U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

20–837PDF 2017

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

March 16, 2016 

Serial No. 114–67 

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 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 16, 2016 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

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

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

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

Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21 

Witnesses: 

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

and Atmospheric Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 38 

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 ........................................................................ 60 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 171 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET PROPOSAL 

FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC 

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bridenstine 

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

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Subcommittee on Environment will 

come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘An Overview of the Budget 

Proposal for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

for Fiscal Year 2017.’’ 

I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I want to thank our witness, Dr. Sullivan, for appearing today 

before us to talk about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

As a Representative from Oklahoma, a state hit regularly with 

severe weather, it is my responsibility to my constituents to promote policies that improve our forecasting abilities in order to save 

lives and property. My constituents, and the American people, deserve nothing less. 

So I want to say that I am encouraged to see that NOAA has 

begun to utilize the growing opportunities that can bring a paradigm shift to the weather prediction landscape. This year’s budget 

has a number of initiatives that I support. 

First, the budget requests an increase to the Office of Space 

Commerce. This office will be the place where private-sector companies interact with NOAA through requests for information, proposals, data buys, and other partnerships. A properly staffed and 

funded office where the private sector can engage with NOAA is a 

vital component in a changing forecasting paradigm. 

Second, I was pleased to see NOAA request funding to continue 

the Commercial Weather Data Pilot Program authorized by H.R. 

1561, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. This 

pilot program is an important signal to the private sector that 

NOAA is interested in new and innovative sources of data. Yesterday, we received the statutorily required report from NOAA detailing how the pilot program will be implemented, and I look forward 

to discussing that more during my questions. 

Third, I am encouraged to see NOAA incorporate a line item for 

the purchase of radio occultation data as a potential alternative to 

another constellation of COSMIC satellites. This Committee has 

conducted several years of oversight on various weather data 

sources and technologies, and we have found that GPS–RO is a 

very promising technology that has the potential to revolutionize 

our forecasts. 

I do have some concerns. Before any private-sector providers can 

engage with NOAA, it must lay out how these processes will work. 

NOAA released its Commercial Space Policy in January, a document laying out in very broad strokes how NOAA will utilize data 

acquisitions and other products from commercial companies. This 

policy was supposed to be quickly followed by a more specific process guide from NESDIS. We haven’t seen that document yet. 

Finally, the budget request language for radio occultation data 

acquisition seems to call for the purchase of commercial data only 

if NOAA fails to acquire data internally first, meaning through the 

owning and operating of a government satellite constellations. In 

budget language and staff meetings, it does not appear that NOAA 

is fully considering all the alternative sources. I disagree if this is 
7 

the strategy. Private providers have already launched some GPS– 

RO satellites, and others have plans to launch this year and next. 

NOAA should consider this option on an equal playing field, not 

only after exhausting all other options. Private-sector companies 

could improve our forecasting capabilities while also reducing the 

risk of a gap in our satellite data, an issue that has loomed over 

the agency for years. 

In the absence of action from NOAA, the House of Representatives continues to work with our Senate counterparts to bring H.R. 

1561 to the finish line. This is bipartisan legislation which will 

statutorily compel NOAA to consider commercial data to augment 

our currently fragile satellite systems in orbit. This bill will also increase NOAA’s ability to conduct cutting-edge weather research 

needed to move to a day where there are zero deaths from tornados 

in this country. 

I look forward to discussing these issues and more today. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:] 
8 
9 
10 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I yield back, and I recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici. 

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

this afternoon’s hearing, and welcome back, Dr. Sullivan, and 

thank you for your service to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and to our country. 

I’m looking forward to today’s discussion about the President’s 

fiscal year 2017 budget request and NOAA’s priorities in the coming year. 

NOAA is a critically important agency tasked 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 the climate, as well as in the oceans and our coasts. 

This science is used to create products and services that inform decision-making by a diverse set of stakeholders, including emergency 

managers, farmers, pilots, and utility operators. NOAA is an agency that has a direct effect on the livelihood of all of our constituents. 

In Oregon, NOAA helps coastal residents decide when it’s safe to 

go fishing and if the shellfish they are harvesting or buying for dinner are free from harmful algal blooms. Their work supports the 

wine industry in Yamhill County, for example, as they grow grapes 

that become Oregon’s world-famous pinot noir. And NOAA assists 

people in Oregon, and across the country, in planning for and responding to extreme weather events and natural hazards like 

heavy precipitation, drought, earthquakes, and tsunami. 

Overall, I am pleased that the President’s budget request recognizes the importance of NOAA to the economic security of our Nation. The budget request also recognizes that NOAA’s critical mission of science, service, and stewardship can only be accomplished 

through a robust observational infrastructure. 

I’m interested in learning more today about the agency’s progress 

in developing and launching the next generation of environmental 

satellites, its efforts to recapitalize an aging fleet of survey vessels, 

and NOAA’s plans to speed the transition of cutting edge-research 

into operational use. 

Earlier this month, Oregon became the first state to enact legislation that would eliminate the use of coal-fired power. The law requires that Oregon accomplish this goal by 2035 and that the State 

double it renewable energy production by 2040. Oregonians know 

that climate change is the biggest environmental challenge of our 

time and they want to lead the way as the Nation and world starts 

to shift to cleaner energy sources. 

So I am especially pleased that the proposed budget recognizes 

the growing demand for climate data, especially at the regional 

level. The budget seeks to address this need for regional information and tools by expanding the Regional Integrated Sciences and 

Assessments program into an additional region and by serving—region and by serving new communities in regions where the program already exists. 

The proposed budget also seeks to improve our understanding of 

ocean acidification and the effect ocean health and climate variability can have specifically on fish stocks, but also on our economy 
11 

at large. Many people fish for a living in Oregon, Washington, and 

other coastal communities, and this is something that’s causing serious concern. In fact, regional fishery managers are considering a 

closure of Oregon and Washington ocean salmon fisheries north of 

Cape Falcon. The warming of the ocean has been devastating for 

salmon runs. The predictions for coho returns this year is half of 

last year’s forecast. 

This is a problem for our ocean economy. According to the World 

Bank, more than 350 million jobs globally are tied directly to our 

oceans. Fisheries alone represent $108 billion a year in trade. In 

the United States, 58 percent of the Nation’s GDP, or $8.3 trillion 

is generated by the counties that are adjacent to our oceans and 

our Great Lakes. 

Although I am generally pleased with the President’s budget request for NOAA, I will mention a specific concern. The Cascadia 

Subduction Zone sits off the coast of Oregon and off the northwest 

coast. It is not a matter of if but a matter of when another earthquake occurs, triggering a massive tsunami with potentially catastrophic results. 

A researcher from Oregon State University, Dr. Chris Goldfinger, 

said ‘‘The gap between what we know and what we should do about 

it is getting bigger and bigger, and the action really needs to turn 

to responding. Otherwise, we’re going to be hammered.’’ 

Therefore, I trust you will understand my concern with the proposed reduction of the education and awareness grants through the 

National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. These grants are 

designed to help communicate threats to vulnerable communities 

and assist in the development of response strategies. We should not 

and we cannot neglect this critical last step. 

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 missions of protecting 

life and property, and to getting some important legislation like the 

reauthorization of the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research 

Act and the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act 

signed into law. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:] 
12 
13 
14 
15 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Ranking Member 

from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for her opening statement, and recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith. 

And before doing so, I’d like to note that everybody on the Republican side other than me is from Texas. I think this Committee 

is not sufficiently balanced appropriately for a guy from Oklahoma. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman, we will get you an application when 

this is over. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are here to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

This year, NOAA’s request comes in at $5.8 billion. 

While I support elements of NOAA’s budget, other parts of the 

President’s budget request cannot be justified. For example, the 

Administration’s request continues to increase funding for climate 

research at the expense of other important areas of research. This 

administration continues to prioritize climate funding over weather 

research. The President’s budget requests $190 million for climate 

research while only $100 million is dedicated to weather research. 

