U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–142PDF 2014

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 30, 2014 

Serial No. 113–73 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona, Chair 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

April 30, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative David Schweikert, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House 

of Representatives ................................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Kathryn Sullivan, Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Administrator, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 22 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Kathryn Sullivan, Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Administrator, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration ........................................................................ 34 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 56 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND 

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. David Schweikert 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. The Subcommittee on Environment will 

come to order. 

Good morning, everybody. This should actually be hopefully an 

interesting hearing and the doctor has actually been one of the 

Committee’s favorites because we have considered you to always be 

very forthcoming in discussions, so appreciate having you here. 

You know, today’s hearing is entitled ‘‘An Overview of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Budget Request for 

the 2015 Fiscal Year.’’ In front of you are packets containing the 

written testimony, biographies, truth-in-testimony disclosures of today’s witness. 

I would like to recognize myself for a few minutes here and we 

will just get ourselves going. 

NOAA’s 2015 budget request is $5.5 billion, which is an increase 

of, what, 3.3 percent from the 2014. Some of the questions that I 

believe you will be hearing today are going to revolve around the 

satellite program and continuing to increase as a percentage of 

your total budget. My understanding now is it will consume about 

40 percent of NOAA’s budget, and in the 2015 budget request, 

there is $2.2 billion for NOAA’s satellite office. The two main satellite systems are the Joint Polar System—I think we refer to it as, 

what, JPSS—and the Geostationary Operational Environmental 

Satellite, the GOES. Two satellites provide up to 90 percent of the 

critical data needed to make our weather forecast. 

I would like some discussion, whether it be from questions or 

you, Dr. Sullivan. Is there going to be a gap and how will that gap 

be fulfilled? And are there—what optionality is there? Is there a 

private optionality and how long they expect a gap in that data? 

The second thing that I believe you will have multiple questions 

is in regards to the supercomputing power and the ability to manage the scale and the size of the data you have considering the current holds that are out there because of the contract with IBM and 

the sale to China. And I know many of us would like to discuss 

with you what options are there. And Dr. Sullivan, as you are 

speaking, I would love for you to go a little further from our previous conversation of sharing with us a sort of the mechanics you 

already have in place with universities and private industry of 

management of data, speed of data, and total bulk time that you 

have for your supercomputing and your collection of crowd data. 

And with that, I would like to recognize Ms. Bonamici, the Ranking Member. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this morning’s hearing to examine the President’s budget request 

for NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Welcome back, Dr. Sullivan, and I congratulate you on being 

named one of Time magazines 100 most influential people. That is 

a very nice article and some very nice words from Senator Glenn. 

As we face—find ourselves facing one of the biggest environmental challenges of our time, climate change, we are in need of 

your national leadership and advocacy on this issue, as well as 

other important issues under NOAA’s jurisdiction. I thank you very 

much for being here and I am looking forward to today’s discussion 

about NOAA’s priorities. 
7 

NOAA is a critically important agency with helping our communities, our economy, and our ecosystems remain healthy and resilient in the face of an ever-shifting environment. NOAA conducts 

state-of-the-art research to understand and predict changes in 

weather and climate, as well as of the oceans and along our coasts. 

The science used to create products and services that inform decision-making by a diverse set of stakeholders, NOAA helps my constituents along the coast of Oregon decide when it is safe to go out 

fishing. They aid my constituents in Yamhill County as they grow 

grapes that become Oregon’s world-famous Pinot Noir. They assist 

people in Oregon and across the country in planning for and responding to extreme weather and climate events like heavy precipitation, flooding, and the devastating storms impacting the South 

and the Midwest. And NOAA helps all of our constituents in similar ways. 

I am pleased that the President’s budget request recognizes the 

importance of NOAA and gives the agency a prominent role in the 

Administration’s efforts to prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change. The budget makes critical investments in 

NOAA’s observational infrastructure, which includes environmental 

satellites that not only serve as the foundation for our weather 

forecast but also provide critical information about the opening of 

the Arctic Circle to maritime commerce and energy development. 

The proposed budget also recognizes that the demand for climate 

data and other information, especially at the regional level, is 

growing. It seeks to address this need for regional information and 

tools by expanding NIDIS, the National Integrated Drought Information System, to include, among other areas, the Pacific Northwest; by improving our understanding of ocean acidification, which 

will help the shellfish industry adapt and the fishing industry prepare and by operationalizing ecological forecasting of harmful algal 

blooms that pose a threat to human health. 

Overall, I am pleased with the President’s budget request for 

NOAA but do have some concerns I would like to briefly mention. 

Specifically, as the Chairman noted, although the Joint Polar Satellite System, or JPSS, seems to be on track and in fact it was recently announced that the first of five instruments that will fly on 

JPSS–1 is ready for installation, I do remain concerned about the 

risks associated with the likely gap in polar data and NOAA’s 

plans to mitigate the impact of the gap. I hope to gain a better understanding today of the agency’s efforts to implement a mitigation 

plan. 

Additionally, as you know, off the West Coast lies the Cascadia 

Subduction Zone when—unfortunately not if but when—another 

earthquake occurs on this fault, it will trigger a massive tsunami 

with potentially catastrophic results. I am sure you can understand 

my concern and that of my constituents with the proposed elimination of education and awareness grants through the National 

Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, grants that are designed to 

help communicate threats to vulnerable communities and assist in 

the development of response strategies. 

I would like to hear from you, Dr. Sullivan, about how NOAA is 

working to increase resiliency in communities threatened by 
8 

tsunamis and I look forward to working with you as we develop 

legislation to reauthorize the Tsunami Warning and Education Act. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. I look 

forward to working with you and our colleagues to ensure that 

NOAA has the resources it needs to fulfill its critical mission to 

protect lives and property and to enable commerce through science, 

service, and stewardship. 

