During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday, Senators discussed Sen. Brian Schatz's (D-HI) amendment on the minimum staffing level for the National Weather Service.
00:00Thank you. I have an amendment which we are distributing, and I appreciate the chair of the subcommittee for trying to get at the problem of National Weather Service staffing.
00:14We thought we had agreement in the managers, but it sort of got a little bit weaker, and I just want to read to you the distinction between what is in the managers in terms of National Weather Service staffing and what I'm asking for.
00:32The Moran Amendment, which was adopted, says provided further that the National Weather Service shall maintain staffing levels by hiring, retaining, and rehiring after separations in order to fulfill the mission required under 15 U.S.C. 313 to protect life and property to the maximum extent possible.
00:49My judgment and the judgment of a lot of people who work at the National Weather Service is that to fulfill the statutory mandate gives a fair amount of room to assert that the current staffing levels and the current layoff process fulfills the statutory mandate.
01:11And the reason that we had tougher language was because we don't want to give this discretion to the Office of Management and Budget, which clearly has made the judgment that the National Weather Service has too many human beings working at the National Weather Service.
01:27And so my amendment simply says, notwithstanding any provision of law, by the way, we were pretty close to getting this into a manager's. I'm not sure what happened.
01:35Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds provided by the National Weather Service by this act or any other act for any fiscal year shall be used to maintain no fewer than the number of full-time permanent federal employees employed on September 30th, 2024, for carrying out National Weather Service activities under this act, using funds available under this act.
01:56So this locks in last year's National Weather Service headcount, because if we have decided as a committee, and I'm looking at all of these other states where we're going into wildfire season and flood season and hurricane season and God knows what else, right?
02:17The town of Lahaina was burned down, eastern, I think, North Carolina was flooded.
02:23Lots of weird stuff is happening with greater and greater intensity.
02:27And we are not going to want to own ratifying layoffs in the National Weather Service and providing this discretion to an administration, which I know you support.
02:36I don't want to turn this into a polarized partisan question, but it's clear to me that this administration has already made the judgment that the National Weather Service has too many human beings.
02:47I don't think we think that.
02:49And so this amendment makes it clear that last year's staffing levels are the minimum.
02:57Senator Moran.
02:58Senator Schatz and I share the same desired outcome to make sure that the National Weather Service is fully staffed to meet its statutory responsibilities.
03:09It's what the manager's package amendment says.
03:13The amendment that he described as my amendment says that the amount of employees at the National Weather Service must be sufficient to meet the statutory requirements.
03:23I don't know that you want to specify that September the 30th of 2024, 2020, what did you say, Brian?
03:3424.
03:3424 is the right number.
03:3724, but that's the distinction between what Senator Schatz is offering is that we, this bill already, as adopted, the manager's package says they must staff fully to meet the requirements of their statutory obligations.
03:52And I believe that's sufficient and a better way of expressing what needs to be accomplished.
04:00One final comment.
04:03I love Jerry Moran.
04:05Let's just get that out of the way.
04:07Are you supporting him for president?
04:13We could do a lot worse.
04:18The question is whether we want to give discretion to the administration that has already made the judgment that fewer and fewer staffers still meet the statutory requirements.
04:28And I don't want to give any administration that discretion, especially if they've demonstrated that they see this differently than we do.
04:35We don't want layoffs at the National Weather Service.
04:38And I'm quite confident that with the language and the managers, they would continue.
04:43Madam Chair.
04:44Senator Murray.
04:44I also would add that the bill increases the funding for the National Weather Service by $10 million to accomplish the outcome that we set about to accomplish.
04:53Senator Baldwin.
04:54Senator Baldwin.
04:55Senator Baldwin.
04:56I have a separate amendment.
05:00Okay.
05:01Senator Murray.
05:02I just want to really support Senator Schatz for this amendment.
05:06I think we all appreciate just how critical the work of the National Weather Service is, of course, to prepare and respond to extreme weather and natural disasters.
05:15We have seen over this last week how absolutely critical that work is.
05:19But more to the point, our entire economy hinges on the accurate forecasting of the National Weather Service, whether it is how our cargo moves, it's what decisions our farmers make, and so much more.