NOAA should fully fund weather research as authorized in the 

House-passed bipartisan Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act. It is NOAA’s job to monitor the climate and disseminate 

data to the public. 

But under this administration, this usually takes the form of 

monthly news releases that that fail to include all relevant data 

sources. For example, the agency often ignores satellite measurements, which are considered by many to be the most objective. 

NOAA and NASA both claimed, for example, that 2014 was the 

hottest year on record. However, scientists at NASA concluded that 

they were only 38 percent certain that 2014 was in fact the hottest 

on record. NASA buried this statistic in a footnote to their report. 

Similarly, in 2015, NOAA and NASA’s joint news release for the 

temperature of 2015 did not mention satellite data. However, a 

prominent satellite data set from the University of Alabama at 

Huntsville showed that 2015 was only the third warmest year on 

record and another widely used satellite dataset showed that 2015 

was only the fourth warmest on record, contrary to NOAA’s claims. 

The truth is that neither 2014 nor 2015 were the hottest year on 

record. Satellite data, which NOAA had access to, clearly refutes 

NOAA’s claims. 

Likewise, a recent report presented at the American Geophysical 

Union and coauthored by the Texas and Alabama state climatologists has called into question the placement and quality of many 

ground stations across the United States. The report concluded 

that this may have resulted in inaccurate temperature readings 

used by NOAA. Instead of hyping a climate change agenda, NOAA 

should focus its efforts on producing sound science and improving 

methods of data collection. 

NOAA should prioritize areas of research that significantly impact Americans today, such as ways to improve weather forecasting. Unfortunately, climate alarmism often takes priority at 

NOAA. This was demonstrated by the agency’s decision to prematurely publish the 2015 study that attempted to make the twodecade halt in global warming disappear. The study, led by NOAA 
16 

meteorologist Mr. Thomas Karl, used controversial new methods to 

readjust historical temperature data upward. The goal was clear 

from the start: remove a weakness in the administration’s climate 

change agenda. 

This Committee began an investigation last July to examine 

NOAA’s use of data in this study as well as their role in carrying 

out the administration’s extreme climate agenda. The Committee 

heard from whistleblowers that the study was rushed into publication and that internal debate was stifled before moving forward. 

Even more suspicious was the timing of this study. It was published just as the administration was about to propose its final 

Clean Power Plan regulation at the United Nations’ Paris Climate 

Change Conference. This controversial study appears to serve only 

one purpose: to promote the Administration’s drastic and costly 

regulations. 

Well-respected scientists have recently rebutted NOAA’s claims. 

A new peer-reviewed study, published in the journal Nature, confirms the halt in global warming. According to one of the study’s 

lead authors, it ‘‘essentially refutes’’ NOAA’s study. The media 

were quick to cover NOAA’s study last year, by the way, but the 

many respected scientists who refuted NOAA’s claims were ignored 

by much of the national media, including the very same outlets 

that had previously reported that there never was a halt in global 

warming. 

To date, NOAA has failed to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena. Instead of devoting time and resources to misinform the 

public, NOAA should give the Committee answers to our valid 

questions. NOAA should adhere to the scientific standards of being 

objective, independent of political considerations, timely, and having findings based on all available sources of information. Instead, 

NOAA ignores legitimate sources of objective information, such as 

satellite data, in order to promote the administration’s biased climate change agenda. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
17 
18 
19 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Chairman of the 

full Committee, Mr. Smith, for his opening comments. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. 

Johnson, for a statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I’d like 

to welcome Dr. Sullivan to the Committee, and thank you for being 

here today to testify. 

As many of us know, NOAA’s research and services play a critical role in weather forecasting, enhancing our understanding of 

the environment, and, ultimately in helping ensure that the United 

States’ economy remains strong. A key aspect of those efforts is to 

work with NOAA does—is the work that NOAA does to help us understand and address the potential impacts associated with climate 

change. Rising temperatures and sea levels, and changes in ocean 

chemistry and ecosystems pose a real threat to public health, the 

management of our fisheries and coasts, and the overall resiliency 

of our communities to extreme weather changes and events. 

NOAA’s programs and activities and the tools and information they 

provide are central to our ability to understand, adapt to, and mitigate the impacts of a changing climate. 

The proposed budget request contains a number of programs and 

activities that will expand NOAA’s capabilities and increase the resiliency of communities, but I’d like to comment on one new initiative that I find especially promising. NOAA is proposing to develop 

and operate the Nation’s first integrated water prediction capability, meaning that NOAA wants to develop the ability to deliver 

street-level water forecasts to more than 100 million Americans. 

This level of detail and coverage could significantly improve our capacity to prepare for and respond to floods, droughts, and waterquality hazards. 

Unfortunately, those of us from Texas have seen our fair share 

of both flooding and droughts over the last few years and I’m certain that our local emergency managers and decision makers would 

have welcomed this capability. 

Overall, I am happy to see that the President’s budget request 

for NOAA emphasizes the agency’s critical roles in improving 

weather forecasts and 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. 

Before I yield back, I’d like to address the Majority’s ongoing investigation of NOAA’s climate scientists. It is clear to me that this 

investigation is unfounded and that it is being driven by ideology 

and other agendas. The Majority has asserted, without offering any 

credible evidence, that NOAA and the climate science community, 

at large, are part of some grand conspiracy to falsify data in support of the significant role humans play in climate change. However, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, across many different fields, has shown that this is not the case. There may be an 

ongoing scientific debate about the rate of warming over the last 

15 years, but that does not change the basic facts according to 

science: the world is warming, the warming is caused mostly by humans, and there are significant risks associated with this warming. 
20 

I hope my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

can move past this effort to create scientific controversy where it 

does not exist and instead focus on finding solutions to addressing 

the threat of climate change. 

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

time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
21 
22 
23 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Ranking Member 

for her opening statement. 

Our witness today is the Honorable Kathryn Sullivan, Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

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

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

Sullivan earned her doctorate in geology from Dalhousie University. 

I now recognize Administrator Sullivan for five minutes to 

present her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. KATHRYN SULLIVAN, 

UNDERSECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Bonamici, and members of the Subcommittee. I’m very pleased 

to be here today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget 

proposal for NOAA. 

NOAA is one of the most valuable service agencies in the government. Americans rely upon our information and services every day, 

looking to our observations, forecasts and assessments for the foresight and the reliable information they need to live well and safely 

in this dynamic planet. The severe storms and flooding in the 

South over this past week remind us all just how vital these services are. 

Our 2017 budget request of $5.9 billion builds on the foundation 

established with the support of Congress to put this critical information into the hands of the public. Each of the proposed increases 

is a carefully chosen, targeted investment designed to meet the 

growing demand for services. In my remarks today, I’ll highlight 

just a few points. 

First, this budget invests in the observational infrastructure 

needed to protect public safety and welfare. To produce the weather forecasts our citizens, military and the economy rely upon, we 

must ensure continuity of our satellite operations. The successful 

launches of DSCOVR and Jason-3 and the upcoming launches of 

GOES–R and JPSS–1 are major milestones in this regard. We appreciate Congress’s support for the Polar Follow On program last 

year, and now request $393 million for PFO and next-gen technologies that set the stage for improved forecasts in the decades to 

come. We must also invest in the fleet of ships that provide critical 

ocean-observing capabilities. Without timely investment, our fleet 

will decline by 50 percent by 2028. We appreciate that $80 million 

Congress provided in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus to begin recapitalization, and here request $24 million to complete design and 

construction of a regional survey vessel. 

Second, this budget focuses on community resilience. 2015 saw 

ten United States weather and climate disaster events with losses 

of each one exceeding a billion dollars. Recognizing this enormous 
24 

impact, the budget invests in the services and information the communities need to assess their risks and minimize losses ahead of, 

during, and after such extreme events. And water is at the heart 

of many environmental threats. There’s either too much or too little, it’s in the wrong place, or it’s of poor quality. NOAA is uniquely 

positioned to bring both new research insights and the operational 

predictions the Nation needs to address the water challenges 

ahead. 