Dr. Sullivan, thank you again for being here and for your service 

to the Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER SUZANNE BONAMICI

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this morning’s hearing to examine the 

President’s budget request for NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I’d like to welcome back Dr. Sullivan and congratulate her on being 

named one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people. (Those are some very 

nice words from Senator John Glenn). As we find ourselves facing one of the biggest 

environmental challenges of our time—climate change—we’re in need of your national leadership and advocacy on this issue and I thank you very much for being 

here. I’m looking forward to today’s discussion about NOAA’s priorities in the proposed budget. 

NOAA is a critically important agency tasked with helping our communities, economy, and ecosystems remain healthy and resilient in the face of an ever-shifting environment. NOAA conducts state of the art research to understand and predict 

changes in weather and climate, as well as in the oceans and along our coasts. This 

science is used to create products and services that inform decision-making by a diverse set of stakeholders. 

NOAA helps my constituents along the coast of Oregon decide when it’s safe to 

go out fishing; they aid my constituents in Yamhill County as they grow the grapes 

that become Oregon’s world-famous pinot noir; and they assist people in Oregon, 

and across the country in planning for, and responding to, extreme weather and climate events like heavy precipitation, flooding, and the devastating storms impacting 

the south and Midwest. And NOAA helps all of our constituents in similar ways. 

I am pleased that the President’s budget request recognizes the importance of 

NOAA and gives the agency a prominent role in the Administration’s efforts to prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change. The budget makes critical 

investments in NOAA’s observational infrastructure, which includes environmental 

satellites that not only serve as the foundation for our weather forecasts, but also 

provide critical information about the opening of the Arctic Circle to maritime commerce and energy development. 

The proposed budget also recognizes that the demand for climate data and other 

information, especially at the regional level, is growing. It seeks to address this need 

for regional information and tools by expanding the National Integrated Drought Information System (or NIDIS) to include, among other areas, the Pacific Northwest; 

by improving our understanding of ocean acidification, which will help the shellfish 

industry adapt and the fishing industry prepare; and by operationalizing ecological 

forecasting of harmful algal blooms that pose a threat to human health. 

Overall, I am pleased with the President’s budget request for NOAA, but I do 

have some concerns that I would like to briefly mention. Specifically, although the 

Joint Polar Satellite System or JPSS seems to be on track—and in fact, it was recently announced that the first of five instruments that will fly on JPSS–1 is ready 

for installation—I remain concerned about the risk associated with a likely gap in 

polar data and NOAA’s plans to mitigate the impact of this gap. I hope to gain a 

better understanding today of the agency’s efforts to implement a mitigation plan. 

Additionally, as you know, off the coast of Oregon lies the Cascadia Subduction 

Zone. When—unfortunately, not if—another earthquake occurs on this fault, it will 

trigger a massive tsunami with potentially catastrophic results. I am sure you can 

understand my concern with the proposed elimination of education and awareness 

grants through the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, grants that are 

designed to help communicate threats to vulnerable communities and assist in the 
9 

development of response strategies. I’d like to hear from Dr. Sullivan about how 

NOAA is working to increase resiliency in communities threatened by tsunamis, and 

I look forward to working with you as we develop legislation to reauthorization the 

Tsunami Warning and Education Act. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing and I look forward to 

working with you and our colleagues to ensure that NOAA has the resources it 

needs to fulfill its critical mission to protect lives and property and to enable commerce through science, service, and stewardship. 

Dr. Sullivan, thank you again for being her today and for your service to the Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Ranking Member Bonamici. 

Now, we would like to recognize Chairman Smith, the Chairman 

of the Full Committee, for unlimited amount of time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator Sullivan, for being with us here today. And let me congratulate you on being named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2014. Our Committee oversees NOAA’s more than $5 billion budget. 

NOAA is responsible for critical science activities related to oceans, 

weather, and climate. 

Today, we are here to discuss the President’s Fiscal Year 2015 

budget request for NOAA of $5.5 billion, a 3.3 percent increase over 

2014 levels. While I support many of these areas of research and 

forecasting, other parts of the President’s budget request are harder to justify. For example, the Administration’s request substantially increases funding for climate research and for some noncritical climate satellite activities. But funding for the National 

Weather Service and weather forecasting research is essentially 

flat. 

Almost $190 million is requested for climate research, more than 

twice the amount dedicated to weather research. There are 13 

other agencies that are involved in climate change research, and 

according to the Congressional Research Service, they have spent 

$77 billion between 2008 and 2013. 

Unfortunately, NOAA’s models do not match up with observed 

changes and have not predicted regional climate changes. And 

NOAA’s website, Climate.gov, includes non-peer reviewed materials 

for children that in my view promote climate alarmism. These misguided priorities are troubling. Instead of hyping climate alarmism, 

NOAA should focus its efforts on other areas such as improving 

weather forecasting. 

America’s leadership has slipped in severe weather forecasting, 

and European weather models routinely predict America’s weather 

better than we can. 

I am also concerned that NOAA’s satellite division now comprises 

over 40 percent of the total budget request for the agency at over 

$2 billion. In 2008, the satellite budget came in under $1 billion 

and was roughly 1/4 of NOAA’s overall spending. The budget for 

this office has ballooned dramatically over the last decade. For instance, the Joint Polar Satellite System program has been plagued 

with runaway costs and mismanagement, which raises questions 

about future funding for the project and its expected launch dates. 

Even NOAA’s own optimistic schedule would still leave us with 

a gap for critical weather data in the middle part of this decade. 

