[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ADVANCING COMMERCIAL WEATHER DATA:
COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS
TO IMPROVE FORECASTS, PART II
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 14, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-31
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-571 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
------
Subcommittee on Environment
HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY WEBER, Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
JOHN MOOLENAAR, Michigan AMI BERA, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas MARK TAKANO, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
GARY PALMER, Alabama EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
July 14, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jim Bridenstine, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Enviorment, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
The Honorable Manson Brown, Deputy Administrator, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Discussion....................................................... 30
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
The Honorable Manson Brown, Deputy Administrator, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration......................... 48
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 58
ADVANCING COMMERCIAL WEATHER DATA:
COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE
FORECASTS, PART II
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Bridenstine
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. The Subcommittee on Environment will
come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``Advancing Commercial
Weather Data: Collaborative Efforts to Improve Forecasts, Part
II.'' I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
Today we are convening part two of a hearing we held in May
on how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA, uses weather data to enhance their forecasting
capability, and how and where they get that necessary data, and
how these processes can be improved.
We have continually heard the word ``robust'' from multiple
stakeholders when discussing the needs of our nation's
satellite infrastructure, and I agree. But after hearing these
perspectives, particularly from our hearing with NOAA in
February, I believe the correct word for our current satellite
architecture could be ``fragile.''
A gap in satellite data availability remains a very real
threat. NOAA is taking the proper steps to mitigate this, but
we still may be faced with an unprecedented gap in crucial
weather data. We know that JPSS-1 has experienced delays and
cost overruns, and we are now being told it is possible GOES-R
will experience a slip from its planned March 2016 launch date.
This underscores the need to augment our space-based observing
systems by incorporating alternative modes of data collection.
For instance, a competitive, commercial market for weather data
could drive innovation, reduce costs, and increase the quantity
and quality of data.
Through this Subcommittee's oversight, we learned that NOAA
does in fact already purchase weather data from commercial
entities, including lightning data, aircraft observations and
synthetic aperture imagery for ice detection. Why not space-
based weather data as well?
I have been encouraged by the forward-looking view of
Stephen Volz, the head of NOAA NESDIS. He indicated that NOAA
would be open to buying data from companies prepared to sell
space-based weather data such as radio occultation and
hyperspectral soundings. It was through our dialogue that we
developed a concept for a pilot project to competitively select
at least one provider of space-based data and test it against
NOAA's proprietary data. With this pilot project, NOAA will be
able to determine if the purchased data can be viably used in
our numerical weather models. This pilot program was included
in H.R. 1561, the Lucas-Bridenstine Weather Research and
Forecasting Innovation Act of 2015, which passed the House of
Representatives unanimously.
I am grateful to the Environment Subcommittee Ranking
Member, the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for her
bipartisan efforts. I am also now encouraged by the Senate's
interest in weather legislation and look forward to
incorporating their ideas into our bill.
I am pleased to have NOAA here today to continue the
discussion of weather data and how a system that integrates
multiple data sources will look in the future as NOAA evolves
with the weather enterprise.
I hope we can have a productive conversation today to help
inform Congress on the policies and laws in place that guide
our data-sharing practices. It is my understanding that NOAA
adheres to the principles of World Meteorological
Organization's Resolution 40, which states that environmental
weather data is publically shared internationally. While I
agree with the intention of this policy, it could also possibly
have negative effects on the very people NOAA is trying to
help. It could prevent markets from forming, thwart innovation,
reduce the quantity of data available, perpetuate the existing
government monopoly, and cause costs to balloon. In short, this
policy could work against our ability to predict timely and
accurate weather events. If our policy requires a product to be
given away free of charge, the only entity that will produce
that product is the government.
In May, we learned that there are a few situations where
NOAA applies a slightly different policy with success. NOAA
contracts with some private entities, and the nature of those
contracts prohibits NOAA from giving the data away for free.
Further, we learned that not everybody around the world
follows this policy. For instance, the European Centre for
Medium-Range Weather Forecasts does not make their model
outputs available for free. Instead, nongovernment entities
must purchase their forecasts.
This is not the case in the rest of the world, where NOAA's
forecasts are available to all without charge. That leads me to
believe that our international obligations are much more
nuanced than the current interpretation. It seems that there
may be room for NOAA's data policy to be set on a case-by-case
basis rather than through a blanket policy.
I look forward to today's hearing and a meaningful
discussion with today's witness.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bridenstine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Environment
Chairman Jim Bridenstine
Today we are convening part two of a hearing we held in May on how
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, uses weather
data to enhance their forecasting capability, how and where they get
that necessary data, and how these processes can be improved.
We have continually heard the word ``robust'' from multiple
stakeholders when discussing the needs of our nation's satellite
infrastructure, and I agree. But after hearing these perspectives,
particularly from our hearing with NOAA in February, I believe the
correct word for our current satellite architecture is ``fragile.''
A gap in satellite data availability remains a very real threat.
NOAA is taking the proper steps to mitigate this, but we still may be
faced with an unprecedented gap in crucial weather data. We know that
JPSS-1 has experienced delays and cost overruns, and we are now being
told it is possible GOES-R will experience a slip from its planned
March 2016 launch date.
This underscores the need to augment our space-based observing
systems by incorporating alternative modes of data collection. For
instance, a competitive, commercial market for weather data could drive
innovation, reduce costs and increase the quantity and quality of data.
Through this Subcommittee's oversight, we learned that NOAA does in
fact already purchase weather data from commercial entities, including
lightning data, aircraft observations and synthetic aperture imagery
for ice detection. Why not space-based weather data as well?
I have been encouraged by the forward-looking view of Stephen Volz,
the head of NOAA NESDIS. He indicated that NOAA would be open to buying
data from companies prepared to sell space-based weather data such as
radio occultation and hyperspectral soundings. It was through our
dialogue that we developed a concept for a pilot project to
competitively select at least one provider of space-based data to test
it against NOAA's proprietary data. With this pilot project, NOAA will
be able to determine if the purchased data can be viably used in our
numerical weather models.
