the service life of one NOAA ship. NOAA requests $23 million for the Fleet Modernization program, a decrease of $4.5 million from the FY 1994 base. Funds appropriated in FY 1993, in addition to the FY 1994 request, will be sufficient to continue the fleet modernization program. The Administration strongly supports the modernization of the NOAA Fleet and is reviewing the options for the Fleet Modernization Program.

Construction

The Construction account began in FY 1992 and continues through FY 1994 with a net decrease of $12.5 million. NOAA requests $14.7 million increase to continue the Weather Forecast Office (WFO) facilities modernization program. NWS modernization systems are now being deployed, and it is critically important that the facilities modernization keep pace to support the transition program. More than offsetting this increase are decreases of $27.2 million to terminate eight primarily one-time construction projects that no longer require funding.

Administrative Savings and Terminations

NOAA has assumed its share of the responsibility for deficit reduction by proposing administrative and personnel savings. As part of the President's commitment to cutting the cost of Federal Government and the size of the workforce, NOAA will achieve savings of $25.6 million in FY 1994.

In order for NOAA to deliver more focused service, the FY 1994 budget includes $66.9 million in program decreases for programs that benefit only small groups; are not NOAA's statutory responsibilities; are one-time expenditures whose purpose has been achieved; or are lower priority activities.

Support for

NOAA's basic program is essential. For instance, in FY 1994, the NMFS budget request contrasts dramatically from previous budget proposals which proposed reductions of up to 60% of base NMFS programs. The particular program cuts proposed by the Administration in FY 1994 are intended to minimize any adverse effects on our ability to fulfill our responsibilities.

This is NOAA's package. Our priorities evidence what NOAA offers the Nation and how the agency can fulfill President Clinton's goals of a sound economy and exemplary service. Given the correct resources, NOAA can meet the President's challenge for a more efficient, effective government serving the people into the 21st century. In order to fulfill its mission to the best of its ability and meet the challenges of the 1990s, NOAA must have adequate financial resources in FY 1994.

Working together, we

will be able to transform the President's vision and values into

reality.

Mr Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to present NOAA's FY 1994 Budget Request. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Mr. HALL. Dr. Baker, thank you.

BUDGET REQUEST FOR FY 94

Mr. HALL. Mr. Moxam, would you like to make any statement or are you here as backup?

Mr. MOXAM. Backup, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HALL. Okay. All right, I guess, first, we probably ought to talk about the increases, the increase of about 20 percent over the Fiscal Year 1993 levels, and the-what we try to do here is to get the information as to what you absolutely have to have, and your request shows what you and the President feel that you should have and what you really need. Realistically, though, as an associate of the President and as one in whom the President has great confidence or you wouldn't be representing him in the position you're in, you're surely aware of the fact that we've got budgetary problems and that the program, the impetus program which is called an investment package, is in some trouble.

And what we try to do is to at least probably effect an increase at least for inflation and try to pull our hat down over our ears and ride it out and hold on to what we mark up here. Even we hold on sometimes through the full committee. And, as you know, there's always motions made from the floor from someone for a 10 percent and an 8 percent and a 5 percent and maybe a 2 percent cut. So we try to crank all of those things into our computer when we set the figure that we send on to the Appropriations Committee here. And I know you've been around a long, long time and you realize that's the practical effect of how we do.

And I guess what some of the questions that I want to ask-and one that was of import back during an earlier hearing this year, the modernization of the Weather Service is something that affected everybody in all the hinterlands and almost every Member had almost a direct interest in it, and, specifically, the locations of the NEXRAD radars and the possible closure of some Weather Offices, we're particularly concerned. We want you to stretch your budget and do more for us, but not ask for any more money always. Does the new administration intend to take another look at modernization to determine if a change in policy is required? How are you going to handle that?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, we're fully committed to the Weather Service modernization. We believe that the application of new technology will provide benefits that are well beyond the cost of investment in this program. In fact, the estimate of the cost-to-benefit ratio is about 8-to-1 for this new technology that is being provided. And so this is a very high priority for us. It has been a high priority in previous years and we'll continue to have that priority; that is, delivering a better service at a lower cost for the Nation.

Mr. HALL. It's really more than a priority, isn't it? It's a plan. You have a definite plan.

Mr. BAKER. We have a plan. We have a plan that's been agreed to between NOAA and the Congress, and we're doing our best to follow that through.

Mr. HALL. The word I want to hear is "locked in stone."

Mr. BAKER. "Locked in stone" are good words.

Mr. HALL. What about-they're really not my words; it's something that the staff wrote out for me here, but I liked it.