Meanwhile, the chronic cost overruns of NOAA’s satellites have 
10 

forced significant reductions in funding for important activities in 

areas such as oceans, fisheries, and weather. 

NOAA is a mission-oriented agency, and this Committee supports these core priorities. We face fiscal constraints that force us 

to make difficult choices about our science and technology resources. Rather than devoting limited dollars to duplicative and 

alarmist climate change activities, NOAA in my view should focus 

on research and forecasting capabilities that do in fact protect lives 

and property. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back, but on the way to 

yielding back, let me apologize to the Administrator. I have a Judiciary Committee markup that began 25 minutes ago I am going to 

have to tend to and I hope to return in time to ask questions. So 

I yield back. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Thank you Chairman Schweikert, and thank you Administrator Sullivan for being 

with us here today. Let me congratulate you on being named one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2014. 

Our Committee oversees NOAA’s more than five billion dollar budget. NOAA is 

responsible for critical science activities related to oceans, weather and climate. 

Today we are here to discuss the President’s FY15 budget request for NOAA of 

$5.5 billion, a 3.3 percent increase over 2014 levels. While I support many of these 

areas of research and forecasting, other parts of the President’s FY15 budget request are harder to justify. 

For example, the Administration’s request substantially increases funding for climate research and for some non-critical climate satellite activities. In comparison, 

funding for the National Weather Service and weather forecasting research is essentially flat. 

Almost $190 million is requested for climate research, more than twice the 

amount dedicated to weather research. There are 13 other agencies that are involved in climate change research, and according to the Congressional Research 

Service, they have spent $77 billion between 2008 and 2013. 

For example, in addition to NOAA, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation also carry out climate change modeling. 

Unfortunately, NOAA’s models do not match up with observed changes and have 

not predicted regional climate changes. And NOAA’s website, Climate.Gov, includes 

non-peer reviewed materials promoting climate alarmism for children. 

These misguided priorities are troubling. Instead of hyping climate alarmism, 

NOAA should focus its efforts on other areas such as improving weather forecasting. 

America’s leadership has slipped in severe weather forecasting. European weather 

models routinely predict America’s weather better than we can. 

I am also concerned that NOAA’s satellite division now comprises over 40 percent 

of the total budget request for the agency, at over $2 billion. In 2008, the satellite 

budget came in under a billion dollars and was roughly one-quarter of NOAA’s overall spending. The budget for this office has ballooned dramatically over the last decade. 

For instance, the Joint Polar Satellite System program has been plagued with 

runaway costs and mismanagement, which raises questions about future funding for 

the project and its expected launch dates. 

Even NOAA’s own optimistic schedule would still leave us with a gap for critical 

weather data in the middle part of this decade. 

Meanwhile the chronic cost over-runs of NOAA’s satellites have forced significant 

reductions in funding for important activities in areas such as oceans, fisheries, and 

weather. 

NOAA is a mission-oriented agency, and this Committee supports these core priorities. We face fiscal constraints that force us to make difficult choices about our 

science and technology resources. 

Rather than devoting limited dollars to duplicative and alarmist climate change 

activities, NOAA should focus on research and forecasting capabilities that protect 

lives and property. 
11 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our witness today is Hon. Kathryn Sullivan, Undersecretary of 

Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. And I 

want to make sure the Committee also congratulates you on recently being confirmed as the Administrator for NOAA and also 

being named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in 

2014, which I think all of us have now mentioned. We all wanted 

to make sure we got it in. There is no envy there at all. 

Previously, Dr. Sullivan served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Predictions, as well as 

performing the duties of NOAA’s Chief Scientist. She is a distinguished scientist, renowned astronaut, and intrepid explorer. We 

will later find out what that is. And, Dr. Sullivan, you earned your 

doctorate in geology. 

Dr. Sullivan, you have five minutes and I believe you know the 

routine, yellow light, talk faster. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KATHRYN SULLIVAN, 

UNDERSECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; 

AND ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Bonamici, Members of the Committee. 

First, before starting my testimony, I want to express my condolences to all of those who were touched by the severe weather that 

swept through many States over the past 4 days. Our NOAA forecasters and staff are on the frontlines in such events providing 

warnings and information to their neighbors—your constituents— 

that help them avoid, cope with, and become weather-ready in the 

face of this fearsome power of nature. I am proud of the work they 

do. 

In recent events, they gave stakeholders accurate outlooks 6 days 

in advance and timely warnings thanks to reliable environmental 

intelligence our Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma, 

produces. We know there is still more that can be done and I will 

need your help with that, as I have detailed in my written statement. 

I am here today to talk about the President’s Fiscal Year 2015 

proposal for the NOAA budget. I, like you, believe that NOAA is 

one of the most important and valuable service agencies in the 

United States Government. Our enterprise of observing systems, 

forecasts, and assessments is designed to provide the foresight and 

information people need to live safely and well on this dynamic 

planet, and it works. In NOAA we call this information ‘‘environmental intelligence’’ and producing it is at the core of our mission. 

The environmental intelligence and related decision support services that NOAA provides are in higher demand today than ever before. From forecasting short-term extreme weather events to providing the data that help ensure safe navigation and the smooth 

flow of commerce to sustaining and promoting economically viable 
12 

fisheries, this budget request makes disciplined and targeted investments to sustain and advance these critical missions. 

For now, I would like to emphasize just three important areas— 

investment areas of the budget. First, NOAA’s global observing systems are the indispensable foundation of our Nation’s environmental intelligence. This budget proposes disciplined, targeted investments in that infrastructure. And I would highlight for the moment NOAA’s fleet of research vessels. Without investments now, 

our fleet will shrink by 50 percent by 2028, which will severely degrade stock assessments, nautical charting, buoy maintenance, and 

research. That is why we request funding for a new multiuse ocean 

survey vessel that can work in any ocean with greater data gathering capability than current NOAA vessels. 