This pilot program was included in H.R. 1561, the Lucas-Bridenstine
Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2015, which passed
the House of Representatives unanimously. I am grateful to the
Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member, the gentlelady from Oregon Ms.
Bonamici, for her bipartisan efforts. I am also now encouraged by the
Senate's interest in weather legislation and look forward to
incorporating their ideas into our bill.
I am pleased to have NOAA here today to continue the discussion of
weather data and how a system that integrates multiple data sources
will look in the future as NOAA evolves with the weather enterprise.
I hope we can have a productive conversation today to help inform
Congress on the policies and laws in place that guide our data sharing
practices. It is my understanding that NOAA adheres to the principles
of World Meteorological Organization's Resolution 40, which states that
environmental weather data is publically shared internationally.
While I agree with the intention of this policy, it could also have
negative effects on the very people NOAA is trying to help. It could
prevent markets from forming, thwart innovation, reduce the quantity of
data available, perpetuate the existing government monopoly and cause
costs to balloon. In short, this policy could work against our ability
to predict timely and accurate weather events. If our policy requires a
product to be given away free of charge, only the government will
produce the product.
In May, we learned that there are a few situations where NOAA
applies a slightly different policy with success. NOAA contracts with
some private entities and the nature of those contracts prohibits NOAA
from giving the data away for free.
Further, we learned that not everybody around the world follows
this policy. For instance, the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts does not make their model outputs available for free.
Instead, nongovernment entities must purchase their forecasts. This is
not the case in the rest of the world, where NOAA's forecasts are
available to all without charge.
That leads me to believe that our international obligations are
much more nuanced than the current interpretation. It seems that there
may be room for NOAA's data policy to be set on a case-by-case basis
rather than through a blanket policy.
I look forward to today's hearing and a meaningful discussion with
today's witness. I yield back and recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.
Bonamici.
Chairman Bridenstine. I yield back, and recognize the
Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this hearing, and I appreciate the opportunity
to work with you over the past several months and years on how
we can improve weather forecasting, which I know is important
to your constituents, my constituents, and frankly, everyone
across the country and around the world.
So welcome to Admiral Brown. I'm glad you are here today to
discuss NOAA's perspective on the issue of commercial weather
data, and I look forward to discussing both the benefits and
challenges associated with advancing the role of the commercial
sector in providing this critical weather data to our national
weather enterprise.
Several weeks ago, we had the opportunity to hear from
representatives of the weather community. They described the
positive relationship with NOAA and the relationship that NOAA
has with numerous private entities in the acquisition of
commercial weather data. They also described how this data is
used to supplement global models and forecasts. Finally, they
emphasized the importance of preserving full and open access to
core data products that enable the growth of the entire weather
enterprise, both private and public.
Existing policies have for the most part allowed for
unrestricted sharing of data and information with the research
community, international partners, and commercial entities.
This unrestricted access to weather data is the foundation of
the current billion-dollar commercial weather industry, an
industry that is the envy of the world. In fact, one of the
witnesses stated that NOAA is the world's gold standard.
With this praise also came words of caution, caution to
ensure that existing policies that maintain free and open
access to essential weather data are not altered, policies that
allow the scientific community and private sector to drive
innovation and economic growth, and, most importantly, policies
that ensure critical weather data remains reliable, and of the
highest quality, so the lives and livelihoods of millions
around the world are protected.
The current government-owned, commercially operated
structure has served us well; however, even existing
partnerships with private companies carry risks, things like
delays in production, launch failures, and cost overruns. This
is not to say the commercial sector is not ready to take on
more responsibility in this area, but it does highlight the
simple truth that space is difficult, and when it comes to
providing critical observational data--the backbone of our
numerical weather prediction--we must proceed with care and be
certain of the path forward.
As we heard from the panel, a model where the government is
solely a purchaser and not a provider of weather data presents
a number of unique challenges and raises important questions
that must be addressed to preserve the continued stability,
credibility, and reliability of the nation's weather
forecasting capabilities. These include: How would NOAA freely
share the data it purchases from commercial sources? What
effect do our international obligations have on policy
considerations for the expanded use of commercial weather data?
If NOAA maintains its policy of free and unrestricted use of
data it purchases, will it be forced to purchase data at a
premium, or serve as an anchor buyer, that will outweigh the
anticipated cost savings? What data should NOAA purchase from
the commercial sector and what, if any, data is so essential
that the government should retain control? These are not simple
questions with easy answers, but NOAA must consider these, and
others, as they develop policies and practices for the
continued purchase and use of commercial data.
We heard in our first hearing that although there are
opportunities to advance our current model and thinking, there
are also serious risks to consider. Congress must not rush to
change a process that has worked well and provided such great
benefits, without ensuring those successes can continue.
The entire weather enterprise, from NOAA to its industry
partners and talented researchers, share the same goal of
continually advancing our ability to accurately forecast the
weather, save lives, and improve our economy in the process.
I look forward to hearing about the work NOAA is doing to
identify ways to work more closely with industry to incorporate
commercial weather data into its models, products, and
services, and continuing the discussion of how we can advance
our robust weather industry.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and again to our witness for
being here this morning, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Oversight
Minority Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Vice Admiral Brown. I'm glad
you are here today to discuss NOAA's perspective on the issue of
commercial weather data, and I look forward to discussing both the
benefits and challenges associated with advancing the role of the
commercial sector in providing this critical weather data to our
National weather enterprise.
