA ships. We put in a number of
requests. I think we in fact got some of the first money for
new NOAA ships in the Clinton Administration. We also looked at
ways of leasing so we could engage the private sector. That has
not gone as far as the question of trying to provide new ships.
But the whole idea of providing, for example, four to six new
fishery vessels is something that started under the Clinton
Administration. We were strong supporters of that and I am glad
to see that that is now continuing because I think the
fisheries service needs those new quiet ships for stock
assessment. And we need the new hydrographic ships; same thing.
I do not think there is a change. When I came on board
there was a NOAA ship replacement plan. In 1993 we adjusted
that and changed it. We turned it in, in fact to, I think, a
reality in terms of getting commitment for new fisheries
vessels and I see the new Administration is supporting that. So
I think there has been a continuing commitment from the agency
and from Congress in providing modern sea-going capability for
NOAA.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, related to that I just one more
question about whether there should be a limit imposed on the
amount of contracting or chartering of ships by NOAA, and
whether that kind of limit would impede or hinder your data-
gathering responsibilities.
Mr. Baker. I have always felt that you want a mix of
capabilities for an agency like NOAA. I think in some cases
contracted fisheries vessels can collect information on
fisheries, and we had a number of discussion and I know those
are ongoing, about using commercial fishing vessels for
collecting such information.
On the other hand, I think it is also important for the
agency to has its own independent capability. But I would not
try to put a limit on this. I think, in the end, a mix of
private and public facilities is always the best way to go. It
is always the most cost-effective way to go.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Do you want to
comment on that, Admiral?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I agree with Dr. Baker in just about
everything that he said there. In terms of the plan, we are
building a plan and we are continuing on with the object of
modernizing the fleet. I believe that the country needs a core
oceanographic capability to cut across the various science
disciplines that are contained within the NOAA organization. We
need to be the leaders in this area as this country progresses
into the future. So there is a need for this core capability.
Now we look at the most efficient way to do business and a
great deal of what came out of working on the NOAA Corps issue
that happened during Dr. Baker's tenure, the Corps is a lot
leaner, it is more efficient today, it provides a service that
is comparable in cost to a civilian organization. So thanks to
the work that has been done, it is a very cost-efficient
organization. So they are doing well in terms of providing the
kinds of support we need for our core capabilities.
But we also have--half of our support is contracted out
and, in certain circumstances, that makes a lot of sense. We do
it based on a cost-effectiveness basis for the future. Our
plan, looking at modernizing our fleet, is taking the same
things into account. What is the best way to do it? Is this a
mission that has to be a NOAA Corps capability or can it be
done more efficiently and more effectively by civilian
contracts? So we are right in step with that.
Mr. Gilchrest. So a mix of NOAA Corps and leasing is the
order of the day?
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. If there is anything we can do in the
legislation to hold onto that capability or help emphasize that
capability we would like to work with you on that as well.
Mr. Saxton had a couple of questions that I will ask on his
behalf. The first one is, what is NOAA's current expansion plan
for the PORTS, the Physical Oceanographic Real-Time Systems,
and does NOAA have a strategic plan to pursue a nationwide
PORTS program for all commercial ports? What's the timeframe to
accomplish that goal and the estimated cost?
Admiral Lautenbacher. The PORTS program, as I think
everybody is aware, until the passing of the most recent
legislation has been a collaborative partnership program in
which NOAA provides technical out and the set-up, initial
capitalization of much of the equipment. But the operations,
maintenance, day-to-day and support has been provided by each
local port. The Hydrologic Improvement Services Improvement Act
gave in order to--has asked the Nation, essentially, to fund
the whole operation.
That Act was passed late in the year. When we did our
Fiscal Year 2004 budget that was not part of the program. So we
are working on that in Fiscal Year 2005. I have not had a
chance to bring these, what I would call major policy and
funding issues, up through the Administration yet to get a
reading on how we are going to deal with that. Obviously there
is a resource impact here, and there is also an operational
concept impact because of the partnerships that been set up now
across the country.