Second, communities and businesses are demanding NOAA’s environmental information over many timescales to help them protect 

assets and plan for the future. We must keep pace with this demand. This budget invests in the data and information services 

that promote community and economic resilience in advance of and 

in the aftermath of severe events. In the Fiscal Year 2015 budget, 

we propose targeted increases that will help build capacity for response and resilience in the critical need areas of coastal inundation and drought, ecological forecasting of harmful algal blooms, 

and the understanding of potential environmental impacts from increasing commerce in the Arctic. 

Third, we must be able to attract and retain the best talent to 

ensure that NOAA can effectively engage with our partners and efficiently deliver environmental intelligence. To do this, we must invest in our people and the administrative services that support 

them. I am keenly focused on achieving organizational excellence 

within NOAA. No business can succeed if its essential support 

services fall behind the pace and the demand of the outside world. 

But that is just what has begun to happen at NOAA. 

One point to illustrate, as of Fiscal Year 2012, NOAA has one 

human resources representative serving 150 employees. Looking at 

comparable agencies like NIST, the Coast Guard, and NASA, 

NOAA is underfunded by almost 1/3. And our capacity is some— 

only about—is 40 percent below that of the average U.S. company, 

according to data recently published in the Wall Street Journal. We 

must reverse this trend if the agency is to function at the level that 

our citizens, the Congress, and our customers and partners demand. I look forward to working with the members of this committee and our partners and constituents to achieve the goals we 

articulate through the implementation of our Fiscal Year 2015 

budget. 

And I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan follows:] 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I want to thank our witness. And reminding all 

members that our rules limit us to 5 minutes, I am going to give 

myself five minutes here. 

And a couple of the questions I touched with you in regards to 

the opening statement, let’s sort of walk through them. Explain to 

me and help me understand what has been referred to as sort of 

the satellite coverage gap and what is being done to mitigate that 

and what optionality do you have. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. The prospect of the gap, Mr. Chairman, arises 

from the recasting of satellite programs back in 2009 and regaining 

a smooth production cadence, budget control, schedule control, and 

cost control. We have those now well in hand on the polar program. 

When you look at the projected lifetimes of the current assets in 

orbit and the time to deliver the new ones, the statistical analyses 

with different assumptions say, gee, you might not get there in 

time. So we are laser-focused on four key things. We are managing 

the current on-orbit assets to maximize the livelihood. We are 

going to stick the JPSS–1 launch date, and the past 18 to 20 

months of schedule and budget performance I believe indicate we 

are on the right track to do that. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Now, Doctor, within that point what do 

you think the gap will be? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Well, we can spend probably this whole hearing 

block and many others, Mr. Schweikert, debating statistical assumptions that would give you different analysis of that. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Just your best guess. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I am not even focusing on what the best guess is 

because it is all so fluid. Statistical analyses can be slanted or come 

up with all sorts of answers. I am focusing on manage the asset 

we have to protract its life and stick the launch date. 

In addition, we are focused on the mitigation plans that we have 

discussed with this committee and other Members of the Congress 

in the past year, and that is to understand what if any additional 

data sources could be brought online as a hedge against a gap, 

what improvements to our forecast enterprise could we make to 

lessen the impact of a gap, should we have one, and a whole plethora of other activities that we have detailed in a prior testimony. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. That pleases me to hear that within 

your optionality, we will use that word again, you will also look at 

what other sources might be out there, what other data could be 

purchased or even short-term satellite coverage. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. We are looking at that. Our criteria of course 

would be viable, proven capability to deliver in the time frame required. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Okay. Doctor, just because it is an area 

of interest and being down to two minutes and 40 seconds, I wanted to talk about what you believe the future of data gathering is, 

particularly as you and I have already started to discuss sort of the 

crowdsourcing of data and all the instruments that we all now 

carry in our lives, whether it be our cars, our handheld computers, 

those who have home weather stations. What does that mean to 

you and what does it bring to you? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. That is a trend that is overtaking all of us and 

we are watching very carefully. My own view is it is going to play 
23 

out on a number of different fronts. If you look at during severe 

weather events, NOAA and other partners already do crowdsource 

data. We get rain reports, snow reports, tornado reports from people on the ground, through social media. The delivery of a measurement directly from a cell phone into the production weather model 

I think will take a longer time to attain. There is work yet to be 

done to really be sure we understand how to handle the various reliabilities, the various precisions that that menagerie of instrumentation might have. I think the progress in solution we may eventually make to that will come through a combination of both government, academic, and private sector efforts. And it is afoot right 

now. We are watching it all around us and it is already affecting 

real-time weather forecasting both for NOAA forecasters and for 

our value-added partners in the broadcast and weather enterprise—commercial weather enterprise. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Okay. Can you share with us and the 

committee difficulties that are out there because of the IBM sale 

and your access to large data crunching and management? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. The potential sale by IBM of their Lenovo unit is 

something that the Treasury Department is tracking closely and I 

have to defer all questions about that particular sale to them. 

In terms of large data handling, we had challenges on a couple 

of fronts. Our operational supercomputing that produces the production runs every three hours is one that we are on good track 

to come up to par with the Europeans on. We have—our performance has lagged behind them on certain weather events, certainly 

not on all weather events over the past few years predominately 

because our operational supercomputer lags behind theirs. So that 

one is catching up. 

When it comes to—I am sorry. I just lost my train of thought. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. No, it is okay. I know some of this you 

do not control and actually in many ways with my fixation on 

crowdsourcing of access you may actually need substantially more 

capability in your computer side. 