Several weeks ago, we had the opportunity to hear from
representatives of the weather community. They described the positive
relationship NOAA has with numerous private entities in the acquisition
of commercial weather data. They also described how this data is used
to supplement global models and forecasts. Finally, they emphasized the
importance of preserving full and open access to core data products
that enable the growth of the entire weather enterprise--both private
and public. Existing policies have--for the most part--allowed for
unrestricted sharing of data and information with the research
community, international partners, and commercial entities. This
unrestricted access to weather data is the foundation of the current
billion dollar commercial weather industry, an industry that is the
envy of the world. In fact one of the witnesses stated that ``NOAA is
the world's gold standard.''
With this praise also came words of caution. Caution to ensure
existing policies that maintain free and open access to essential
weather data are not altered. Policies that allow the scientific
community and private sector to drive innovation and economic growth,
and, most importantly, policies that ensure critical weather data
remains reliable, and of highest quality, so the lives and livelihoods
of millions around the world are protected.
The current government-owned, commercially-operated structure has
served us well; however, even existing partnerships with private
companies carry risks, things like delays in production, launch
failures, and cost overruns. This is not to say the commercial sector
is not ready to take on more responsibility in this area, but it does
highlight the simple truth that ``space is difficult,'' and when it
comes to providing critical observational data--the backbone of our
numerical weather prediction--we must proceed with care and be certain
of the path forward.
As we heard from the panel, a model where the government is solely
a purchaser and not a provider of weather data presents a number of
unique challenges and raises important questions that must be addressed
to preserve the continued stability, credibility, and reliability of
the nation's weather forecasting capabilities. These include:
How would NOAA freely share the data it purchases from commercial
sources?
What effect do our international obligations have on policy
considerations for the expanded use of commercial weather data?
If NOAA maintains its policy of free and unrestricted use of data
it purchases, will it be forced to purchase data at a premium, or serve
as an anchor buyer, that will outweigh the anticipated cost savings?
What data should NOAA purchase from the commercial sector and
what, if any, data is so essential that the government should retain
control?
These are not simple questions with easy answers, but NOAA must
consider these, and others, as they develop policies and practices for
the continued purchase and use of commercial data.
We heard in our first hearing that although there are opportunities
to advance our current model and thinking, there are also serious risks
to consider. Congress must not rush to change a process that has worked
so well, and provided such great benefits, without ensuring those
successes can continue.
The entire weather enterprise, from NOAA to its industry partners
and talented researchers, share the same goal of continually advancing
our ability to accurately forecast the weather, save lives, and improve
our economy in the process. I look forward to hearing about the work
NOAA is doing to identify ways to work more closely with industry to
incorporate commercial weather data into its models, products, and
services, and continuing the discussion of how we can advance our
robust weather industry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thank you to our witness for
being here this morning. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Bridenstine. I thank the Ranking Member for her
thoughtful comments.
Let me introduce our witness. Our witness today is the
Honorable Manson Brown, Deputy Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Assistant Secretary
of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction.
Before joining NOAA, Mr. Brown served in the U.S. Coast
Guard for 40 years--thank you for your service--where he rose
to the rank of Vice Admiral. Mr. Brown received his master's
degree in civil engineering from the University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana and his master's degree in national resources
strategy from the National Defense University.
In order to allow time for discussion, Vice Admiral Brown,
please limit your testimony to five minutes. Your written
statement will be made a part of the record.
We have the Chairman here. I hope you forgive me, Vice
Admiral Brown, but I'd like to recognize the Chairman of the
full Committee, Mr. Smith, for five minutes.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Admiral, thank
you for letting me not so much cut into line but come in at the
end of the line here before you begin your presentation, and
normally, Mr. Chairman, this goes against all my instincts:
Never keep an admiral waiting. But I'll be brief.
And I do thank our witness for being here today to discuss
a crucial issue that is important to all of us and also to my
constituents.
Severe weather routinely affects large portions of the
United States. This year we already have seen the devastating
effects of tornados across our country, especially in Texas and
Oklahoma. My home State of Texas also has seen record-breaking
flooding that caused widespread damage and loss of many lives
in my district. These events are stark reminders that we depend
heavily on the accuracy and timeliness of our weather
forecasts. Unfortunately, our expertise has slipped in severe-
weather forecasting.
Also of concern is that the large satellite programs we
rely on for our forecast data are at risk of not meeting
crucial schedule commitments. Delayed satellite launches would
dramatically reduce our ability to predict weather and issue
accurate and timely forecasts. We must do everything we can to
save lives and protect property from severe weather events.
This past May, the House of Representatives passed a bill
that I cosponsored, H.R. 1561, ``The Weather Research and
Forecasting Innovation Act of 2015.'' This bill greatly
improves our severe-weather forecasting capabilities, and I
thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, our Chairman, Mr.
Bridenstine, for his involvement with this bill, and Ranking
Member Bonamici for her cosponsoring this legislation as well.
This bill prioritizes weather research at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's research agency. It
prompts NOAA to actively acquire new commercial data and seek
private-sector weather solutions through a commercial weather
data pilot project. It also increases forecast warning lead
times for tornados and hurricanes, and it creates a joint
technology transfer fund in NOAA's Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research to help put technologies developed through
NOAA's weather research into operation.
In this year's Commerce, Justice, and Science
Appropriations bill, the House also approved my amendment to
fully fund these crucial weather-related research activities at
NOAA. The enhanced prediction of severe weather events is of
great importance in protecting the public from injury and loss
of property. It is something that Texans, and people in any
community recently affected by severe weather, can appreciate.
It is time for us to bring our weather forecasting systems
into the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our
discussion today about how we can continue to support and
enhance our weather prediction capabilities, and I'll yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Good Morning and I thank our witness for being here today to
discuss a crucial issue that is important to all of us and also to my
constituents. Severe weather routinely affects large portions of the
United States. This year we already have seen the devastating effects
of tornados across our country, especially in Texas and Oklahoma. My
home state of Texas also has seen record breaking flooding that caused
widespread damage and loss of life in my district.