This budget includes $12.25 million to establish the Integrated 

Water Prediction initiative, the heart of which is an enhanced river 

flood forecast system that will increase the number of prediction 

points nationally 700 times from about 4,000 to nearly 2.7 million, 

making it possible for us to give street-level forecasts to 100 million 

Americans that lack them today. 

Third, this budget makes investments that ensure our National 

Weather Services is second to none. Weather and climate impact 

approximately a third of the Nation’s economy. They can cost billions of dollars and claim hundreds of lives per year. We remain 

firm in our commitment to build a weather-ready Nation and provide citizens with timely, accurate and well-communicated forecasts. 

Our budget request includes funding to extend the operating life 

of two critical ground observing systems: the NEXRAD radar, 

which support about 85 percent of all tornado warnings, and ASOS, 

which is vital to aviation across the country. Extending the life of 

these critical systems for a fraction of the original cost is a wise 

investment. 

Finally, the budget aims to improve the operational core of this 

agency. To meet these national needs and give our customers the 

best service possible, we must have an adequate mission support 

infrastructure. I believe instead we are near a critical breaking 

point. For example, funding for our HR services has declined steadily since 2008 but the workload has risen. A result is a backlog of 

1,800 vacancies, and the level of churn in our human resources 

workforce is twice that of other agencies. We must act now, and 

this budget requests $4.4 million to address the most severe mission-support weaknesses. 

Finally, transforming the R&D of our world-class scientists into 

tangible benefits for the country currently takes far too long. To 

speed this up, we’ve developed a Research Transition Acceleration 

program based on proven methods and best practices from NASA, 

the Defense Department, and the private sector, and propose to 

fund it at $10 million. 

In sum, NOAA’s fiscal year 2017 budget reflects our commitment 

to growing a strong economy that is built to last while being fiscally responsible and focusing on priority initiatives. 

I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank Administrator Sullivan 

for her opening statement. 

I remind members that the rules limit us to five minutes each 

for our questioning, and I’d like to recognize myself for five minutes. 

Administrator Sullivan, in December before this Committee, the 

head of your satellite office, Dr. Volz, testified that a more detailed 

process guide for how commercial companies will partner with your 

agency would be produced following the final Commercial Space 

Policy. When I asked for a date, he testified that it would be released in January or February, and of course, now we’re past that 

date. He recently told my staff that the document was off his desk 

and now ‘‘in process.’’ I was just wondering if you might know 

where that document is now. If it’s within NOAA, maybe it’s elsewhere in the administration. If you could share any information 

you have on that? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. 

It is in final review within NOAA is my understanding. That was 

our original target of the January date, and we share your eagerness to have it out. Our goal with both the the policy and the process is to provide the private sector with both the policy clarity and 

stability that they seek as well as the more detailed steps they 

need to follow and the next beyond that will be specific technical 

details for different measurement sets. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. And would you maybe at this hearing 

provide us a date for when we might be able to get that? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I don’t have a date certain at my fingertips, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. But I’ll be happy to update my inquiry as soon as 

the hearing is over and get back to your staff. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. That would be great if you could do 

that. Thank you. 

I’d like some clarification about the process by which NOAA will 

look to the private sector for radio occultation data. I’m encouraged 

to see the inclusion of private-sector data options, but I am hopeful 

that NOAA does not see this only as a secondary option. Can you 

share with us how you see this process working as far as integrating commercial data into the data assimilation systems? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. We see it as a very promising prospect and are 

moving accordingly to have the opportunity and the ability to test 

and evaluate it. It is a nascent proposition that the private sector 

can indeed provide such data so the process and the procedures 

we’re laying out here will give us the opportunity under the pilot 

programs to do the testing and evaluating that can confirm whether in fact the data quality and reliability meet the standards required to sustain the accuracy and reliability of our forecasts. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Okay. I’ve just got a few minutes here. 

Hopefully we can do a second round of questions. 

Contrary to what we have heard from numerous NOAA officials 

that have testified before this Committee, I’ve heard from countless 

weather and data experts that World Meteorological Organization 

Resolution 40, WMO 40, does not require the release of all data to 

the world. In fact, it lists out specific types and in some cases 
39 

amounts of data that is open for sharing. I do believe weather is 

a public good, and I understand the advantages the United States 

gets from our partnerships with other countries. However, there is 

a burgeoning weather satellite industry sitting on the sidelines because they are concerned that if they sell data to NOAA, you will 

turn around and give it away for free, which completely destroys 

the marketplace before it begins. 

I am not advocating for getting rid of WMO 40. I want to be clear 

about that. All I am asking is for us to actually abide by it. Will 

you commit to me that we can work together to craft rules for the 

treatment of weather data acquired from commercial space systems 

that does not undercut the emergence of a market while still maintaining that our government keeps its commitments to WMO 40? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, we have been working closely with 

your staff over the months that this issue has been evolving. I 

promise you, we will continue to do that, and let me assure you, 

we’re also working very closely with the WMO itself. I was just 

over in Geneva last week—the calendar’s a bit of a blur—and met 

directly with the new Secretary General. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for that. 

I’ll yield my time, or I’ll yield my time back to myself, I guess, 

and recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I just 

want to follow up on the Chairman’s comments. 

I hope that we can continue to work together on the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act and find a way to get that 

through collaboratively, so I appreciate your willingness, Dr. Sullivan, to keep working on that. 

We know that the ocean is becoming more acidic as it takes up 

excess carbon dioxide from the air. On the West Coast, it’s been especially difficult for shellfish larvae, and oysters and clams are vulnerable as well. The budget request proposes an increase of $11.7 

million for NOAA’s Ocean Acidification program. I support this increase. I’m leading a letter asking the Appropriations Committee to 

fulfill it. 

Can you please explain the need for this program and its potential benefits, and also how NOAA is translating its ocean acidification research into practices and strategies that benefit the industry? And I do want to save time for another couple questions. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you very much for the question. We have heard loud and clear from constituents around all 

the coasts, and I would highlight in particular your state and 

Washington, about the need to expand monitoring for the water 

conditions for ocean acidification conditions. There is also still a 

considerable amount of research that needs to be done to understand the ocean graphic processes and clarify and better understand the mechanisms by which changing ocean acidification may 

affect shellfish and finfish and other species of key interest. 

To your question about translating it to practical benefit, the increased monitoring and research would allow us to continue and 

deepen our work hand in glove with the shellfish industry, in your 

state, for example, to make sure that we can give them the monitoring and early warning technologies that let them take actions on 

the farms to protect their larvae. 
40 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. 

It needs to be repeated that it isn’t just the coastal communities 

that are affected because people across the country buy and eat 

shellfish that are affected. 

There’s also been over the last couple of years a significant number of harmful algal bloom outbreaks at the Great Lakes and coastal communities, for example. Now, I was pleased to work with Representative Posey to secure passage of the Harmful Algal Bloom 

and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act in 2014. Now, 

NOAA is currently requesting an additional $4 million to continue 

to develop and operationalize forecasts of harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and other pathogens. How will this improved forecasting increase economic security? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you also for that question. We have developed through our labs the capabilities now to combine satellite 

measurements and in situ measurements in calculations that give 

communities such as the Great Lakes and the Gulf Coast in particular days of warning about when you’re going to have a bloom 

that is of a toxic species and that will reach a concentration that 

could jeopardize municipal water supplies or fish and shellfish or 

beachgoers. The time has come. Those techniques are mature 

enough now to be sure that we can extend them to other coastal 

regions because we are now seeing increasing frequencies of blooms 

across all of the United States coasts. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And finally, in your testimony you 

mentioned that NOAA’s mission support services are at a critical 

breaking point. There’s one human resources professional for every 

148 employees, and that is—peer agencies have nearly three times 

as much HR staff. You mentioned that this has impaired the agency’s ability to fill the 1,800 empty positions. Can you explain how 

NOAA has sought to address these hiring shortages and what you 

need to ensure that our National Marine Fishery Service, our 

Weather Service, and other NOAA entities have the employees and 

the employee support services they need to serve the American people? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Yes. It’s a critical point, and the vacancies are 

concentrated in the National Weather Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. We have looked to separate the hightouch functions where we really need people talking directly to our 

scientists and managers from the more mechanical things that facetiously, let me say typing up forms, and wherever possible 

outsource that mechanical processing to other parties so that our 

team can work on the front end of things. 