I am holding an article that was written by a researcher I believe 

in New York and I haven’t had—I am sorry, University of Washington. Forgive me. And it was only given to me as I was literally 

walking in the meeting, but the author of this is actually sort of 

claiming that we have moved sort of down to fourth place in weather forecasting accuracy, data collection. Any thoughts, any comments? Is it even something you have seen? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I haven’t seen it so I wouldn’t wish to comment 

on it. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Okay. My very last question, I know I 

am slightly over time. As an agency, you produce lots of rigorous 

scientific data, proposals, mechanics. How do you do sort of your 

peer-review on your methodology? Do you continue with what you 

are doing sort of a very open access to information? I am just sort 

of curious if that is something that has hit your desk. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. It hits my desk and is on my radar screen very 

much because it goes to the heart of our commitment to scientific 

integrity and proper methods for assuring that. In the weather and 

the climate domain, which, by the way, are just different timescales 

of the phenomena of this planet, we are tightly interlaced with the 
24 

best researchers globally, not just in the United States. The development of models nowadays is quite commonly—to use a loose 

term—a community playpen where various models are rigorously 

tested and compared by everybody looking—— 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. I am not even sure you would say loosely. My impression is it is all over the world now. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Oh, it definitely is all over the world and it is a 

very robust, vibrant, challenging cross comparison of models, of 

methods, of techniques. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Do you believe NOAA continues to sort 

of adhere to that openness where it is a community of thought that 

is vetted back-and-forth but accepts lots of inputs in, you know, accepts and rejects, but is open to the debate? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I believe we are very open to the debate around 

quality rigorous scientific data and findings and judgments, absolutely. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. And forgive me for asking the question 

a bit ethereally. 

All right. And with that, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Sullivan, for being here. 

I want to talk about disaster preparedness and the importance 

of that and focus on the coastal environment where there is such 

enormous and potentially grave consequences, so I wanted to talk 

about two specific topics that you raised in your testimony, ocean 

acidification. The ocean is becoming more acidic as it absorbs excess carbon dioxide from the air, and this change has the potential 

to, among other things, disrupt aquatic food webs. 

And in Oregon the shellfish industry has already seen the harmful effects and I want to point out that even for Representatives 

who don’t represent coastal communities, their constituents eat 

shellfish and restaurants need it and it is an important industry. 

The fishermen really dread what they might learn about damage 

to the food chain from ocean acidification. The budget request proposes an increase of $8.9 million for the ocean acidification program, so can you please discuss the need for that program and especially how NOAA is translating its research into practices and 

strategies that benefit the industry? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Thank you for that question. This is really one of 

the silent creeping hazards of our changing planet. NOAA seeks to 

better understand the processes and causes behind ocean acidification and in particular, as you point out, to develop methods that 

can translate our understanding and our monitoring of the natural 

environment into this thing I keep calling environmental intelligence, actionable and action-oriented timely information that, as 

you know from your State, enables your constituents to manage the 

water intakes to their shellfish farm and protect their brood stock. 

So that is very much one of our key focal points in coastal resiliency generally. 

The Northwest Coast acidification is one of the principal risks. 

The Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico, harmful algal blooms are 

also of concern. So how do we help coastal communities? How do 

we help provide them the information that beach managers, fishing 
25 

managers, shellfish processors can actually apply to keep their 

communities, their businesses, their families safe? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And also I wanted to talk about the 

Tsunami Warming and Education Act, which we will likely be considering and I am glad we are going to take that up. 

For constituents up and down the coasts who grew up memorizing tsunami evacuation routes, this can’t come soon enough. In 

that regard, I was concerned to see that the President’s budget includes a reduction to education and awareness program grants 

under the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. How 

does NOAA intend to ensure our regional decision-makers are able 

to develop and execute effective tsunami response plans without 

that grant program in place? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Well, first of all, let me thank you for your support 

for the reauthorization of the Tsunami Warning and Education Act. 

That is a valuable piece of legislation that we do appreciate. 

With respect to the Fiscal Year 2015 budget, I also want to assure you that this in no way affects our principal responsibility, 

which is to provide those warnings and alerts that enable communities to take prompt action and get out of harm’s way in the case 

of the tsunami. It does not affect the operability and the maintenance of the DART buoys, the key monitoring systems on the 

seafloor that feed that, does not affect our monitoring and collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey that can access their seismic 

monitoring. It does not affect the ongoing relationships and education and connections between our National Weather Service folks 

and communities along the coast. 

Regrettably, in the tight fiscal climate we are in where we cannot—we don’t have the means to advance all of the things we 

would wish to advance, we had slowed—we proposed in this budget 

to slow down to curtail the added grants that could expand the 

education footprint, but we are not curtailing the tsunami-ready 

community program that exists with existing communities. So our 

core responsibilities aren’t changed. The rate—some rate of 

progress has slowed down. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I look forward to having the conversation where we take up that legislation. 