These events are stark reminders that we depend heavily on the
accuracy and timeliness of our weather forecasts. Unfortunately, our
expertise has slipped in severe weather forecasting. Also of concern is
that the large satellite programs we rely on for our forecast data are
at risk of not meeting crucial schedule commitments.
Delayed satellite launches would dramatically reduce our ability to
predict weather and issue accurate and timely forecasts. We must do
everything we can to save lives and protect property from severe
weather events.
This past May, the House of Representatives passed a bill that I
co-sponsored, H.R. 1561, ``The Weather Research and Forecasting
Innovation Act of 2015.'' This bill greatly improves our severe weather
forecasting capabilities. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Bridenstine, for his involvement with this bill, and Ranking Member
Bonamici for co-sponsoring this legislation.
This bill prioritizes weather research at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) research agency. It prompts NOAA
to actively acquire new commercial data and seek private sector weather
solutions through a commercial weather data pilot project. It also
increases forecast warning lead times for tornadoes and hurricanes. And
it creates a joint technology transfer fund in NOAA's Office of Oceanic
and Atmospheric Research to help put technologies developed through
NOAA's weather research into operation.
In this year's Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill,
the House also approved my amendment to fully fund these crucial
weather-related research activities at NOAA. The enhanced prediction of
severe weather events is of great importance in protecting the public
from injury and loss of property.
It is something that Texans, and people in any community recently
affected by severe weather, can appreciate. It is time for us to bring
our weather forecasting systems into the 21st century. I look forward
to our discussion today about how we can continue to support and
enhance our weather prediction capabilities.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the Chairman for
his leadership on these very important issues and his guidance
on this Committee.
Admiral Brown, you are now recognized for five minutes for
an opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MANSON BROWN,
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Brown. Thank you, Chairman.
Before I deliver my oral statement, I'd like to give you a
brief summary of an operational update that I received this
morning on the widespread flooding and severe weather which has
impacted the upper Midwest, Mississippi River Valley, and
continues to affect the Ohio River Valley and the Central
Appalachians.
Heavy rainfall has led to devastating flash flooding,
especially in Kentucky, where one fatality has been reported
and others are missing. Conditions warranted the issuance of a
special flash-flood emergency yesterday. Water rescues continue
this morning across Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia.
In addition to the flooding, there were 500 preliminary
reports of damaging winds extending from the Midwest to the
Central Appalachians yesterday. Obviously, with this ongoing
event, it's appropriate that we keep those impacted by this
severe weather in our thoughts and prayers today.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Chairman Smith,
Chairman Bridenstine, Ranking Member Bonamici, Members of the
Committee, it's a pleasure to be with you today.
Today, insight and foresight about the state of our planet
is factored into individual and collective decisions to an
extraordinary degree from planning our individual day to
providing for the national defense. NOAA's mission is to
leverage our ability to understand and predict changes in the
Earth's environment. We provide environmental intelligence that
delivers timely, actionable, and reliable information to
protect citizens, businesses and communities. Our observing
systems are the final foundation for all we do.
The weather forecasting system in particular must have an
assured and uninterrupted flow of high-quality data from these
systems. An accurate forecast 3 or more days in advance can
only be made when the entire globe has been measured by both
satellites and in situ sensors. Since no single entity, no
government, no university, no private company, no scientist has
the capacity to do this on their own, a global system of
systems that seeks to maximize free and open sharing of data
has developed.
To give you a sense of how important these cooperative
arrangements are, NOAA provides only three of the eight primary
satellites that feed data into the global forecasting system.
We share United States data freely and openly so that we can
receive data freely and openly from our international partners.
This regime is codified in treaty commitments under the World
Meteorological Organization's Resolution 40, which sets up free
and unrestricted data sharing amongst participating nations.
Resolution 40 requires participating nations to share essential
data without restriction. These basic data and products are the
ones that support the protection of life and property and the
wellbeing of all nations.
The benefit of full, free and open for the United States is
that by volume, we receive about three times as much
environmental data for our forecasting models as we provide.
NOAA does purchase a variety of environmental data using
competitive procurements, but we do not distribute on a full,
free and open basis. Because this data is only used for local
and regional forecasts, this practice is consistent with our
WMO commitments.
I would add that over 75 percent of NOAA's satellite budget
goes out as competitive contracts to the private space and
technology industry to build instruments, launch satellites,
and manage ground and data systems. This is over 85 percent of
the GOES-R and JPSS programs. That number is over 85 percent.
In addition, NOAA's environmental data and model output
fuels a vibrant and growing private weather enterprise that
refines and tailors our information down to individual citizens
and national sectors such as energy and agriculture. According
to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the
private sector is estimated to generate billions of dollars of
annual revenue, employing thousands of people, and providing a
rich array of analytical products and tailored services to
everyone from commodity traders to TV weathercasters. The
health of this industry is underwritten by this convention of
full, free and open.
NOAA recognizes the dynamics of a changing space
environment driven by such things as an increasing demand for
more precise environmental intelligence, changing technology,
that this aggregation of satellite systems, affordability
issues and changing business models. We're mindful that space
is expected to become more congested, contested, and
competitive.
As a science-based services agency, we maintain a keen
focus on public safety. For our satellite systems, our desire
is to preserve an unblinking stream of high-quality scientific
data that can be assured over the long term. Our current
satellite programs will help us to do that in a way that
minimizes gaps and achieves a level of robustness for this
critical national infrastructure.
NOAA has and will continue to explore industry's ability to
contribute to these goals in a way that minimizes risk,
maximizes assuredness, and upholds the convention of full, free
and open. In doing so, we seek to uphold the successful model
which delivers tremendous return on investment for the United
States, improves our forecasts and the safety of our citizens,
and supports both a thriving private weather industry and the
economy as a whole.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I welcome
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Brown follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, Admiral, for your
testimony. Members are reminded that the Committee rules limit
questioning to five minutes. The Chair recognizes himself for
five minutes.
