Chairman CALVERT. Thank you, Doctor. And next Mr. Joel Willemssen with the GAO.

TESTIMONY OF JOEL WILLEMSSEN, DIRECTOR, CIVIL AGENCIES INFORMATION SYSTEMS, ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Mr. WILLEMSSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Roemer.

As requested, I'll briefly summarize our statement and in doing so, I'll cover three topics: one, our work regarding confusion on key events surrounding the Fiscal Year 1997 Weather Service budgetour report on that, as you know, is being released today-two, an update on AWIPS problems and related Year 2000 computing concerns; and three, an update on a report we issued last year on Weather Service coverage in the Erie, Pennsylvania area.

Regarding the NWS budget: last year, NWS officials frequently referred to a Fiscal Year 1997 budget shortfall. However, this socalled shortfall was recorded in different amounts at different points in time ranging from about $27 million last February, to about $47 million last May. Agency officials explained this discrepancy and the resulting confusion by saying that the varying amounts responded to specific questions at particular points in time and did not necessarily include all known elements of the shortfall.

Two other events associated with the shortfall also raise concerns. The first centered on a Weather Service request that NOAA reprogram funds and NWS's intention to fill critical field office vacancies before approval of that request. The second event involved certification approval to consolidate, automate, and or close Weather Service offices. Upon learning that it would not be able to fill critical field vacancies, NWS recommended to NOAA that numerous certification packages previously forwarded for approval be held back because, according to Weather Service officials, not filling the vacancies would result in degraded weather services at some locations. Five days after this NWS recommendation, the head of the Weather Service was reassigned by NOAA's under secretary.

Turning to AWIPS and its continuing problems: after continued cost-growth with AWIPS, last year, as you know, the Department of Commerce committed to a $550 million funding cap. We testified last spring that it would be extremely difficult for NOAA to develop and deploy AWIPS with this $550 million cap. As you know, a recent independent assessment showed the likely cost to complete AWIPS will now increase by $68 million to about $618 million.

In addition, while AWIPS was planned for full deployment in 1999, that schedule is now in doubt. The latest schedule calls for an interim software build to be completed in March of 1999. Completion dates for the final two software builds-builds five and six-are now uncertain, because, we're told, NWS wants to reassess the requirements for those builds to identify whether cost increases can be limited.

In addition to the continuing software development risks, another area of concern is whether AWIPS and all modernization

cials acknowledge that there are risks to the continuing delivery of weather services if their systems are not Year 2000 compliant. AWIPS currently is not Year 2000 compliant according to Weather Service officials. Further, there are additional questions about whether other key modernization components and key data interfaces are Year 2000 compliant.

Finally regarding weather radar coverage in the area of Erie, Pennsylvania: as you know, we reported last year that the preliminary conclusions of a NWS lake-effect snow study indicated that weather services provided to Erie were not as good as services provided to other lake communities. Because of this, the Director of NWS's Office of Meteorology recommended that a new radar be installed for the Erie area. In its response to a draft of our report, Commerce officials said they were still in the process of completing the study on lake-effect snow and reviewing the need for additional radar. As of last week, however, no decision on this matter had been made.

That concludes the summary of my statement. I would be pleased to address any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement and attachments of Mr. Willemssen follow:]

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss our work regarding events surrounding the fiscal year 1997 budget of the National Weather Service (NWS), a component of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. Our report on the matter is being released at this hearing.' We will also be reporting on the status of information first presented to this Subcommittee in 1995 on the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS), a major component of the Weather Service's systems modernization program. Finally, we will briefly update another report on the Weather Service issued last year, dealing with radar and weather service coverage to northwestern Pennsylvania with the closure of the Erie weather service office.3

NWS FISCAL YEAR 1997 BUDGET "SHORTFALL"

The Weather Service was able to operate within its appropriated fiscal year 1997 budget level, but had to do so with less funds than in fiscal year 1996; NWS referred to this difference in available funds as a budget "shortfall." The "shortfall" was reported in

'National Weather Service: Events Surrounding Fiscal Year 1997 Budget (GAO/AIMD-98-69, March 4, 1998).

'Weather Service Modernization: Despite Progress. Significant Problems and Risks Remain (GAO/T-AIMD-95-87, Feb. 21, 1995).

'National Weather Service: Modernization Activities Affecting Northwestern

different amounts at different points in time, such that some members of Congress experienced confusion as to the actual amount. Erroneous assumptions and miscommunication between the Weather Service and NOAA further clouded the issue.

The differing "shortfall" amounts reported to the Congress depended upon definition as well as time. Congressional staff briefed in February 1997 were told that the "shortfall" amount was $27.5 million; 2 months later, the figure had risen to $42.2 million. Finally, at a hearing last May, the amount given was $47.4 million. NOAA and NWS officials explained the discrepancy by saying that the varying amounts responded to specific questions at particular points in time, and did not necessarily include all known elements of the "shortfall."

Two events associated with the "shortfall" and potential ways to accommodate it raised concerns among department officials. The first centered on a Weather Service request that NOAA reprogram funds--and NWS intention to fill critical field office vacancies before approval of that request. While NWs counted on such approval and the availability of funds for these positions, NOAA, however, informed Weather Service officials that the vacancies could not be filled because the reprogramming request had not yet been approved.

The second event involved NWS' attempt to obtain NOAA certification approval to consolidate, automate, and/or close weather service offices. Before any NWS office can