[Laughter.]

Mr. BAKER. We're fully committed to that, and "locked in stone" are good words for us.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INVESTMENT PACKAGE

Mr. HALL. The Fiscal Year 1994 budget request includes over $200 million for NOAA programs in the President's investment package, and, according to the budget documents, and I quote, "It's contingent upon enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that contains the President's deficit reduction package."

How do you envision this investment package that's going to be implemented?

Mr. BAKER. Well, we're hoping that you'll find a way to implement that investment package because that package, the items that are listed for NOAA in that package are, in fact, not items which are of low priority; they're not items which we feel are things that we might do but we could live without. These are essential parts of our program. There's $217 million for Weather Service modernization that is part of that. There's the climate and global change program, high performance computing, and I think those are the main items. Those are the items in the investment package. If, in fact, the investment package did not get funded, we would have to go back and look at priorities overall in NOAA because these programs are very high priority for us.

Mr. HALL. Are you above the budget caps or below?

Mr. BAKER. I think with these numbers we would be above the budget caps-isn't that right?

Mr. MOXAM. That would be correct.

Mr. BAKER. That's right.

Mr. HALL. All right, the Chair recognizes Mr. Sensenbrenner. Oh, Mr. Sensenbrenner's not here. Mr. Calvert, the gentleman from California.

Mr. CALVERT. No questions right at this time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HALL. All right, Tom Lewis, the gentleman from Florida, do you have questions, sir?

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you for allowing me to sit in this subcommittee this morning.

Mr. HALL. You're always welcome at this committee. We'd like to have you on a permanent basis—

Mr. LEWIS. Oh, thank you.

Mr. HALL. even ex officio.

[Laughter.]

Mr. LEWIS. Well, anyway, I want to welcome Dr. Baker.

GOES-NEXT SATELLITE LAUNCH DATE SLIPPAGE

Dr. Baker, I have a couple of questions for you. I have some personal interest in a couple of programs that NOAA has. Though I've been one of NOAA's worst critics, I've also been one of their greatest champions. And I want to talk to you about the GOES-NEXT satellite because you mentioned in your statement that the launch

date has slipped now from April of 1994 to the possibility of June 1994, and NASA is trying to accelerate that.

I just can't believe that NASA found out when they went to them there was a conflict. I think NASA has done a lousy job of managing the GOES program overall totally, both from an engineering viewpoint and from an administrative viewpoint.

And then to go and find now that it's not going to cost any more, but, again, it's a situation where we found out when we went to them this program has had so many problems and troubles that we would think that people would be up on top of this. Now I can't blame this on you because you just got here, and so I'm not trying to do that. But I would certainly ask you to watch this program very, very closely. It's already cost the taxpayers of this country an additional $10 million to set the Wallops Island Station to interpolate the data coming from the METEOSAT, and it certainly should not have happened overall just because of, again, back to poor management.

But I'm even a little bit more concerned from that with the last two Atlas launches that would be launching this particular satellite. One had to be destroyed and the other put the satellite in an unusable orbit. The second, I guess, was due to some bolt problem. I believe they found that, but are we going to be sure that we don't lose this satellite? We did lose one satellite on an Atlas launch. We can't afford to lose anymore. And I would certainly hope that NOAA would follow this extremely close.

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman Lewis. We are on track now for a launch readiness date of April 1994 and are trying to see if there is a possibility of moving that launch up from the currently 14 July 1994 date that it is scheduled for. But we believe the satellite would be ready in April and are working to see if we can't accelerate the launch, and we're staying on top of the issues, the technical issues and problems that Atlas has had. At the moment, our people are believe to the largest degree that they can that we will have a successful launch.

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. The other question I have is-and you probably have not had time to look into this-I passed legislation during the last year allowing the Department of Defense and NOAA to come up with a next generation type of forecasting and tracking for tropical cyclones. We were going to lose-a lot of the things that we have now are going to be totally outdated, and you are to study, you and the Department of Defense are to study this over the next four to five years and report back. And I would like for you to take a look at this and report back to this subcommittee what the posture is on that particular study, if you would do that, sir.

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir, we'll do that. I'm not familiar with that program. We'll get back to you on that.

Mr. LEWIS. I understand that. I understand that. [The information follows:]

NOAA has been assessing its aircraft requirements to best suit Agency goals. This NOAA Aircraft Requirements Assessment is nearing completion. We expect to publish the study by December, 1993. The study addresses all NOAA aircraft requirements including those for the "next generation" of improvements to tropical cyclone research, forecasting, and tracking. We will make sure that you and your staff have a copy of the report as soon as it is completed.