We’ve engaged OPM, we’ve engaged the Small Business, and in 

parallel with those actions, because they’ve not been sufficient to 

begin to reduce the backlog, we’ve been working with the Department of Commercial on the development of a more robust shared 

services model that promises tremendous improvement going forward provided we can make the transition to that model. 

The funding that we request for NOAA in this budget is really 

essential to continuing the contract services we have now in place 

and beginning that transition to the broader shared services model. 

It is our one pathway that offers the potential to get past this hur-
41 

dle and back to where we have the full complement of expertise 

needed to do our mission. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, and I know and appreciate, as I’m 

sure my colleagues do, the importance of having dollars in the field 

and in the research. However, that being said, for you to be able 

to do the work that you need, you must have those support services. So I look forward to working with you on that, and I’m out 

of time and yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Ranking Member, 

and I recognize the chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, for 

five minutes. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Sullivan, 

thank you for being with us today. 

My first question goes to RICO, and it is this. Have you or anyone you know been a part of any discussions about using the RICO 

statutes against anyone who might question some aspects of climate change? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I have been part of no such conversations, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. The Attorney General testified before 

the Senate last week that she had in fact been part of such discussions and had referred it to the FBI but she did not consult with 

you nor has anyone at this point? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I have been part of no such conversations. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. That’s reassuring to hear because I happen to believe that you shouldn’t be prosecuted for disagreeing 

about climate change. 

My next question is this. You’re familiar with NOAA’s study, 

sometimes called the Karl study, that found that—or allegedly 

found that there had been an increase in global warming over the 

last 18 years. That study was refused by some well-respected scientists in an article that appeared in the publication Nature. I assume you’ve read the Nature article? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I’m familiar with that paper. 

Chairman SMITH. Do you still stand by the Karl study’s conclusions or do you now recognize that those conclusions might have 

been weak and agree with the Nature scientists? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I welcome the debate in the scientific literature 

that the full publication of the data and information in the Karl 

paper has enabled. That is precisely what the scientific process——— 

Chairman SMITH. Right, but both can’t be——— 

Ms. SULLIVAN. —designed to do. 

Chairman SMITH. Both can’t be correct. Do you feel that the 

NOAA study is still correct or do you think the Nature article is 

correct? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. If I recall correctly from the Nature paper, the authors of that study themselves say that the Karl study is a valuable scientific contribution. 

Chairman SMITH. That wasn’t my question. My question goes to 

the 18-year halt in global warming. The NOAA study said that 

there had been an increase in warming during that period. The Nature article said there had not been. With which do you agree? 
42 

Ms. SULLIVAN. If I recall the original IPCC report from years ago 

that first used the word ‘‘hiatus,’’ that study also said that that did 

not contradict the fact that the linear trend of temperature continued——— 

Chairman SMITH. Again, I’m not talking about the linear trend. 

I’m taking about the 18 years. Do you agree that there was global 

warming or do you not agree that there was global warming? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t study the kinks and bumps 

in temperature curves at that level of detail and——— 

Chairman SMITH. The 18 years is important because a lot of 

studies said that there was no increase in global warming. You 

were one of the few that said there was. Again, I’ll ask you the 

same question. Do you agree with the NOAA Karl study or do you 

agree with the Nature scientists? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I stand by the quality and integrity of the scientific analysis that was published for all to challenge, confirm or 

verify in the Karl study, and I would be interested to follow the scientific debate as it goes forward. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. So you still say that the Karl study was 

accurate and you disagree with the nature scientists? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I stand by the integrity and quality of the Karl 

study. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. I wasn’t asking you about the integrity 

and quality. I assume that by that, though, you meant their conclusions as well? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I believe they did a valid job of analyzing new 

data sets. They proffered analysis——— 

Chairman SMITH. Then that does answer my question. If you 

consider their conclusions to be valid, you agree with them; you 

disagree with the Nature scientists. If you want to be in the minority, that’s fine. I just wanted to see what you felt on the record. 

My next question is this. To my knowledge, NOAA has not fully 

complied with our subpoena dated February 22nd. We did get some 

production two days ago but it was not the full comprehensive production that we requested. Do you intend to comply with our subpoena? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, my staff continues to work on the 

details of these matters with your staff on an almost daily basis, 

and I assure you, we will continue to move forward on the path 

that they have agreed to make sure that we satisfy your needs. 

Chairman SMITH. And so you do intend to comply in a timely 

manner? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. We fully respect the Committee’s oversight responsibilities and have been working diligently since your very first 

letter to do precisely that. 

Chairman SMITH. And so is it fair for me to say that you do intend to comply with the subpoena? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. We intend to continue working with your team to 

fulfill the requests that you’ve expressed. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you for that, and yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The Chairman yields back. 

I recognize the Ranking Member of the full committee, Ms. Johnson, for five minutes. 
43 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Sullivan, as you know, the various regions of the Nation including my own have been plagued with flooding and drought over 

the last several years. Therefore, I was pleased to see that the 

budget request included $12.2 million for a new water prediction 

initiative. As I understand it, NOAA plans to build up and leverage 

interagency efforts at the National Water Center in Alabama to 

create new and improved water predictions, forecasts, and warnings that will help local communities respond to and prepare for 

floods and droughts. Can you please provide me with a little bit 

more detail to this initiative? Specifically, how will the capabilities 

provided by this proposed initiative be different than the current 

service NOAA provides? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman, 

and maybe the simplest way for me to make that clear—I said 

some statistics in my commentary and my testimony about times 

700 of the number of points and a hundred million Americans, but, 

you know, a picture is often worth 10,000 words, and this is a map 

that shows the numbers of points that we currently put forecasts 

out for across the United States, those red triangles. That’s the 

4,000 points. Many of them are miles away from a downtown. 

They’re on some run of a stream. The new model capability that 

we propose to launch provided we receive the fiscal year 2017 request turns that 2.7 million points. Well, what does that look like? 

It looks like that. It turns the map blue. It is almost contiguous 

coverage like dropping a net, a mesh over the country, and this 

means that in, you know, communities such as the ones in your 

area that were hit so bad just recently, the information about what 

will the water level be won’t be a mile or two upstream or some 

main branch tributary comes in, it’ll be in the neighborhood. It’ll 

be right here where it matters to you. 

We have heard vividly from emergency managers across the 

country how powerfully important this would be to them in terms 

of their ability to better protect their citizens. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

As you know, the Majority has been investigating the peer-reviewed climate research paper published by NOAA’s scientists in 

the magazine Science last year, and I understand that the paper 

adds to the scientific body of work examining the concept of a slowdown or hiatus in the rate of global warming over the last 15 years 

or so. 

The Majority has alleged that the publication of the research 

paper was in some way rushed and that NOAA did not adhere to 

the Data Quality Act or the agency’s scientific integrity process. I 

know that you have commented some but I’d like to also note that 

a separate scientific paper that included climate scientist Michael 

Mann published last month found that this hiatus was real but 

was temporarily masked by natural factors. Dr. Mann in a story 

about the paper stated the temporary slowdown in no way implies 

that human-caused warming has ceased or slowed down. 

I point this out to show that it is part of the scientific process. 

Different scientists examine different parts of similar issues and 

rarely come to identical conclusions. This does not mean that sci-
44 

entists or others were involved in some grand conspiracy or for political reasons as the Majority believes. 