Admiral, we did a bipartisan weather bill here in the House
of Representatives not too long ago, and it included a pilot
project for NOAA to enter into a contract with at least one
private-sector company to test weather data, to test it
against, you know--can it be validated and be usable for the
data assimilation systems, the numerical weather models. I just
wanted to find out, are you supportive of that effort?
Hon. Brown. I am supportive of that effort consistent with
available resources, Chairman. As Dr. Volz testified in
February, we do want to learn forward with our industry
partners, and we think radio occultation is a good technology
to do that with.
Chairman Bridenstine. That's great. Does NOAA have any
plans at this time to enter into such a contract to start
testing that kind of data?
Hon. Brown. Right now, we do have plans to do that. There
are several elements to that. The caveat that I mentioned
before was consistent with available resources. Obviously we
need budget support to do a technology demonstration.
The second thing is, I anticipate later this year NOAA will
release our commercial satellite data policy, which will really
signal to the industry our interest. As a follow-on to the
release of that policy, I expect that Dr. Volz will release
what we're calling his NESDIS procedures, which define the data
standards that industry will have to meet principally and what
the architectural requirements of the systems will be.
Chairman Bridenstine. Do you have a data for when that
might occur, just out of curiosity?
Hon. Brown. I don't have a specific date, Chairman. These
products are still in clearance.
Chairman Bridenstine. But you would anticipate it would be
this year?
Hon. Brown. I am driving towards this year. Very
aggressively.
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. Thank you for that.
At part one of our hearing in May, I asked former UCAR
President Dr. Bogdan how difficult it would be to make data
specifications, as you just mentioned, data specifications for
GPS radio occultation available to the public. He answered, ``I
don't see any difficulty from our perspective in making that
information available.''
We have a growing commercial sector that is eager to help
provide data. They are looking to NOAA for answers on how they
can help, and of course, you've indicated that you're looking
at providing those specifications, making those available to
the public, you know, as you mentioned, very aggressively
before the end of the year. Is that correct? Or your goal would
be.
Hon. Brown. The goal is before the end of the year. And
just one caveat to that, Chairman. As part of Dr. Volz and his
team development of the draft procedures, he actually had a
session with industry during the NOAA satellite conference in
April and talked through the essential elements, if you will,
of what those data standards would be and what that
architecture is, and so he is folding the feedback from that
discussion into those procedures.
Chairman Bridenstine. That's great to hear.
Now, was that just kind of like an informative, informal
briefing or were there negotiations taking place as far as what
it would cost and what they need to invest and that kind of
thing?
Hon. Brown. This was really a public session. It was not
the government and contractors, if you will, of the negotiating
setting. This was really a framing of the environment, if you
will, specifically with regards to the architecture that
industry will have to plug into during some of this technology
demonstration.
Chairman Bridenstine. So as far as the technology
demonstration and of course, you know, using potentially
commercial capabilities to argument our numerical weather
modeling, there's the testing, validation, there's all that
effort. Is there a point in time when you would foresee the
ability for NOAA to purchase commercial data as those
validations have been met?
Hon. Brown. Not at this point, Chairman, because radio
occultation specifically is listed as one of those technologies
on WMO Resolution 40s essential list. What we'd like to do, as
I mentioned before, is to learn forward. Let's see if we can
get the technology and the architecture and the feeds right,
and then there's this whole separate discussion about the
business arrangements, if you will.
Chairman Bridenstine. When you say it's on the essentials
list, what is that? What does that mean? What does that entail?
Hon. Brown. The World Meteorological Organization's
Resolution 40 has two types of data. They have what's called
essential data and they have what they call additional data.
Essential data is data that is used by all of the global met
partners to feed global forecasts, and this is a determination
that's made collaborative between scientists and operators, and
it is codified under Resolution 40 as what they call Annex 1.
Chairman Bridenstine. Is commercial aviation data also
included in that, the essential data?
Hon. Brown. It is not, and I'm--I really need to defer to
some of the experts. I can get you a detailed briefing----
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay.
Hon. Brown. --on the specifics of what are essential and
non-essential. Let me answer it this way. We do buy aviation
data for instrumentation that's on our aircraft during takeoffs
and landings, but that is data that does not inform the global
forecasting models. That informs local and regional models, and
that is the distinction that WMO makes.
Chairman Bridenstine. And just so you're aware, we had
testimony before this Committee in February with a panel of
experts including Dr. Volz was on that panel, and the testimony
came back to us that that commercial data does feed the global
initial conditions for creating the numerical weather models or
for feeding numerical weather models. So just--there might be a
contradiction here. We probably should look into finding out
what the----
Hon. Brown. We'll work through your staff----
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay.
Hon. Brown. --to reconcile the difference.
Chairman Bridenstine. Okay. Thank you for that. I'm out of
time.
I recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for five
minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Bridenstine.
First, I want to follow up on the conversation that you
were having with Chairman Bridenstine, Admiral Brown. You
talked about the conference in April to--and my understanding,
that that was in large part to inform the agency about
developing a process for assessing commercial solutions.
There's a statement that Dr. Volz made at the start that it was
a public discussion between NOAA NESDIS and the emerging
commercial field about the possibilities for more active
engagement for providing future measurement capabilities.
So can you talk a little bit about the stakeholder
engagement at that conference and at that--through that
conversation and any additional steps that NOAA is taking to
hear from stakeholders about the expanded use of the commercial
weather data?
Hon. Brown. Ranking Member, NESDIS holds an annual
satellite conference. I actually was a kickoff speaker for this
year's production. There were about, as I recall, 600
participants. We get scientists, we get industry technologists.
We have a lot of our staff. We get folks from the international
community. It is really a great opportunity for us to discuss
and debate the state of NOAA satellite technology and data
assimilation.
