D. JAMES BAKER

BIOGRAPHY

8/13/97

Dr. D. James Baker is Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere at the U.S. Department of Commerce. In this position, he is responsible for the National Weather Service; the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the National Ocean Service; and NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. He serves as the United States Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission.

He also serves as a Co-Chair of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and Technology Council and as an ex-officio member of the President's Council on Sustainable Development. He is Co-Chair of the Environmental Working Group and Vice Chair of the Space Committee of the U.S.-Russian Joint Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation; and Vice Chair of the Science and Technology Committee of the U.S.-South Africa Binational Commission. He served as Chair of Coastal America from 1992 to early 1995 and as Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality from November 1993 to February 1994.

He previously served as President of Joint Oceanographic Institutions Incorporated; as Dean of the College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington; as a Group Leader for Deep-Sea Physics at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory; as an Associate Professor at Harvard University; and as a Research Associate at the University of Rhode Island.

He is author of the book Planet Earth-The View from Space, published by Harvard University Press in 1990, and has written extensively on climate, oceanography, and space technology issues. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served on numerous

advisory committees for the Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, and various international bodies.

FISH FEE PROPOSALS

Mr. ROGERS. Now, for fisheries you are asking for $30 million in program increases of which $20 million would be paid for by new fish fees. Now, we have seen these fish fee proposals before. They have always been rejected.

Dr. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. What makes you think that you have a chance this time?

Dr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, we were directed by OMB to request fees for both fisheries and for navigation services. I have to tell you that we passed on that message to OMB, the message we have received from Congress.

I have to say that there has been experience in the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard was also told to develop fees for navigation. The Coast Guard has had a very hard time implementing such fees as they have gone through the courts by trying to make that happen. In fact, the budget does include the fees. We have agreed to work with Congress to see if we can find legislation to make that happen.

Mr. ROGERS. What specific fisheries increases are tied to these fees that would thus have to be foregone if the fees are not enacted?

Dr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, as we worked with OMB to develop the budget, we asked that there not be any specific ties between fees and specific fisheries. So, there was no specific link. It is a general offset to the overall NOAA budget.

Mr. ROGERS. You say you want all of your increases. You want us to pay for it. That is typical of all of the agencies this year. There are zillions of dollars worth of fees proposed by the Administration in all of these submissions.

The Coast Guard fees are not going to happen. Your fees are not going to happen. The disaster loans SBA wants us to raise the rate of interest charged to people who had been wiped out with no access to loans from financial institutions.

They want us to double their interest paid on disaster loans to people who are absolutely down and out. They know that we are not going to do that. Yet, we have got to find some extra money somewhere to make up for the disaster loans account.

The same thing here. It is just an absolutely sham budget. It is not a balanced budget. It is a budget proposal from the White House that would require the Congress to enact inordinate numbers of fees and charges which we are not going to do.

It is outrageous. You know we have been very generous to the fisheries programs in the last three years. Almost every other program in the entire Commerce Department, outside of NOAA, has been cut.

We have increased funding to fisheries by 37 percent. So, we have been very generous to those programs. Surely you are not suggesting that we cut other NOAA programs, such as the Weather Service, to pay for these increases if the fees are not adopted; are you?

Dr. BAKER. No, sir.

Dr. BAKER. I think if it turns out that fees cannot be enacted, we will have to work with you to find ways that we can work within the lesser amount in the budget.

Mr. ROGERS. That is what I thought we were here today for. I would like to know what you want us to cut since we are not going to do the fees?

Dr. BAKER. We are certainly prepared to sit down and work with the committee to try to make that identification.

NAVIGATIONAL SAFETY PROGRAMS

Mr. ROGERS. Now, we have been concerned for a number of years that the navigation safety programs, particularly mapping and charting, were often overlooked by NOAA. This, despite the fact that we have a ridiculous backlog and the number of old charts.

Three years ago, we were told that it would take 40 years to make our charts current. Thanks to Congress' efforts, which for the last three years, has increased funding for these programs. We have been able to drop that to a 30-year backlog.

Just as we are making some strides, you propose to cut them by 13 percent in these critical navigation safety programs. And, you are proposing new fees on navigation programs in order to pay for other NOS programs. How can you justify cutting critical navigation safety programs?

Dr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, this has been a difficult issue for us because we have identified the critical backlog. It is something that we have pushed hard for every year. The Administration is proposing more in the 1999 budget than we did propose in the 1998 budget.

You are absolutely correct. It is a substantial amount less than Congress provided. Congress has been, I think, much more responsive to this than our overall budget.

We are continuing to work it. In the end, this is what may happen, but we are fully in agreement that this is a problem that we have got to address.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if your budget cuts are enacted, will that not mean that we will have an increase in the current 30-year backlog? Dr. BAKER. It will certainly be an increase in the backlog that we would have had if we had the congressional level enacted. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, at the same time, you are cutting NOS core functions, it appears we are seeing some new missions. NOS is taking on functions previously done by OAR and making these new functions their top priority. At a time when you are proposing to cut the most important safety programs in NOS. How can you justify NOS taking on new functions with proposed huge increases for those functions?