And on a related note, I often discuss the importance of NOAA’s 

research and outreach activities in the community, and our constituents understand that NOAA is doing its best with limited resources. But as you explained, there is unmet need. But as you also 

acknowledge, there are fiscal challenges. So I was pleased to see 

the budget request that proposed a three percent increase, but I 

was also dismayed that the House Appropriations Committee is 

proposing a one percent cut to the budget. So considering the 

unmet need for your agency’s work, can you give the Committee a 

brief idea of what a one percent funding cut compared to a three 

percent increase might mean for the work that you do for our constituents? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. It would take me more time that we have left to 

enumerate all the different service needs, drought information, 

water planning information, El Nı ̆no—refining the El Nı ̆no forecasts so we can do a better job helping California and the Western 

States know in advance if the drought will break, when the pattern 
26 

might shift, bringing our high-performance computing up to par 

and keeping on the pace that we are currently on, which will put 

us back on par with the Europeans and anybody else and remove 

the bulk of whatever I suspect underlies the ranking you have in 

that article. Weather, climate, understanding the ocean, keeping 

pace and understanding fish stocks so that our coastal fishing communities have vital economies all across the front, there already 

are unmet needs. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I am going to just ask will you 

please focus on the importance of climate research to the work that 

you do? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I would be delighted to focus on that. NOAA exists 

to understand this planet and how it works and turn that information into useful actionable information. That really requires us to 

understand across all of the timescales that the planet actually 

has. So in NOAA, weather is phenomena and the ocean in the atmosphere up to about two weeks in length and climate is assembling those same phenomena over longer timescales. So our ability, 

for example, to help those water managers that I was referring to 

in California or ranchers in the Southwest, help them know what 

is their outlook for the next season for drought, that comes from 

understanding how the tropical Pacific climate system works on 

seasonal scales, that thing called El Nı ̆no or scientifically the El 

Nı ̆no southern oscillation, being able to give these six-day outlooks 

that we gave to the South Central States in this most recent set 

of severe storms, it doesn’t come from focusing harder on weather; 

it comes from having focused more richly on oceans and coupling 

that understanding with our understanding of the atmosphere. 

The range of information needs that American citizens and business have—businesses have is across a huge range of timescales. 

And if we aspire, as NOAA is chartered to do, to respond to those 

demands, to those really urgent needs across the whole range of 

scales, we have to be able to investigate and study and understand 

the many different timescales that are natural to this planet. To 

use a metaphor, we have to be able to play the whole keyboard if 

we are going to play the symphony that our communities are really 

asking us to play. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Dr. Sullivan. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to—— 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. And, Vice Chairman, Mr. Bridenstine. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here, Dr. Sullivan. It is always a privilege 

to get a chance to talk to you. I wanted to delve into the Ocean 

and Atmospheric Research office, OAR, of course the research arm 

of NOAA. And it looks like the budget request suggests a request 

for an additional $31 million over last year, is that correct? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I believe that is a correct figure. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And about $31 million, the request—the President’s budget request has a climate research subprogram increase 

of about $30.5 million. So the majority of OAR’s budget request, the 

majority of the increase, in fact the vast majority, $30.5 million out 

of $31 million, is for climate research, is that correct? 
27 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Yes, specifically for improving the drought information products that we are providing to Western States. I think 

about 11 of the States represented on this committee in fact are in 

something between severe and extreme drought right now. So 

again that label ‘‘climate’’ in the NOAA budget means a certain 

thing. It means the information products that are pertinent to 

those longer timescales. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The National Weather Service in this budget request under OAR is being cut by about $4 million, is that correct? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I don’t have that detailed figure just in front of 

me. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Well, I have it here and it is about $4 million. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Okay. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. The challenge is, and you are probably aware 

we have had a number of deaths in Oklahoma and Arkansas over 

the last few days, and as you can imagine, when the priority of 

NOAA is to save lives and property, which is what you have told 

us the priority is, and yet the research elements are going to climate research as opposed to what we know we can do, which is 

save lives and property today, we are doing this in the State of 

Oklahoma, which is the State I represent. 

At the University of Oklahoma, the National Severe Storms Laboratory, we are able to prove that we can predict tornadoes over 

an hour in advance now and not just predict but we can warn people based on the forecast of a tornado over an hour in advance, and 

yet still this week people have died with less than a minute of lead 

time of warning and all the research increases going toward climate change research and not toward weather forecasting and 

warning, which is where we know we can save lives and property. 

Would you address for the Committee your commitment to saving 

lives and property and explain how this budget request might do 

that? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Commitment to protecting lives and property runs 

across the entire scale of phenomena that pose hazards to the lives 

and property of Americans from the chronic conditions of the 

drought that are devastating families and businesses across California and the Southwest right now to the acute—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Real quick, I am going to interrupt here for a 

second, we have people that died this week that should have had 

more lead time than 1 minute. Do you agree with that? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. The statistics I have, sir, say that they had 20 to 

29 minutes. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. There are people that did. There are people 

that got less. And if we were able to move the technologies in the 

direction where we could get over an hour of lead time, guess what, 

the people would have more heads up before the tornado hit their 

vehicle driving on the highway. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Bridenstine, I completely share your desire to 

have greater lead time for people in Tornado Alley. There are a 

number of things that we can and should do to achieve that. One 

of them I would highlight for this committee and that we have requested support for in this budget as well is to help us put the 

Weather Service on a path where it can in fact—it has the flexi-
28 

bility to evolve and change and move forward more rapidly with 

technology changes and research advances. So helping us evolve 

the National Weather Service should be right up on top of that list 

if we want to really improve the services that we are giving to our 

people, and we certainly do. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Roger that. I yield back. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine. 

Ms. Edwards, 5 minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Dr. Sullivan, for being here, and thanks again for reminding 

us of the important work that the researchers, scientists, engineers, all of the staff at NOAA, all the work that they do that 

keeps us all safe. Obviously all of us would like to be safer and 

there has been no more stark reminder of the need for NOAA than 

the experiences of the last week-and-a-half to two weeks. And since 

everybody else did it, congratulations again on the Time magazine 

designation. I want to make sure that is across the board here. 

I want to ask you about COSMIC–2. The budget request includes 

an increase of $4.8 million for ground reception and processing of 

COSMIC–2 satellite data provided by Taiwan and the United 

States Air Force. My understanding is that these data are not 

available from any other source. Can you just describe the value 

of the data and the impact that would happen for losing this capability? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mrs. Edwards. We are very much committed to the COSMIC–2 project. Studies by the European Centre 

for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts that have looked at the relative contribution to forecast accuracy and reliability of different 

kinds of data have demonstrated the value of COSMIC–2 data. 