I really don't want to mischaracterize what occurred at
that session because I wasn't there, and I would accept at face
value Dr. Volz's characterization. The way that he described it
to me, it really was just an opportunity for a conversation
between NOAA and the industry.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and I want to get a few more
questions in. I'm sorry.
You talked about the release of the commercial data policy
later this year. Thank you for making that a priority. How have
stakeholders been involved in that--the crafting of that policy
and the development? Have you had conversations with the
private sector, with other stakeholders?
Hon. Brown. This is really a NOAA policy. We did discuss
and debate these things with our advisory committee, the
Industry Trade Advisory Council, if you will. We have not
specifically shared the elements of that policy with them
because we're on the cutting edge of policy development. I
think our judgment is, let's get the policy out there. Let's
treat it as a bit of a living policy, and based upon the
response and the feedback that we get, the things like the next
satellite conference, we will consider adjustments to the
policy.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you.
And as I mentioned in our--at our hearing in May, the
current model where NOAA maintains and operates a suite of
observing satellites but then purchases supplemental ad hoc
data to enhance the forecasting products has worked well, and
as NOAA continues to explore opportunities to expand its
procurement of commercial data, we do run the risk of ceding
critical observational capabilities to the private sector. So
in your opinion, are there essential observational capabilities
that should always be operated by the government?
Hon. Brown. Ranking Member, NOAA is in the public safety
business at the end of the day. We're responsible to the
citizens of this great nation, businesses, the communities for
providing environmental intelligence. I mentioned the term
``unblinking stream of high-quality data.'' We have to be
relentless in our pursuit of that. I think through the GOES
project, through JPSS, we are bringing robustness and
minimizing gaps to the critical observations that are most
important to feeding the global forecasting system. I would
like to keep that our focus.
I think as we consider the future of commercialization in
space, we just have to be very thoughtful about the impacts to
those essential elements.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, and as we look at possible
scenarios, if there were ever a system where the United States
exclusively purchases weather data from private companies, what
would be the implications for these international obligations
which you mentioned under the WMO Resolution 40 to share data
freely and openly? What--how would that be managed?
Hon. Brown. As I've researched this issue and discussed it
with my experts, you know, we're focused on the data. We're
really talking about the transaction. Can I conceive
hypothetically of a way for a government, a nation-state, to
purchase commercial data on a basis so that they get the
intellectual property rights and instantly transmit it full,
free and open to all of their partners? Yes. The problem with
that is, as I understand it on the industry side, there's no
business model that supports that. So that's sort of where we
get stuck.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, and my time is expired.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. I'd like to thank the gentlelady.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Vice
Admiral Brown, for testifying.
I'd like to ask you to clarify something. Is NOAA legally
bound by the World Meteorological Organization Resolution 40?
Hon. Brown. Congressman, it's not legal in the sense of
it's a U.S. statute. The World Meteorological Organization
commitment is a treaty commitment, and we actually signed a
treaty back in 1949. Resolution 40 was created much later and
is an extension of that treaty commitment.
I think of it more as an international contract, if you
will, and as I said before, the benefit for us is for every one
byte of data we put into the system, we get three bytes out.
Mr. Palmer. If it's a treaty, it's not a cooperative
agreement. Did the United States ratify that?
Hon. Brown. It was ratified.
Mr. Palmer. It was ratified? The WMO Resolution 40 details
the types of data deemed essential as well what data is agreed
on for sharing freely. How often is the WMO 40 updated to
reflect current weather enterprise and landscape?
Hon. Brown. Congressman, as I mentioned, WMO is sort of a
recent construct, and to my understanding, there have not been
really any hard updates to it. What the scientists have found
is that it actually needed to be expanded. WMO Resolution 40
spoke only to atmospheric services. They also needed to think
about sort of the hydrology of the planet, the effect of water,
tidal surges, flooding. So they actually spun off Resolution 40
and created something called Resolution 25 to talk about that.
But the strict answer to your question, it has been a static
document since it was created.
Mr. Palmer. And how long ago was that?
Hon. Brown. I don't specifically recall. I think it was--
I'm recalling from a briefing somewhere in the 1990s but I'll
ask my staff to check.
Mr. Palmer. Well, if it's a treaty and this is a
modification for that, was that brought before Congress? Do you
know?
Hon. Brown. I don't believe it was.
Mr. Palmer. Yet are we obligated to abide by anything out
of the Resolution 40?
Hon. Brown. Well, under WMO, and I'm familiar with IMO, we
ratified the broader agreement. There are a whole bunch of
subcommittees and instrumentalities that are created under
that. I don't know the specific rules about how those
amendments affect the whole.
Mr. Palmer. Okay, but you said we ratified the broader
agreement, and you said that was 1949?
Hon. Brown. We ratified it in 1949. The United States
became an official signatory in 1949.
Mr. Palmer. Should it be updated if it's been in place for
such a long time?
Hon. Brown. Well, I think Resolution 40 is under the
purview of those scientists and operators that I talked about,
and I think we rely on their expert judgment to determine when
it's appropriate to update.
I will point out, Congressman, that the United States is a
leader within the WMO. Certainly, our influence carries some
weight, but that really is a matter for our U.S. representative
to the WMO and more broadly the State Department.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Let me ask you another question. There's
a 2012 report from the Department of Justice that noted that
NOAA employs nearly 150 armed federal agents. Is this really
necessary to have armed agents working for NOAA?
Hon. Brown. I am not familiar with that specific report, so
I'd like to give that to you on background.
Mr. Palmer. Are you aware that you have armed agent?
Hon. Brown. I am aware that we have armed agents. If I
could just leverage my background as a former Coast Guard
officer, I have done joint operations with enforcement
officials from the fishery service, and our job is to protect
American fisheries. That's a dangerous environment. I would not
be surprised if----
Mr. Palmer. Does NOAA have a role in that, though? I mean,
that doesn't make sense. We've got ample law enforcement
agencies to provide the kind of protection you're talking
about, I mean, unless there's some threat from missing a
forecast, and I would think that would be more of a local
thing, but I don't understand why NOAA needs armed agents.
