Page images
PDF
EPUB

but eliminating a proven service before deciding the fleet issue is simply stated, "putting the cart before the horse".

I

Finally, as noted in my earlier discussion of the NPR, would like to discuss what I believe are the political motivations behind the proposed dissolution of the NOAA Corps. In this regard, attached, as enclosures (1) and (2), are two documents. The documents attached as enclosures (1) and (2) clearly indicate the administration's knowledge that, as I have testified, there are no cost savings to be incurred through dissolution and that the NOAA Corps capacity for movement and relocation on short notice would be lost. These documents also reflect the basis for the misplaced recommendation to dissolve the NOAA Corps.

The first document (enclosure (1)) is a U.S. Department of Commerce document entitled, "REGO II Options," or Reinventing Government II options. It reflects a meeting with Vice President Gore in April 1995. Included therein is a page entitled, "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, several reinvention proposals, under which a proposal to terminate the NOAA Corps is listed. Under the proposal to terminate the NOAA Corps is the following:

"termination of uniformed service would be
highly visible with significant political
appeal."

Enclosure (2) is a document dated February 16, 1995. This document is a memorandum for the Deputy Secretary, United States Department of Commerce. It is from Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and is signed by Mr. Douglas K. Hall, Deputy Administrator and Assistant Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmospheres. The subject of this memorandum is also "REGO II." One of the enclosures to this memorandum discusses the pros and cons for elimination of the NOAA Corps. To briefly paraphrase:

pros for elimination:

"termination of uniformed service would be
highly visible with significant political
appeal"

cons for elimination:

"NOAA Corps provides an easily adaptable
personnel force can respond to changing noaa
personnel needs more quickly than a civilian
workforce. The capacity for movement and
relocation on short notice at little or no
additional cost to NOAA would be lost.

The cost of operating the NOAA Corps are
comparable to the cost of equivalent civil
service personnel so that would not be
significant cost savings.

NOAA Corps officers perform duties that are
critical to achieving NOAA's mission, such as
conducting on-board, real-time oceanographic,
environmental, mapping and charting, and
living marine research programs. In
addition, between 40 50 NOAA Corps
personnel provide the backbone of NOAA's
nautical charting and geodetic service
functions. Elimination of the Corps would
make vulnerable the critical functions
performed by these officers ...

SUMMARY

In closing, any proposal to eliminate the Commissioned Corps must carefully examine the potential risks to the nation from the loss of the Corps and its technical expertise. Dissolution should not be permitted to proceed without a verifiable plan for how NOAA plans to continue providing services to the nation, such as nautical charting and hurricane research, without added cost to the taxpayer. This plan should be especially specific in the area of hydrographic surveys, where private contractors may not accept liability for their surveys or agree to conduct surveys in remote areas such as Alaska or in times of national emergency with the other uniformed services. In short, the outstanding service the NOAA Corps provides to the nation and the fact that there will be no savings in its dissolution must lead to the retention of the NOAA Commissioned Corps.

[blocks in formation]

GAO

Results in Brief

United States

General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548

Accounting and Information
Management Division

B-277958

March 4, 1998

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Science

House of Representatives

This report responds to your request that we review key events related to
the fiscal year 1997 budget "shortfall" of the National Weather Service
(NWS), a component of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. Although Nws
was able to operate within its appropriated level in fiscal year 1997, it had
to operate with a smaller budget than 1996 and absorb increased costs.
Nws referred to this difference in available funds as a budget "shortfall."
The objectives of our review, based on subsequent discussions with your
offices, were to (1) describe the formulation and execution of the Nws
fiscal year 1997 budget and (2) identify key events regarding Nws' fiscal
year 1997 budget "shortfall" and efforts to address it. We did not assess the
impact of Nws' reduced budget on Nws' ability to meet its mission
effectively.

Based on guidance provided by the department and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), NOAA prepared a fiscal year 1997 budget
proposal for each of its components—including NWs. The Department of
Commerce reviewed this proposal and asked OMB to include $693 million
for Nws in the President's budget. Based on OMB's direction regarding
NOAA-wide and NWS-specific reductions, this request was revised to the
$671 million that appeared in the President's budget submission to the
Congress. The Congress further reduced this amount, enacting
appropriations that included $638 million in fiscal year 1997.

Although Nws believed it had a budget "shortfall" because of the reductions that OMB and the Congress made to its fiscal 1997 budget request, as well as inflationary and other cost increases, NOAA and NWS reported varying amounts to the Congress about the size of this "shortfall." Consequently, some Members of Congress were confused by the varying amounts of the reported "shortfall." According to NOAA and Nws officials, the information provided to the Congress responded to specific questions asked at particular points in time and did not necessarily include all known

B-277958

Background

elements of the “shortfall.” Nws ultimately succeeded in staying within its fiscal year 1997 budget level by implementing a number of temporary and permanent actions.

Other events associated with the "shortfall" raised concerns among department officials and the Congress. The first event centered on an NWS reprogramming request to NOAA and Nws' intention to start filling critical field vacancies prior to receiving NOAA authorization. Nws assumed that the reprogramming request would be approved by Commerce and funds would be available to fill these vacancies. NOAA, however, informed NWS that the vacancies could not be filled because the reprogramming request had not yet been approved.

The second event involved Nws' effort to obtain certification approval from NOAA to Consolidate, automate, and/or close weather service offices. Upon learning that NWS would not be able to fill critical field vacancies, NWS recommended to NOAA that selected certification packages be held back because, according to Nws, this would have resulted in a degradation of weather services at certain locations. NWS had assumed that these vacancies would be filled when the certification packages were forwarded to NOAA for approval. However, in commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Commerce noted that the certification packages, as submitted by Nws on April 22, 1997, did not indicate that there were vacancies in these offices that would preclude proceeding with certification. Likewise, no link was made during this time between the ability to proceed with certification and the need for reprogramming approval by the Congress. NOAA subsequently did not take action on any of the certification packages NWS sent to it in 1997.

The primary mission of Nws is to help protect life and property by providing weather and flood warnings, public forecasts, and advisories for all of the United States, adjacent waters, and ocean areas. Nws operations also support other agencies' missions and the nation's commercial interests. For example, Nws provides weather forecasts and warnings to support aviation and marine safety.

To fulfill its mission, NWS uses a variety of systems and manual processes in collecting, processing, and disseminating weather data to and among its network of field offices and regional and national centers. Many of these systems and processes are outdated. Nws began a nationwide

modernization program in the 1980s to upgrade observing systems, such as

« PreviousContinue »