With that in mind, Dr. Sullivan, can you please describe the 

agency’s scientific integrity process, and can you please respond to 

the allegations which I think you just heard recently just now. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you. NOAA has a very strong and rigorous 

scientific integrity process that is very widely admired called by 

many a gold standard. We uphold it very strongly, very firmly, myself, my Chief Scientist, our research council, and it insists upon 

integrity and independence of science throughout the agency. It includes clear protections to prevent political interference, and in this 

matter, Congresswoman, let me assure you there has been no political interference. 

I had nothing to do with the timing of the report so I can’t speak 

in detail to that. The final timing of the appearance of any publication is of course at the discretion of the publication itself. I do know 

in this instance the journal Science is one of the most highly respected journals globally, renowned for a very rigorous peer-review 

process, and recognizing the interest in this matter, in fact, 

scrubbed this paper with extra diligence, but at the end, when a 

paper comes out is dependent on the journal. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I now recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Sullivan, thank you. Could you hold up that last 

map that you had a while ago? Yeah. And so—and you’re trying to 

turn the map blue. Is that right? Or are you trying to——— 

Ms. SULLIVAN. The blue color on this side shows the new density 

of points compared to just the red triangles. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Okay. Because I like maps that we try to turn 

red, so in the future if you want to——— 

Ms. SULLIVAN. You’re asking that I reverse those colors? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Would you reverse the colors for me? Thank 

you. 

Thank you for being here. One of the things since I’ve been on 

this Committee, and I had brown hair, I think, when I first got on 

this Committee, but you know, the satellite program has—you 

know, it’s had its problems: cost overruns, you know, delays in getting those satellites flying. And you know, it’s consuming a fairly 

substantial portion of the budget, and you’ve asked for increases 

over the years. Can you—and I want to associate myself with 

Chairman Bridenstine in that I think it’s to our benefit, the taxpayers’ benefit, especially with the fact that the private sector has, 

you know, really enhanced since I’ve been on this Committee their 

participation in space and now we’re using, you know, private companies to launch, I think, to take supplies to the station and so 

forth. What’s your vision about the future? Sometimes, you know, 

we have—quite honestly, the agencies are resistant to, you know, 

bringing the private sector into that turf. NASA wasn’t—hasn’t 

been overly excited, as you know, in the past about, you know, 

transitioning some of the programs to the private sector. 

But to me, it makes a whole lot of sense because one of things 

that the private sector has the opportunity to do is get some cost 
45 

recovery, you know, from commercial opportunities with the data 

that they receive from the satellites. So could you kind of give me 

your Administrator Sullivan position on that? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. We are quite intrigued. I mean, we watch the 

space sector evolve, as anybody does that’s dependent on space-related data. In the weather domain, we believe it is a promising but 

still quite nascent prospect to actually have data flows from private-sector satellites. There have been a number of claims there is 

some hardware in orbit from at least one company that I’m aware 

of, but really nothing proven to the level that we require for ingesting something into the National Weather Service, because if we 

make a mistake on that, we then degrade the forecasts that in fact 

Americans are depending on every single day. 

So our posture and our engagement with the private sector in 

this regard is just tempered by that concern to make sure we work 

together to define the best path forward that doesn’t jeopardize the 

quality of American weather forecasting. 

I might just add, you know, we work hand in glove with the private sector in the design, development, launching, and flight operations of our satellites today. Those are primarily private-sector 

companies doing that work on our behalf, and across many NOAA 

mission areas from weather sensors to tsunami warning sensors, 

technologies pioneered in NOAA labs, we willingly and eagerly 

transitioned to the private sector. So if another country wants to 

install a tsunami warning buoy today, they actually buy it from the 

SCIC Company for just the reasons you’ve said. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I think one of the things that I would caution 

you, and it’s again, sometimes the requirements that we require of 

the private sector exceed those that we require of ourselves internally, and that’s designed, you know, to make it difficult to create 

any space for the private sector with ‘‘space’’ not being a pun intended, but—so I would encourage you as you move forward is 

that, you know, we have to bring those people into the collaboration. I don’t think it compromises the mission at what’s going on 

at NOAA, and I think it actually has an opportunity to expand that 

mission and to free up, you know, very precious dollars that we 

don’t have, you know, of your budget. I think we’re going to have 

to go borrow about 20 percent of that, you know, and charge it to 

my children and my grandchildren, and they won’t even be flying 

the same satellites, you know, when it comes time for them to be 

utilizing that data. 

So I would just say from my perspective and from a fiscal standpoint is that I would encourage you to make opportunities for the 

private sector to do that and work on that red map for me too while 

you’re doing it. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

I would like to just add, I think his points are right on point. 

When you think about data from the commercial sector, though, we 

don’t have any way of knowing whether or not that data is as good 

or better than NOAA’s data until we get that process guide so that 

we have the standards necessary to validate the data. So—and I 

know we’re working on that, and thank you for that. 
46 

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the Ranking 

Member. 

Thank you, Dr. Sullivan, for your service to our country and your 

service at NOAA. 

I often hear my colleagues say well, you know, they can’t determine whether the climate’s changing or not because they’re not scientists. Now, I’m a physician by training. I am a scientist, not a 

climate scientist, but certainly trained in the scientific method and 

how you collect data, and at the surface if we just think about it, 

2015 was the hottest year on record by quite a bit. You know, 

that’s just objective data. And folks may say well, that’s not a 

trend, but 2014 was the second most hottest year, again, objective 

data. 2010 was the third hottest year on record in recent memory. 

2013 was the fourth. So, you know, as a trend, it doesn’t take a 

scientist to realize that the climate’s changing and we are experiencing, you know, record heat wave after record heat wave. 

Let’s drill that down to what it means to the people. You know, 

in my own district in California and our state, we’re going through 

severe drought-like conditions that are impacting everyone, you 

know, from our farmers to our consumers. Everyone’s chipping in. 

In my own district, Folsom Lake, which serves, you know, close to 

half a million people in my community rely on Folsom Lake for 

drinking water, for surface drinking water. It’s been at record lows. 

And yes, we are having a wetter winter. We are having some snow. 

But what we realized, you know, over the last 4 or five years is, 

when we look up at the Sierra Nevadas, our snowpack has been 

disappearing, and much of that precipitation when we get it is coming down as rain, not as snow. This is a crisis situation. 

In my district, we rely on Folsom Lake and Folsom Dam to help 

manage both flood risk as well as drought risk, and as we go 

through a joint federal project that will give us much more flexibility to manage both these conditions, weather forecasting becomes increasingly important, and the investments NOAA is making in better forecasting so we can better manage our water in the 

lake, knowing when we need to increase flows to create more capacity and also when we should hold back on water knowing that, 

you know, those storms aren’t coming. So I appreciate the work 

you’re doing. 

I was reading about the Cray supercomputer, and just managing 

the big data and all the points of data, and I’d be curious about 

the Cray supercomputer as well as other resources that NOAA has 

to help us better predict and forecast weather. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Bera. 

The supercomputing is indispensable to this work. As you can 

imagine, you have to measure the entire globe and ingest the data 

and then run the calculations that let us have the kind of foresight 

that you’re speaking about. 

One of the exciting projects to me, very specific to your interest, 

is something called Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations, which 

our Weather Service with our research teams and our fisheries 

teams actually are pioneering out in the Russian River basin for 

just the reason you said. If we can tell a dam manager with the 
47 

Corps of Engineers there’s not so more rain coming for at least X 

amount of time, then they could hold the water that comes in a 

wave and an atmospheric river instead of letting water go downstream to make room in the reservoir. That has great potential to 

help add some precision and some greater margin to the water 

management in your state. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you. And anything we can do to help better 

manage that, provide the funding, make sure when we’re writing 

the manuals that help us manage these reservoirs we’re not relying 

on data from 30 years ago or 40 years ago; we’re relying on the instruments that we have today, the tools that we have today, and 

again, in a state like mine, in a region like mine where we have 

the dual risk of both flood and droughts, we have to have those 

tools. 