Hon. Brown. I would just say generically, Congressman,
again, I don't know the specifics of this particular issue, but
I will just tell you, people use the tools of what we used to
call the use-of-force continuum based upon the threat
environment. My recent knowledge from Coast Guard experience is
that the threat of environment probably dictates the need for
armed officers.
Mr. Palmer. I would like for you to provide the Committee a
more detailed explanation for why NOAA needs armed agents if I
may ask for that?
Hon. Brown. We'll be pleased to do that, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Vice Admiral. Let's see. First a
big-picture question. How do you balance data acquisition and
data analysis from a budgetary point of view? You know, is
there a possibility that there be a much larger bang for the
buck putting money into supercomputers versus more satellites?
Hon. Brown. Congressman, you said data analysis and data
acquisition?
Mr. Foster. And data acquisition, you know, satellites
versus supercomputers.
Hon. Brown. NESDIS is principally in the role of data
acquisition, you know, they--principally from the satellite
systems. I assume that's what we're taking about. They're
responsible for managing the procurements and managing the
systems that bring that data into the rest of the organization
for analytical and modeling purposes.
On the data analysis side, it's a bit of a shared
responsibility, and Congressman, I'm giving you the generic
sort of executive view on this.
NESDIS makes sure that it's high-quality data according to
the requirements that were set by, say, the National Weather
Service. That data is ported over through our systems into the
National Weather Service, and then they start doing a series of
validation and anomaly detection as they prepare to ingest that
data into their models. So it's a bit of a shared
responsibility.
Mr. Foster. And let's see. Having to--whenever you're
making a make-versus-buying decision, you need to come up with
an in-house estimate to compare the contract price with, and so
do you have plans in place for making that comparison and the
tools to do the in-house part of that comparison?
Hon. Brown. I want to just step back a bit, and I'm
assuming we're talking about commercial satellite data.
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Hon. Brown. We're not there yet, Congressman. I think we
want to learn forward. We want to test the ability of a
commercial vendor to provide radio occultation data, and once
we get to that step, I think it's time for us to think through
the rest of it.
Mr. Foster. Okay. So----
Hon. Brown. And do we have that capability resident within
NOAA? We do, but I would just say in terms of the satellite
business, NOAA is not a market maker. We leverage heavily our
relationships with both NASA and the United States Air Force,
and so we would probably partner with those folks to take a
look at this as a system to come up with our best judgment.
Mr. Foster. Okay, because, you know, there have been a
number of retrospective looks at privatization efforts looking
at do they actually save money with, I think it's fair to say,
a rather mixed set of results. So you may want to look
carefully at those, particularly in cases where the
privatization has not saved us much money as anticipated,
understand that there are lessons to be learned and advanced as
you look down this road.
Can you say a little bit about, does any of this
potentially affect archiving of the data? Does that remain a
unique federal or shared international role here?
Hon. Brown. Archiving is important because it is the
context that we use for modeling. It is the context we use for
simulation exercises. It is the context that scientists use to
push the boundaries of atmospheric sciences, and also to push
the boundaries of the capability of future instruments. So we
had spent a lot of capital to archive. I think a disaggregation
of essential satellite systems would potentially compromise our
ability to do that.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back.
I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.
Westerman, for five minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Admiral Brown, could you discuss NOAA's public-private
partnerships with surface-based aviation and space-based data
providers in the context of proprietary data--we've talked
about that a little bit here already--and the current licensing
construct that exists for them?
Hon. Brown. Yes, sir. Just in general terms, we buy about
five different categories of data that are on the additional
list for Resolution 40. We buy aircraft data that I referred to
before. We buy lightning data that helps us really look at the
regional and local impacts of severe weather. We buy ocean
color that helps us with things like harmful algal blooms and
we buy a couple of other things. But they're all--they're all
within upholding our commitment to the WMO and Resolution 40,
and we do buy it on a proprietary basis and generally do not
redistribute it according to the contracts that we sign.
Mr. Westerman. So you don't share all the data?
Hon. Brown. We don't necessarily share all the data.
Mr. Westerman. What policies and procedures does NOAA have
in place to facilitate the acquisition and application of
commercial data to improve operational weather forecasting?
Hon. Brown. Well, I talked about the process of NESDIS
building satellites and building the essential data stream into
the weather service and others. We've got other programs that
are managed by the National Weather Service to assimilate other
data sets. If you will recall recently, the First Lady put a
rain gauge in the Rose Garden of the White House. Someone at
the White House enters that information into a database that's
a national database. The National Weather Service uses that
information to reconcile what the forecasts are telling us, and
it really reflects actual conditions on the ground.
Mr. Westerman. And you talked about lightning data. Do you
believe the longstanding partnership for lightning data has
signaled long-term interest in the technology and helped
increase the technology advancement?
Hon. Brown. I would defer that question to our subject-
matter experts. I'll just tell you that they have conveyed to
me that lightning data is very useful in developing our insight
about severe weather and its impacts.
Mr. Westerman. So in general, do you think that government
interests can signal the market to increase technological
advancements and create new markets?
Hon. Brown. In general, I do, and that's one of the reasons
why we want to learn forward with this radio occultation tech
demonstration.
Mr. Westerman. So does NOAA negotiate with private-sector
companies it enters into agreements with in regards to the
sharing of data?
Hon. Brown. We do, and we try to be as beholding to full,
free and open as we can because it is international custom, and
because it obviously leverages the innovation of the scientific
and academic community.
Mr. Westerman. And do you believe the current private-
sector partnerships can be used as a model for future weather-
observing systems?