Dr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, one of the things we felt was important was to try to have a more efficient agency. I think we have been directed to do that. We have been very concerned about it.

The reorganization, moving some of the functions that were outside of the National Ocean Service into the National Ocean Service, we believe will give us a more efficient and more effective oper

ation.

Now, it is true that we proposed some increases, but the increases, for example, coastal ocean programs and Pfiesteria research, are for areas that we think are programmatically important for the country.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, you are requesting increases totalling $36.3 million for the National Weather Service operations. How much of those increases are for base requirements and how much are for new programs?

Dr. BAKER. The base requirement, as identified by General Kelly's report, is $28.3 million. I do not have the breakdown of the other numbers. The base requirement is $28.3 million. He identified that as a need. That is what we have put in the budget.

Mr. ROGERS. That would be $8 million for new programs. Is that correct?

Dr. BAKER. That is correct.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PRIORITIES

Mr. ROGERS. Given the continuing problems that we are having with AWIPS which we will come to later and the overall fiscal constraints, what is your highest priority; new programs or base funding?

Dr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, our number one priority for Weather Service this year was the restoration of the base. That is what the Kelly Report said. That is what we have put in there.

Mr. ROGERS. As I understand it, a portion of your base increase is to continue to keep staffing due to the delay in the AWIPS deployment. Are some of those temporary costs while you get AWIPS deployed next year? Will some of the staff levels be reduced in fiscal 2000 once AWIPS Build 4.2 is deployed?

Dr. BAKER. Yes, sir. In fact, we are currently working the exact number that keep the numbers to 106 people that we think can be sustainably reduced by the accomplishment of Build 4.2.

To the extent we can achieve additional parts of AWIPS, we would have additional reductions. In our discussions we have agreed that we would have both a requirements and budget review for both Build 5 and Build 6.

Mr. ROGERS. What is your estimated cost savings in fiscal 2000 once AWIPS Build 4.2 is deployed?

Dr. BAKER. It would be the cost savings associated with 106 people. I do not know the number. It would be approximately $17 million.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, one-third of your requested increase is for non-labor costs. Even the Kelly Report raises questions about_nonlabor costs which account for over 40 percent of the Weather Service's operations budget.

In fact, the Kelly Report admits some of its ability to realistically evaluate and determine budget levels was limited due to faulty Weather Service budget practices.

How can we have real confidence that all of the $10 million increase is critical and necessary?

Dr. BAKER. Well, Mr. Chairman, a large fraction of that funding is for equipment and maintenance supplies. We are looking at that. We are taking a very careful look. Now, we have a changed man

agement in the Weather Service. General Kelly has agreed that we will do a real scrub of all of those requirements and the costs.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, the Kelly Report further states that, one, there are huge variances among the regions in spending in nonlabor costs, and, two, getting a handle on these discrepancies could result in substantial non-labor regional budget savings. Three, it is essential for NOAA to analyze this problem.

Do you plan to review this? When can we see the results of that? Dr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we do plan to do that as soon as we can hire a new CFO, which is one of our management changes that we are proposing for the Weather Service.

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. I have further questions that I will defer to the second round. Mr. Mollohan.

GODDARD FACILITY

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome Ladies and Gentlemen. Dr. Baker, you requested funding in last year's budget to construct a facility at Goddard. This Committee rejected your request and instructed you to consider other options.

Your budget for fiscal year 1999 does not request any funding for this project. I ran across an article in the Washington Post in February which is entitled, "NOAA Plans New Facility at Goddard." NOAA's program director was quoted as saying, "We have discussed it with Congress through the... budget process. We will try all the avenues we can to keep the project going and moving as quickly as we can with it." What does that mean?

Dr. BAKER. Well, Congressman Mollohan, that article was a surprise to me too. I have to say that we did take the direction from this Committee last year that said that whatever facilities we should construct should be the most cost-effective possible.

That we should look broadly across. The Committee said that it would not provide any funding for the Goddard building. There are a number of studies that have been slowly winding down there.

This is, as I understand it, a reference to an environmental assessment that was going on. We have directed that the ongoing planning for that Goddard building be stopped and that we look broadly at all of the possibilities.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who have you directed that to?

Dr. BAKER. To our facilities management activity. We have in place a new Deputy Under Secretary who will take that on.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who is that?

Dr. BAKER. That is Bill Mehuron.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. So, you directed him to cease and desist with regard to this project.

Dr. BAKER. That is right.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Has he?

Dr. BAKER. Yes, sir, as far as I know.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who is the Goddard official quoted in the paper? Dr. BAKER. I believe that was a NOAA Weather Service person. Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry. Who is the NOAA person?

Dr. BAKER. As far as I know, it was John Sokich from the Weather Service.