So we very much appreciate the work that NOAA is doing. We 

want to make sure as we update the manual for Folsom Lake and 

the management of Folsom Dam we incorporate all that data and 

the forecasting data, and you know, again, from my perspective, 

this is a reality that we’ll have to deal with. The climate is changing. Managing these resources has incredible impact on individual 

lives, on our economy, and the more we can recognize that, the 

quicker we can recognize that the climate’s changing and we’ve got 

to manage this lifesaving asset and water. The sooner we do that, 

the better off we’ll be. So thank you for your work. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. BERA. I’ll yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Sullivan, are you a fisher person? I guess—is that——— 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I was a fisher person of sorts when I was a little 

girl going with my dad, bass and trout fishing. 

Mr. WEBER. Freshwater lakes? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Mainly freshwater lakes, very occasionally offshore. 

Mr. WEBER. Good. I get some questions on red snappers being 

from the Texas Gulf Coast. There’s been some complaints about the 

data that’s being collected, and your own testimony on page three 

says that the actual red snapper population has improved 30 percent. Generally across the board most all the stakeholders agree— 

believe the data to be flawed. What steps have you all taken to improve that data? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Mr. Weber, I don’t have specifics about recent 

data improvement actions pertaining to Gulf snapper fishery right 

at my fingertips but I’d be happy to get back to you on that. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. That would be good. 

And then I was curious about one of the exchanges, I think between you and Ms. Bonamici, that there was salmon fisheries going 

to be closed off the West Coast because the water temperature had 

raised. Is that right? Are you aware of that? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I’m not aware of the detailed parameters involved. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. All right. Fair enough. 

Changing gears on you a little bit. Last year, NOAA requested 

money to start the Polar Follow On program, which you received 
48 

most of the funding, $370 million. Again this year you’re requesting 

funding for $393 million. In the out years you will be requesting 

about half a billion dollars annually. JPSS and the GOES–R programs have experienced cost overruns and launch delays in addition to inclusion on the last two editions of the GAO’s High Risk 

Report. Are you aware of that? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I am aware of that. 

Mr. WEBER. How can we be assured that NOAA has taken actions to prevent these next Battlestar Galactica satellites you’re 

planning from experiencing those same problems? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you for the question. We did have some 

schedule and budget difficulties on both programs a number of 

years ago and have worked hand in glove with the contractors, 

redone schedules, redefined the budgets, improved our internal program and process management, and substantially strengthened our 

satellite team. Both the GOES–R and the JPSS programs have now 

been running on time, on budget, and holding their margins for 30, 

36 months each. The programs are sound. They are stable, and we 

have now management capacity and program plans in place to be 

sure, for me to be confident that we will execute well on PFO. 

Mr. WEBER. Do you anticipate them winding back up on the next 

High Risk Report? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I can’t speak for the General Accounting Office. 

It is certainly a risk. A gap in satellite data for weather forecasting 

is certainly a risk to the country that we are all keeping our eyes 

on. How GAO might classify either that risk or program management risks, we’ll have to wait and see. But I have heard from our 

GAO examiners personally that they now regard the programs as 

well run and well managed. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, I thought the term ‘‘Battlestar Galactica’’ was 

an interesting term, so may the force be with you as you continue. 

Does the Polar Follow On allow for any flexibility to take advantage of rapidly changing technologies and capabilities, or will the 

satellites we will be flying in the 2030s era, will they be using this 

old technology? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. The Polar Follow On program does two things, 

Congressman. It locks in some economic advantage to carrying forward existing instrument designs, which are very complex, and in 

a component of the program called EON–Microwave—EON–MW— 

it does propose exactly what you’re thinking of to put a small down 

payment on an investment that other parties have done the first 

investment in, a technology that offers the potential to substantially change the cost parameters on our most important microwave 

sounding instrument so that we do have new capabilities that are 

more cost-effective in the future. 

Mr. WEBER. Is that the EON—are those the microwave sounders 

you’re talking about? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Yes, they are. 

Mr. WEBER. Aren’t there some private companies that are developing those? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I know of no private company that’s developing 

the kind of radiometer that makes these precise vertical measurements to the depth of the atmosphere that these specific instruments do. 
49 

Mr. WEBER. But you do know of companies that develop the 

microwave sounders? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Not sounders—microwave receivers that do things 

like the GPS radio occultation. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And are you—have you checked with them to 

see if there’s a plan and process for them to begin developing? Are 

you working with them hand in hand? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. We are. We scout that sector actively. We stay engaged with the space community widely. The pilot programs that 

I’ve been discussing with the Chairman give both us and the companies the opportunity to really explore and for us to co-invest in 

helping them actually demonstrate that they have the capabilities 

they’ve said to us they aim to provide. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, according to the National Space Policy of 2010, 

NOAA is not supposed—doesn’t need to develop that technology. So 

the more you could do it from a private standpoint I think it’s kind 

of like what Congressman Neugebauer was talking about, the more 

tax dollars we save. Would you agree with that? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. If a technology exists and has been proven, I 

would certainly agree with that, but that is not currently the case 

in the microwave sounding arena. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

The idea, of course, behind the commercial interest on this Committee is sharing costs among the different commercial actors that 

want to buy that data—energy companies, transportation companies, agricultural companies—and ultimately then the government 

becomes one of many customers and that reduces the cost for the 

taxpayer. 

I’d now like to recognize Mr. Babin for five minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Sullivan, NOAA Independent Review Team recommended a 

gap filler mission as a way to help mitigate potential gaps in the 

afternoon polar orbit and make NOAA’s Polar Satellite program 

more robust. What is NOAA doing to address this recommendation, 

and how are those plans reflected in fiscal year 2017 budget request? And are there any other options that NOAA is examining 

that can enhance the robustness and resiliency of the Polar Satellite Programs? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you for that question, Mr. Babin. We have 

done a number of things flowing directly from the IRT’s report. For 

one, we structured the Polar Follow On program in a fashion that 

allows us to shift directions on that if need be and launch a gapfiller satellite in the early 2020s time frame. That was not the direction we were heading prior to the IRT’s report so they were very 

helpful input in that regard. 

The EON–Microwave request that is embedded within the Polar 

Follow On budget line is another one of those examples. As I have 

indicated, it is an existing technology. We propose to benefit from 

investments other parties have made in bringing it to its current 

stage, but to apply some NOAA investment to take it the next 

steps and really determine and confirm that it could meet the 

microwave sounding needs that we have. Should that prove true, 
50 

and we’re fairly confident that it would, then EON–Microwave has 

the prospect to serve as a gap filler as well. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. 

And then also, what are the key risks that can affect NOAA’s 

costs and schedule commitments for the polar and geostationary 

satellites, and what is NOAA doing to address these risks? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you for that question also. Some of the big 

risks that we had been prone to or vulnerable to in that in fact 

we’ve retired a little bit with the first-year funding for the Polar 

Follow On program because one of the biggest risks when you need 

multiple satellites to provide the kind of continuity that we need 

in the weather arena is that you break production, and the companies, the private-sector companies that are working on producing 

these, release their workforce, lose the tooling, lose the engineering 

expertise, so as the IRT also pointed out, we had basically been 

buying a satellite at a time, which is the least cost-effective way 

to do it. The Polar Follow On program moves us back in a direction 

of a robust constellation by the 2020s and gets back some of that 

obsolescence and workforce and engineering risk that happens 

when you start and stop complex—any complex program. So that 

is certainly one thing. 

We also internally have done a tremendous number of things to 

strengthen our internal processes and our management structure. 