05:32So I really believe this is not a time to cut staff drastically without any rhyme or reason.
05:37This amendment would just simply ensure that staffing levels at the National Weather Service are at least maintained at the same level as they were in 2024.
05:47If this administration wants to present a plan to Congress about reductions that should be made, we can consider a well-reasoned reorganization.
05:56But I hope we can all agree that that's not what we've seen so far.
06:00And for now, I think us protecting the staffing levels of this critical agency is urgent.
06:05So I urge a yes vote.
06:08Senator Mullin.
06:10I just want to look at the history of the approximate staffing levels of National Weather Service.
06:15Just so we understand what we're talking about, in 21, there was approximately 4,300 employees.
06:2022, there was 4,000.
06:2123, there was 3,500.
06:23And 24 to 25, it bloomed to 4,900 employees.
06:28So question to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, did anybody complain when it dropped to 3,500?
06:34Did we think that it was too low?
06:36Did we have hearings?
06:37Would you guys out on the news talking about it?
06:39I don't remember anybody talking about it.
06:41Not publicly.
06:41When we were at 4,000, 4,321 dropped to 4,022.
06:49Was anybody concerned about it then?
06:52Yes.
06:53Because I sure didn't see you guys talking about it on the news.
06:55If you did, it was private meeting.
06:57All I'm saying is that you're requiring them to be at 4,900 employees, approximately 4,900 employees,
07:01and they did their job in 21, 22, and 23 with much less.
07:06I'll yell back.
07:07Senator Mullin, I just want to add one comment to this debate and reinforce what Senator Moran said.
07:16And that is there is an increase of $10 million to provide for 24-7 weather updates and coverage, which we clearly need.
07:28I think the problem here is the arbitrary number, especially in light of what Senator Mullin has pointed out, that it's gone up and down.
07:52I don't think there's a single person on this committee that does not want the National Weather Service to be fully staffed.
08:03We've seen an increasing number of natural disasters in this country,
08:08and I think that this bill has been carefully drafted to add additional funding
08:16and to include very specific language on the staffing as opposed to just taking a particular number
08:27and assuming that's the right number.
08:32Any other comments?
08:35Senator Murkowski.
08:36Madam Chair, I just want to underscore the comments that you have just made.
08:42We all want to make sure that we've got these positions filled to focus on really the life safety aspects.
08:54I am a little bit troubled about the locking into a specific number and saying that's it,
09:01and that's where the agency will maintain its staffing.
09:06In fairness, maybe I'd like to see a lot more meteorologists and maybe fewer people that were,
09:15I don't know what the others may be, but we want to make sure that the focus is really there to maintain the mission.
09:25And I think that the language that Senator Moran has incorporated requiring the weather service,
09:33it shall maintain the staffing levels that are required to execute under the statute to protect life and property.
09:45And so it does give a little more discretion as to where it's going to reinforce the staffing levels.
09:59But I think it's good.
10:02I think it sends the message that is needed to be sent about the prioritization within the agency itself.
10:09So I appreciate where Senator Schatz is trying to direct us,
10:16but I'm not going to be supporting his amendment as I think what Senator Moran has incorporated
10:23will provide for that necessary level of attention to what we would all like to have reinforced.
10:32Senator Schatz, final comment?
10:34And then would you like me to make the motion after that?
10:37Then what I'd like, what?
10:38Then do you need a motion from me after I complete?
10:41Sure.
10:41Okay.
10:42Just a couple of points to Senator Mullins.
10:45It was not 4,900.
10:48It was 4,300.
10:50We lost 550 National Weather Service employees since January.
10:55It's 3,600 as of June.
10:58That number keeps going down.
11:00So I agree it's a blunt instrument to lock in some number from last year,
11:04but let's not pretend we don't know the direction here.
11:08And let's not pretend we don't know how this administration will use its discretion under this current statute,
11:15which will say whatever it is that you need to fulfill your statutory mandate, that is the number.
11:19That really does delegate that choice to them.
11:23So we have a binary choice between locking in last year's number or letting them continue to slash this agency.
11:29And so I move for the adoption of my amendment.