This is, as you know, radio occultation data collected using GPS 

satellite signals. This is very high-quality data. Its reliability is 

very high. It is valuable in its own right, but interestingly, it actually also improves the value of the more precise-sounding data from 

our workhorse instruments on the polar satellites. NOAA, as you 

point out, proposes and requests funding in this budget to install 

the ground system that would let us process COSMIC–2 data, now 

will be designed in a way that should there eventually ever be a 

decision made and a viable provider to acquire radio occultation 

data in a different manner could take those data as well. 

So I would say two things. We are very supportive of COSMIC– 

2. It is a tremendously cost-efficient way to go forward. It is right 

now the only proven viable capability in hand to attain radio occultation data in the 2016 time frame. And to the Chairman’s—whip 

it back to the Chairman’s earlier question about actions that might 

help us if we did have a gap in the polar satellites, having COSMIC–2 on orbit providing those data was highlighted in our independent report as one of the most effective things we could do to 

lessen the damage, lessen the degradation in forecasts—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Right. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. —that such a gap would create. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Excellent. Thank you very much. And then I want 

to go to the workforce a minute. NOAA is proposing a reduction of 

$10 million in the elimination of the nine full-time employees with-
29 

in the National Weather Service as part of a consolidation effort of 

technology support and services in six facilities. 

And, you know, there was a recommendation in the 2014 budget 

that was essentially rejected by—the Senate was very specific in 

the report language that the Committee did not possess the evidence that the National Weather Service has its workforce plan 

completely under control at this time, certainly not enough to propose further reductions without NOAA addressing why some positions remain unfilled or articulating what the proper staffing level 

is for field offices. I tend to agree with that sentiment expressed 

by Senate appropriators, especially in light of the proposed $3 million increase to support analysis of NWS workforce and infrastructure. 

Also, I noticed that there is an increase of $12 million for corporate services. I don’t even know what that is so I want you to— 

if you would, to explain that, but then particularly explain how you 

are going to complete a timeline for filling the vacant weather forecasting positions and why do we need to eliminate 98 FTEs in the 

National Weather Service. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I am not sure I can do that in 48 seconds. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, try. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. We will give you 50. 

Ms. EDWARDS. There you go. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. No, you are a gentleman and a scholar, sir. 

First, with respect to the information technology officers in the 

capital is that, that proposal is not about the people. The IPOs are 

valuable employees. It is about improving the National Weather 

Service service delivery model and ensuring that we are making 

best use of government resources. I have led technology-based businesses before. So has my boss, Secretary Pritzker. We both know 

that you are dead in the water if you stop innovating and evolving 

and keeping pace with the world. 

The fact is that our IT delivery model was developed in the age 

before the internet and has been stagnant since then. Regional IT 

service delivery is just plain out proven industry and government 

best practice. Our current model is unsophisticated, outdated, and 

is not keeping up with the pace of technology change. National 

Academy of Public Administration told us plain and simple that we 

need to provide more robust, consistent nationwide services with 

regional teams, and regional teams are a more appropriate way to 

do that. So that is on the ITO. 

We have backlogs of vacancies in many parts of NOAA due largely to the unfortunate consequences of sequestration in the extreme 

responses, the extreme consequences and actions that that forced 

all agencies to take, NOAA included. One of them that we were 

forced to obtain was an agency-wide hiring freeze, which throttled 

us back to only the most critical hiring positions for the better part 

of a year. I was delighted to be able to lift that freeze at the end 

of January this year, but we still have to work our way out of that 

backlog. 

And that brings me slightly over the Chairman’s time to your 

third point, why an increase in corporate services? That is the 

budget label for what I would call NOAA’s back house functions, 

administrative services, grants, contracts, acquisition, and our 
30 

human resources processing. So I am 1/3 the capacity of many sister agencies. I am 40 percent below the capacity of the average 

United States company on the fundamental capacity to make the 

cranks turn and perform the core functions of this organization. 

That is why I need to fortify my corporate services functions. That 

is what it will take to ensure that we can work through hiring actions like the ones we need to work through for the Weather Service and the fishery service and the ocean service. 

So it all does link together. It all is about letting this organization move forward, achieve organizational excellence, and be flexible and adaptable to keep pace with the times and the urgently 

growing and changing needs of our public. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

You know, we have found that contracting out can actually save 

money for the government and thus we have more funds to accomplish the missions of government if we let the private sector get involved. And, for example, I mean SpaceX has saved us already 

hundreds of millions of dollars by utilizing that approach rather 

than just having the government have launches. 

NOAA is not exempt from this rule. I mean that perhaps NOAA 

could be saving some money by purchasing, for example, satellite 

data to be used by NOAA and government users. And has NOAA 

done some evaluation of that? And where do you stand in terms of 

achieving the actual acquisition of private satellite data that would 

help us determine and reach your goals? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. It is a very important question, Mr. Rohrabacher, 

and as I am sure you know, we do purchase data from commercial 

vendors in a number of arenas, including the weather arena right 

now. We are not opposed categorically to commercial data from satellites, but I would make a few points. One is because of the criticality, the daily everyday criticality of the weather enterprise to 

the safety of this Nation, we believe we need to adopt the mountain 

climbers’ rule with respect to making switches, and that is let go 

of the current handhold only when you really have a firm grasp on 

the next handhold. As you know, that is also—that mimics the astronauts’ rule of never let go of one tether until you have got that 

other one attached. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Right now, there are no proven viable commercial 