We’ve worked very diligently with our colleagues at NASA, who actually run the contracts and do the procurement for us and with 

the contractors that they engage, and I think that the team now 

clearly has demonstrated by several years consecutive strong budget and schedule performance the team now is clearly well in hand 

and functioning in all cylinders. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay, and then what is the lifecycle cost of the 

GOES–R program, and similarly, what is the lifecycle cost of 

JPSS’s program? How do these costs of these programs compare to 

the costs of our partners you were mentioning? Specifically, does 

the Department of Defense and our European partners, do they 

incur similar high costs? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I don’t have all of those lifecycle costs right at my 

fingertips, Congressman Babin. I do know the JPSS program 

lifecycle cost remains steady at $11.3 billion, and again, I don’t 

have Defense Department or European figures. 

I can tell you that they certainly are of the same order, as witness the European Union’s recent launch of their Copernicus and 

Sentinel series satellites. 

Mr. BABIN. Well, I was just wondering if they have dealt with the 

same number of delays and cost overruns that NOAA has had. Do 

you know? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. We are not out of family with agencies that 

produce large, complex space systems. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Then over the last few days, and you even 

mentioned this in your opening statement, we’ve seen devastating 

floods in the southern United States. In fact, I have five of my nine 

counties that are in an emergency situation right now with an alltime record flooding of the Sabine River and flooding in the Neches 

and in the Trinity Rivers in Texas. 
51 

As spring starts up this year, I’m concerned that severe weather 

outbreaks and tornados will again put American lives and property 

at risk, and I wonder, is it smart when we look at the President’s 

budget to be cutting NESDIS, NOS, MOAO, and the National 

Weather Service? What do you think? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I’m confident that this budget makes sound investments in the targeted places that are most central to public 

safety and the public welfare and will not be leaving us short on 

those hazards. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the gentleman from 

Texas. 

Regarding the distributed architectures that you talk about to 

mitigate risks, we fully support that. Polar Follow On is what you 

were describing. You could also do that through taking advantage 

of various commercial operators. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency is doing that with remote sensing and imagery, and 

of course, communications. The Department of Defense is using distributed architectures with communications by leveraging commercial as well. 

I’d like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Chairman Bridenstine. 

Administrator Sullivan, the changing climate is already having 

visible impacts around the country. Perhaps nowhere is this change 

more apparent than among our coastal communities, which remain 

vulnerable to increasingly severe storms, rising sea levels, and altered marine ecosystems. I am pleased to see that the budget request reflects NOAA’s commitment to enhancing the resiliency of 

our coastal communities. 

Can you please describe in more detail how the budget request 

will improve the resiliency of coastal communities including the 

$15 million increase NOAA is requesting to expand its Regional 

Coastal Resilience Grant program? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you very much for that question. I can perhaps best illustrate the vital need that you’re referring to by the 

experience we had with the $10 million we were given for Regional 

Coastal Resilience Grants in fiscal year 2015. We received 196 proposals from communities across the country for that—for those dollars for a total amount of $151 million. We were able to fund only 

six programs, six proposals, out of that entire set, but those six proposals are enabling some 100 communities to look at their 

vulnerabilities, the hazards that they are exposed to, and really 

begin to lay in concrete plans and take concrete actions from habitat restoration to shoreline protection, to natural infrastructure, to 

put themselves in a better footing with respect to the changing conditions that you cite, and that’s why we’re asking for an increase 

in that funding line this year. 

Mr. TAKANO. And these communities are—well, they’re on the 

coast, of course, but the——— 

Ms. SULLIVAN. They’re all across the country. 

Mr. TAKANO. Yeah. Well, the budget request—I want to talk 

about polar orbiting for a moment. The budget request includes an 

increase of $8.1 million to explore options for the acquisition of 

radio occultation data from the polar orbit. This includes sustaining 
52 

the international partnership with Taiwan to build the second set 

of sensors and evaluating the possibility of purchasing commercially available data. 

Can you begin by describing the value of this data and what the 

impact would be of losing this capability? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you for that question. This radio occultation data is a very valuable augmentation of the high-precision 

sounding that we get from the instruments aboard our weather satellites. It helps calibrate and take out bias and inaccuracies that 

sometimes get into those other data sets. We’ve kept the door open 

to possibly going with the government solution, the COSMIC solution, for the simple reason that as I sit here today, that is a technically proven, known system. We know the data quality characteristics of that system. It would be what we’ve seen in orbit now with 

the predecessor. So that is a bird in the hand that we know the 

quality and characteristics of. 

As the Chairman has noted, and as we are committed to, we do 

propose in this budget to proceed with pilot studies, working collaboratively with the private sector, co-investing in the test and 

evaluation needed to see, to confirm whether the data sources that 

they propose to offer do in fact live up to those same quality standards. 

Mr. TAKANO. But would there be a significant—how can I say 

this? I mean, the fact that the uncertainty about whether the private data sources are reliable, what would that pose in terms of if 

they were not reliable? What would that present to us? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. If you look at all of the data streams that go into 

contributing to the quality and reliability of weather forecasts 

today, the radio occultation measurements rank quite high, in the 

top six or so of those data sets. They are valuable. We would not 

want to lose radio occultation. 

Mr. TAKANO. So an interruption in reliability would be a significant problem for us? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. It would be a concern. 

Mr. TAKANO. And then you describe how the evaluation of purchasing commercial radio occultation data through this request—or 

can you describe how the evaluation of purchasing commercial 

radio occultation data through this request will work in comparison 

to the Commercial Weather Data pilot program? Will this effort be 

distinct? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. It will follow the ground rules and guidelines that 

we—that come from our policy down to the process that is soon to 

come out and into the detailed technical specifications about particular data types, so about the GPS–RO, so the industry knows 

they have a stable governance environment for working with us but 

they also know what the particulars are that they’re aiming at in 

terms of specifications. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, thank you, Administrator. I appreciate your 

answers. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. The gentleman yields back. 

We’re going to go for a second round of questions. If it’s okay, I’ll 

recognize myself for five minutes and then the Ranking Member 

for five minutes. 
53 

Real quick. The stage that I think needs to be set is one of national security. In the last Congress, Chairman Wolf mentioned 

from the Floor of the House that the National Weather Service got 

hacked into. He attributed it to the Chinese, and it compelled 

NOAA to shut down some satellites for a period of time. It wasn’t 

too long ago, I think it was in 2007, the Chinese used a direct ascent anti-satellite missile to shoot down one of their own satellites 

in low Earth orbit. 

The reason I think it is important for us to take advantage of 

commercial is quite frankly to very quickly disaggregate and distribute the architecture as you have rightly identified as one of our 

goals. One of the challenges to rapidly distribute the architecture 

is being able to buy data from commercial. It’s why we are doing 

it in the Department of Defense. I’m also on the Subcommittee on 

Strategic Forces on the Armed Services Committee, and we deal a 

lot with communication architecture as well as remote sensing and 

imagery. This is why this is important, taking advantage of commercial. It not only complicates the targeting solution for the 

enemy but also they have to invest a whole lot more money to jam 

or hack into numerous different ground architectures as well. So it 

changes their calculation for how much they have to invest and 

those kind of things, and it could actually deter them from making 

those investments to begin with. 

This is why it is so important that we correctly interpret WMO 

40, and—because if the commercial industry believes that the data 

purchased by NOAA is going to be given away to the world for free, 

then they won’t create that data to begin with, and if they don’t 

create the data, then it’s not a global public good because it’s not 

a good at all, which is a concern of mine. 

One of the areas we’ve been looking at is, how do we comply with 

WMO 40 and at the same time make sure that we’re not destroying 

a market that would otherwise exist. Some of the areas we’ve 

talked about are resolution restrictions. If commercial operators are 

going to invest in new instruments and technologies and capabilities that are of higher resolution than what the government is 

building itself, then maybe we can protect that data and not give 

it away for free to the world and prevent that market from forming. 

Also, we’ve talked about data tiers. Maybe the first 20,000 radio 

occultations can come from COSMIC and beyond that there’d be 

another tier of data where we can augment our systems with even 

more radio occultations, and of course, we’ve had testimony on this 

Committee indicating that more occultation—there is no limit to 

the benefit of more occultations. We need more and more and more, 

and it gets the models better and better and better and in some 

cases we can actually lose some of the primary sensors when you 

have that much radio occultation data. And then of course, time 

delays. Certainly the data doesn’t have to be shared to the world 

immediately but maybe if we delay it for 24 or 48 hours, we can 

create the market and be in compliance with WMO 40. 