So I think it is a legitimate point of view to look at
whether the Nation should provide that type of support whether
it should be provided locally and regionally. It is again a
partnership issue.
In terms of spreading, we are trying to take the PORTS
technology and move it to every place that it makes sense. We
have new PORTS systems in operation now. We plan to put four
more in operation in 2003, and we have plans on the table to
keep expanding this technology. We also asked for money this
year to improve our water level network, national water level
network, which is the tide gauges, et cetera. That is the that
goes into these systems to make them work. We have asked for
some money to improve the modeling so that we can tell you what
is going to happen in the future needs in each port instead of
giving you a now-cast of all the conditions that pilots to
bring ships into port safely. We will be developing models
which will give you the forecast so that you will be able to
plan even better in the future how to manage port operations in
an efficient way.
So those are the things that are going on. We are very
excited about the support of Congress for this program and we
will be working, deliberating on it in Fiscal Year 2005.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Admiral.
The second question, when will NOAA implement operational
air gap and visibility sensors? This is a Mr. Saxton question.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Say that one again. That is a good
one.
Mr. Gilchrest. When will NOAA implement operational air gap
and visibility sensors? Maybe we can get back to that. I see
some staff smiling behind you, Admiral, so--
Admiral Lautenbacher. That does not ring a bell with me
offhand, what he is getting at.
Mr. Gilchrest. It does not ring a bell them either, I do
not think. That is fine.
Admiral Lautenbacher. We have an interpretation if you have
the patience to listen to it for a second.
Mr. Gilchrest. Sure, absolutely.
Admiral Lautenbacher. We believe that the air gap we are
talking about is the air gap between the bridges and cargo that
has fairly extreme height limitations. We have that famous
picture of the cranes being brought underneath the Golden Gate
Bridge into San Francisco and it shows 27 inches clearances.
You have to know pretty precisely about height modernization,
so that is part of the geodetic business that we do and we are
involved in trying to improve our height data reference network
around the country, and we are actively pursuing that. It is
important to us and that type of analysis will be put into
these new models I mentioned to ensure that people will
understand what the future--if you know the tides and the winds
and the currents and you can project that into the future you
have a good chance to schedule it so it comes through at the
right time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Very good. We will pass that on to Mr.
Saxton. Thank you.
Just one other last quick question to Dr. Baker. This
really does not have anything to do with the legislation before
us but in your testimony you talked about environmental
research on a national scale including Pennsylvania and
Maryland and you are looking for new public programs in
Maryland and Philadelphia to build a scientific literacy that
is highlighted in this and other pieces of legislation.
I find those statements fascinating because for a little
while now some of us in Maryland have been looking to set aside
some public land, maybe some private land. We have already
designated some public land but have not gotten too far with
local officials to set aside this public land in some way, but
not the same as an estuarine research center where you would
have the land and water interface become an ecological study
area, so you could see in areas where you set this aside how
the natural flora and fauna reacted, how far succession, based
on its location, evolved. And maybe, depending upon a strict
interpretation of the concept of island ecology, since some of
this land is on the Chesapeake Bay and it is also surrounded by
farms it makes it almost a small island in this particular
vicinity similar to an island would be in the ocean as the
evolution of the plants and animals on it.
So there are a number of interesting sites that we would
like to work with your center in Philadelphia with the state of
Maryland and perhaps Washington College near or in Kent County,
and even the University of Maryland for some other locations.
You also mentioned the natural history museum, to reinvent
the natural history museum, which I assume would be in
Philadelphia, and/or maybe the one here in Washington. Some of
these places could then be actually a part of that reinvention
of a natural history museum so that they could be an ecological
study area for students and people to visit and have some
understanding about how the flora and fauna in their region,
which is not impacted directly, evolves and functions.
Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman, you have taken this idea further
than I had and I love what you are talking about. I think this
is something we could think about not just in Maryland and
Pennsylvania but also New Jersey and Delaware as a multistate
activity. One of the things that has always struck me is that
six million people per year go through the National Museum of
Natural History here in Washington and yet we do not have a
single exhibit that really reflects the excitement and
commitment of things about the ocean and the coast that we are
talking about--six million people. So if we could just develop
some exhibits and we could do what you are talking about with
set aside of lands and show how these two things work together
I think we would have a much better sense from the public about
the importance of what we do.
Mr. Gilchrest. We would want include New Jersey in this,
not only for Mr. Pallone but certainly the flyway.
Mr. Pallone. The other place that has it is at the zoo,
because I take my kids there sometimes. They have that--
Mr. Gilchrest. The Philadelphia zoo?
Mr. Pallone. No, in Washington, the zoo has that building
where they have some ocean exhibits and you can look at the
different coral and sea plants. But that is over at the
Washington zoo, not at the natural history museum.
Mr. Baker. I think a combination of using the zoo and the
fact that you can see a whole habitat there, the Amazonia
habitat and there are other such habitats, I think one has to
think of these two things together really, the zoos and the
natural history museums. They offer an untapped resource to get
the public excited about the things that we do. We are not
doing it now, so I thought this would be a good sequel for me,
having been administrator of NOAA, to go into the public
programs business and see if we could not get the public really
excited about the things that we are all excited about it.
Mr. Pallone. It sounds good.
Mr. Gilchrest. And the aquarium in Baltimore could be a
part of this because the National Aquarium in Baltimore does
have some extraordinary exhibits there reflecting the
Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Pallone. You have the aquarium at the Commerce
Department too but that needs to be upgraded. Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Kildee wanted me to ask a question to inquire about what NOAA
is doing to ensure sufficient funds are available for water
level measurements in the Great Lakes. I guess that is for the
Admiral.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Yes. We have $1.5 million dollars
increase in our water level network measurement, water level
observing network system, and that includes modernizing the
stations in the Great Lakes as well. So we are very much
interested in the Great Lakes. They have all the
characteristics of coasts and small oceans and they are part of
our portfolio. We are interested in ensuring that they have
what they need and we have what we need from the scientific
data to handle our responsibilities, so it is very important to
us.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
The gentlelady from Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry
for coming in and departing, and coming back again but it is
the way it is I am learning.
Good afternoon, Admiral, and all of the others who are here
to testify. Mine is not so much a question but just to thank
you. I represent the territory of Guam and I would like to
thank you and NOAA for committing a research vessel to Guam and
the Marianas this summer. I understand that NOAA's Oscar Sette
research vessel, I believe that is what it is named, will be
spending roughly 39 days in the Western Pacific area this
August. Am I correct in that?
Admiral Lautenbacher. I believe you are. I will check that
for the record but the last time I looked they will be in that
area.
[Information from NOAA follows:]
The OSCAR ELTON SETTE will be in the Western Pacific area during
August and September of 2003 spending 40 operating days conducting
coral reef research around the Northern Mariana Islands. The vessel
will have two port calls in Northern Marianas' ports in late August and
mid-September.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I just want to thank you again for that. We
truly appreciate it. I believe the last time we had a NOAA
research vessel out to the Marianas was in 1984. I would like
to ask you, Admiral, to please keep up the research effort in
Guam and the area around the Marianas. It would be great if we
could see a NOAA research vessel visit Guam every 2 years, if
that is possible.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you. I appreciate that. We will
try to do our best. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. I thank the gentlelady. Admiral Lautenbacher
and Dr. Baker, thank you so much for your time that you spent
with us here this afternoon. Your testimony has been very
valuable to us to develop this legislation and we look forward
to working to you further on a number of issues. Thank you very
much.
Admiral Lautenbacher. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon at 3:12 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]