entities. And I talk about I mean people who can show proof positive, not a really spiffy PowerPoint presentation about their ability 

to deliver—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Have we provided any incentives for the private sector to invest in this area? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I am not aware of any commercial incentives that 

we have provided but we don’t have the kind of budget structures 

or accounts that would really let us do that. We have clear policies, 

clear ground rules. The National Weather Service has 16 longstanding criteria for data quality. We buy instrumentation and 

data from vendors that can demonstrate that they can meet those 

constraints. 
31 

I would add one other point, though. I think there is another dimension that is very important for us to keep in mind in this specific case. Your general point about public-private interaction I 

take, but in this specific case, the United States commercial weather enterprise is founded on the premise that the foundational data 

that produce—that are the feedstock for NOAA’s forecasts are public good. The downstream economic benefits garnered off of those 

data are very, very real and quite considerable. There are over 300 

private weather companies today that use those data as feedstock. 

There is no other weather enterprise on the planet that takes that 

model of a private innovation platform in the data as a public 

good—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. —and produces the private sector value-added economic activity on the downstream. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I would urge before we rush to commercial data 

sources just in particular to ease short-term funding pressures that 

we—and I mean NOAA and this committee, other relevant bodies 

of the Congress and stakeholders—that we evaluate carefully and 

really think through the impacts, the intended and the unintended 

impacts—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. —that might come from monetizing the data 

stream, which I think might well constrict that rich innovation we 

have in 300 private sector companies currently rather than continuing to treat it as a public good. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is an interesting admonition and I think 

that we should be working on that concept to see if we can come 

up with a formula that meets the criteria that you just mentioned. 

Another area, then this goes back to some of the fundamental 

differences that we have here on fundamental issues, and Vice 

President Al Gore, former Vice President Al Gore, recently said in 

an interview that extreme weather events are 100 times more common today than they were 30 years ago due to global warming and 

also stated that these events are getting more frequent. Are extreme weather events 100 times more common today than 30 years 

ago due to global warming and are they getting to be more frequent? It seems that we have had other people testifying and other 

experts suggesting that that is not true. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. I don’t—Mr. Rohrabacher, I am not conversant 

enough with those statistics off the top of my head to want to attempt to give you detailed answers. I will certainly get back to you 

on that. I do know that our best scientists within NOAA are very 

cautious and leery about attributing specific extreme weather 

events to climate change per se. There is—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. —I have been referring to so many patterns and 

so many timescales interacting to produce the phenomena that we 

experience on Earth. The challenge of attribution is a very difficult 

one. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. You know, I sat through Hurricane 

Hazel back in 1956, and I lived in North Carolina; my father was 

a Marine. We lived at Camp Lejeune. 
32 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Um-hum. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I remember that event very vividly and 

I was surprised to find out that—am I correct that Hurricane Hazel 

was actually more powerful than Hurricane Sandy, although the 

actual damage that was caused was less because Sandy happened 

to have come with a number of factors rather than just the one 

weather factor? 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Well, I will get back to you on the actual recorded 

hurricane intensity of Hazel because you don’t want me saying how 

old I was at that time. But, you know, the damages caused are certainly changing as a population density and the built infrastructure 

in coastal zones changes over time. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. So—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Dana—or, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

And we would never ask that but we are going to tease Dana 

about 1956, so just plan on that. 

And I want to thank Dr. Sullivan for her valuable testimony and 

the members for their questions and comments. The members of 

the committee may have additional questions for you and we will 

provide those to you in writing. The record will remain open for 

two weeks for those additional comments and questions from the 

members. 

And with that, the witness is excused and the hearing is closed. 

Dr. SULLIVAN. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(33) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
34 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Kathryn Sullivan 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
(55) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
56 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would first like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. Sullivan. She has appeared before our 

Committee several times, and I am pleased that the Senate has 

confirmed her as Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I look forward to a productive discussion 

of the Administration’s FY15 budget request for NOAA at today’s 

hearing. 

As we all know, NOAA’s scientific research conducted in support 

of weather forecasting, fishery management, and coastal resiliency 

plays a critical role in enhancing our understanding of the environment and ensuring a strong economy. Underpinning many of these 

efforts are programs that focus on addressing the challenges of climate change, such as rising sea levels, changes in ocean chemistry 

and ecosystems, and more severe weather. Cutting edge research 

conducted by the agency is necessary to ensure our communities 

are prepared for the very real challenges brought on by a changing 

climate. 

In fact, many of my colleagues on this Committee come from 

States which are now facing the impacts of our changing climate. 

Droughts in Texas and California have put an increased, and in 

some instances unparalleled, strain on local and regional economies, and on the overall public health and welfare of our citizens. 

Our coastal communities face pressing challenges presented by rising sea-levels, to say nothing of the enormous threat posed by more 

severe hurricanes. 

Sadly, even this week, dozens of people have lost their lives as 

a result of tornados in the Midwest and South, and more than 75 

million people were dealing with the threat of severe weather in 

States like Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. 

One of the agencies the American people turn to is NOAA for 

critical information before, during, and after these severe events. 

Whether it is providing forecasts and warnings of pending storms, 

working with state or local decision makers to develop effective response strategies, or conducting research that improves our understanding of severe weather to enhance the resiliency of our communities, it is essential that we maintain our commitment to the 

science done at NOAA. 

Mr. Chairman, the list of industries, local agencies, States, and 

Nations that take climate change seriously is growing rapidly and 

without end. It is long past time that we—in Congress—take it seriously too. I am happy to see that the President’s budget request 

for NOAA emphasizes the agency’s critical role in helping the 

United States act on climate change. I look forward to discussing 

these efforts, as well as the other important initiatives and programs that are contained in NOAA’s proposed budget. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Æ