So I wanted to talk—you mentioned that you had talked to folks 

in Geneva regarding WMO 40. Can you share with us what their 

thoughts were on it and kind of the direction they’re thinking 

about going? 
54 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I’ve 

not been in discussion at this level of detail about particular tactics 

or methods with the Secretary General. He doesn’t operate at that 

level either. 

But to the point of confirming that the world is changing, there 

are interesting and different prospects emerging. You know, the 

arrow of time only goes in one direction. We all know that. And it’s 

important that we find ways forward that engage with and understand and explore these new prospects, and also that we do that 

in a way, to use an engineering term I know—you’ll understand 

from your pilot background—let’s make sure that we do a make before break connection, like an astronaut with a tether or a mountaineer. These data are valuable to forecasts today as I know you 

appreciate very well. Let’s make sure we’ve got our hand firmly on 

a real replacement that we know brings the same or better value 

before we let go of this one. 

In the policy framework, we’ve set out the process we hope to 

bring to you shortly and the specifications that we’ll set up. The 

conversations we’ve had with industry on the subject have all been 

with that motivation. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for that. And just so you 

know, on the Armed Services side we’re working with the Department of Defense. They’re looking at commercial data buys as well 

to help accelerate this process again for national security reasons, 

which is a good thing. 

I want to switch gears real quick. I want to talk about spectrum. 

As I understand it, the administration has asked federal agencies 

to identify areas of spectrum that could be utilized for other purposes. There’s a slide up. I just want everybody to look at it. It is 

also my understanding that weather data streaming from settlements to ground stations could be severely impacted if required to 

move or share spectrum with other users. Obviously when we open 

up spectrum and we share spectrum, we can jam ourselves, and I 

think NOAA and this Committee are going to be in agreement that 

the last thing we want to do is release spectrum to be used by 

other operators that would hinder our ability to predict severe 

weather. 

[Slide.] 

When you look at this slide here, you can see the areas that have 

been blacked out because of interference from other people using 

the same spectrum. 

Does NOAA advocate for moving or sharing spectrum when it 

comes to our weather satellites? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say at the 

outset how much we appreciate your keen understanding of this interest and its potential impact on our mission. 

We support the President’s policy to recognize the growing arena 

of broadband in the world that we live in these days, but we do 

support ensuring that there is a clear and established process, realistic timelines, and that we, NOAA, are provided the means and 

the time that might be needed to provide what adjustments or protections to prevent this sort of interference happening. 

I know you have heard we’re seeing interference even at one of 

the test sites where there is a pilot test of an exclusionary zone. 
55 

We’re still seeing that kind of interference from sources that are up 

to 100 miles away. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. Over the horizon communications for 

the Department of Defense these days overwhelmingly is commercial. About 80 percent of it is commercial. That’s within—a lot of 

it is within the Ka frequency spectrum, and in fact, the 5G networks are looking at maybe not cannibalizing but sharing more of 

that 5G, or more of that Ka spectrum, and it’s very dangerous for 

the war fighters because ultimately they’re the ones that need the 

information and they need it complete and they need it when they 

need it, and we don’t need to be worrying about interference. 

With that, I will yield back the negative two minutes that I’ve 

taken and recognize Ms. Bonamici for as much time as she may 

consume. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to follow up on your last two minutes that you yielded back because I 

think that this challenge of spectrum is something that we can 

work together on on a bipartisan basis with NOAA to make sure 

that that challenge is met because we certainly don’t want interference, and there does need to be a process. 

I do, even though Mr. Weber’s no longer here, want to respond 

to his comment for the record. I did mention in my opening statement that there are some regional fisheries’ managers in the 

Northwest considering closure of Oregon and Washington ocean 

salmon fisheries in certain areas in large part because of the weak 

forecast for coastal coho salmon, to which is attributed warm water 

in the ocean. So I want to thank you, Administrator, for including 

in the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research section climate 

competitive research on the impacts of climate on fish stocks. I 

think that research will be very helpful to the industry. 

I did want to follow up as well, Dr. Sullivan, on the comment 

that I made in my opening statement about the concern about the 

reduction of the education and awareness grants through the Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program. We found that different coastal 

communities are not only different in their topography but also 

have different communication needs, different awareness needs depending on how far it is to get out of the Tsunami Inundation Zone 

or, you know, how flat the ground is. There’s lots of factors, and 

the grants are really designed to help communicate threats, especially to vulnerable communities. 

So can you talk a little bit about why that reduction is included 

in the budget? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Congresswoman. That budget does— 

that request or that proposed change does request some of the hard 

choices we have to make to try to live within our means. We have 

many such programs that we know provide valuable information 

the communities use to address their resiliency and their protection 

from the specific hazards that they’re facing. In this particular 

case, our judgment is that the TsunamiReady programs that runs 

in each community through our Weather Forecast Office provides 

an avenue to meet that need. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I hope so. It is really a serious issue 

with the coastal area, and it’s hard—this will be hard to explain 

to my constituents but I will look forward to working with you on 
56 

that other program and hope that that is sufficient to meet the 

needs. 

The Committee’s also been interested in increasing the transition 

of research conducted in the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office to the National Weather Service. This is something that the 

Chairman and I spoke about when working on the weather forecasting bill. It appears that some real progress has been made between those line offices, and I’m pleased that the budget request 

includes $10 million to accelerate the transition of research to operations across NOAA. So can you please describe how NOAA plans 

to accomplish this goal, and will this address the need to accelerate 

the transition of research from the academic community and the 

private sector into NOAA operations, and if so, how? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you for that question. We’ve seen some 

great advances in our operational products in recent years. The 

High Resolution Rapid Refresh Model, which gives four times the 

resolution the ground, is one example. But that took almost ten 

years to get into operations, and there are a couple of factors in 

play that this budget proposes to address. One is shifting our highperformance computing models from stepwise acquisition to lease 

structures, which is one of our proposals, lets that capability evolve 

more seamlessly and more smoothly. But this program, the RTAP 

program, addresses the other problem. 

What we learned as we canvassed NASA and DOD, DARPA and 

private-sector entities is, good work that sits here on the research 

bench or in the journal ready to go and pertinent to certain needs 

doesn’t get transferred across on its own. Magic does not happen. 

It takes a dedicated funding line and an intentionally built program structure such as the Defense Department has to reach into 

the research arena knowing what a need and unmet need is and 

help co-invest in the transition of that work, to refine it and tune 

it precisely to the operational needs so it can pay that dividend to 

the war fighter or to the citizens. 

We’ve worked carefully. My Chief Scientists has a background at 

the Office of Naval Research as well as earlier experience in 

NOAA. We have laid out the administrative structure. We have 

laid out the competitive guidelines. We’ve adopted the technology 

readiness levels, all of the structure needed to make sure that our 

researchers see how to move things along and our operators see 

where to reach, and with this budget we propose to start exercising 

those mechanisms at the $10 million level. The first round of the 

Congress give us this appropriation, we would focus internally to 

make sure we get the training wheels really running, but it is absolutely then our intent that this is the technique we can use to harvest from NSF or DOD or anywhere else where there’s promising 

work that we could put to the benefit of the American people. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. 

My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRIDENSTINE. I’d like to thank the Ranking Member, 

and of course, everything you just mentioned from my constituency 

perspective, moving from a day where we have warn-on detection 

to warn-on forecasts are critically important to my state of Oklahoma so we can get higher lead times for tornados and other 

things, so thank you for that. 
57 

I’d like to thank the witness for her valuable testimony and the 

members for their questions. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional comments and written questions from the 

members. The hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
60 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Hon. Kathryn Sullivan 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
(87) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
88 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAIN JIM BRIDENSTINE
89 

Æ