Hon. Brown. I don't know if I'm ready to translate what we
do for those data sets on the additional list to the essential
list. I'm more interested in sort of proof--positively proving
the technology and the ability of industry to provide that data
stream, and then as I said before, I think we should learn
forward from there without compromising all of the benefits
that we get from full, free and open.
Mr. Westerman. And for decades, the United States has used
hosted payloads for a variety of U.S. government missions. Does
NOAA intend to utilize hosted payloads for its missions?
Hon. Brown. Yes. We're in consultation with the U.S. Air
Force to be part of their hosted payload system.
Mr. Westerman. Would this reduce the increasing cost of
government-owned, -built, -operated, and -launched satellites?
Hon. Brown. Congressman, we hope it does. Hosted payloads
is supposed to be more affordable over time. I'm at the point
in my learning where I'm still learning about how that actually
happens. Often it's the launch costs that dictate the overall
affordability of these satellite programs.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Vice Admiral, and Mr. Chair, I
yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and Admiral, thank you
for being here and your testimony today.
I've had an opportunity to kind have been through a number
of these hearings and meetings concerning our weather data, how
we acquire it, how we analyze it, similar to what Mr. Foster
was asking you, and as I was reading WMO 40 and listening to
your testimony, there's sort of five principles, you know,
again, looking at it at the executive level for me, you know.
Does it protect life, does it protect property? So the public
safety component that you mentioned right at the outset, does
it advance science, okay? For me, that's a key principle here.
Does it honor international agreements? Because we have--you
have contracts out there, some with business, some with other
countries, whatever it is, and how you thread this needle has
to honor those agreements. And then finally, does it deliver
the biggest bang for the buck for the taxpayer.
So as you look at commercializing and buying commercial
information, which then goes to your public safety and your
advancing science reasons to be, you've got to think about that
biggest bang for the buck, and you are absolutely right when
you said, you know, business, their objective is to generally--
you know, there may be some altruistic piece to it--generally,
to get profit for the shareholders.
You, on the other hand, most public safety and most
advancement to sciences that you can for the taxpayer, and
they're different kinds of things but generally--so my question
to you is, I see this as a contract matter, and I see sort of
the two words in WMO 40, and you mentioned them, essential and
additional, and how we construe and interpret those words. So
can you tell us, because you are buying commercial information
which respects the intellectual property of the business in
some instances but in most instances, and I like that too, is
that there's a free exchange of information. So if you could
just comment on sort of the contractual side of this thing?
Hon. Brown. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman, for the
question, and I like your five principles. I may actually
shamelessly steal those.
Mr. Perlmutter. You're more than welcome to take them.
Hon. Brown. You know, and I think underlying this whole
discussion about contract mechanisms is, the question is, what
is data. What is essential environmental data? Is it
intellectual property or is it a public good? And that's really
the heart of the discussion that we're having within NOAA. We
think it's a public good. Is there a potential for some sort of
a hybrid in the future that upholds public good, upholds full,
free and open yet leverages businesses' ability to provide data
and preserving its intellectual property rights so that they
can sell it many times? I don't know. I don't know.
Mr. Perlmutter. Let me jump in there. So--but I guess what
I would suggest to you is that you guys investigate this thing
clearly, because I do think the ability to leverage businesses,
you know, it's whether you're the owner or the lessor of
something, okay, and they're leasing to you or licensing to
you, but that leverage with new ideas or a new secret sauce,
new intellectual property can lead you to do a better job
protecting life, do a better job protecting property, and see,
that's the balancing act, and I know you're doing it. Just
listening to your testimony, I feel more comfortable about what
you--how you all are approaching this, but I guess sitting up
here on this policy panel, I think that you really do need to
continue to investigate and utilize the business sector where
you can to leverage the first three--protecting life,
protecting property, advancing science--and you've got to do
that with your lawyers in honoring all the agreements you've
already entered into.
So if you want to respond to that?
Hon. Brown. Yes, sir. As we go through this very thoughtful
discussion, you asked the question, what's really at stake. In
my mind, there's three important things that potentially are at
stake. The first one is that three to one return on investment
for the data that we leverage. The second one is if there is a
compromised flow of that data, we are going to weaken our
ability to provide forecasting warning data to our citizens.
And the third, and this is very unique for countries throughout
the world, this country has built this multibillion-dollar
enterprise we call private weather. I think this Committee has
correspondence from some of the leaders from those folks that
say really they are leveraged off of full, free and open, and
so we also have to be thoughtful abut that third piece of it.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Abraham, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral Brown, thank you for being here. As a guy that
still flies for the Coast Guard in an auxiliary role now, we
have a little bit of a common bond, so good to see you, sir.
Why is NOAA waiting to release standard and specific
specifications of data to the public? And I'll give you--if
NOAA has used GPS radio occultation data for years, shouldn't
that information already be available and ready to share?
Hon. Brown. Yes, sir. There's two components to that
question. We are currently ingesting cosmic data, radio
occultation data, and making that available full, free and
open, and so we will continue to do that.
The second part of your question was, sir?
Mr. Abraham. Well, shouldn't the information be readily
available already----
Hon. Brown. Yeah, and that's----
Mr. Abraham. --using the GPS occultation?
Hon. Brown. Well, you can provide data to users all over
the globe without having them understand what the requirements
for that data were, what are the standards that we use to
harvest and process and disseminate that data. That's very
much--and I'm an engineer--a technical specification, and
that's what we're intending to release pursuant to the release
of our NOAA commercial satellite data policy are the NESDIS
procedures that articulate what those data standards are for
all to see.
Mr. Abraham. And that's going to be when?
Hon. Brown. I'm hoping it is later this year. We're working
aggressively to release both of those documents.
Mr. Abraham. I'm from Louisiana, and as you're aware, we've
had some horrific flooding in Louisiana, Oklahoma, that water
from Oklahoma coming down the Red River, and I think the
National Weather Service changed the crest of the river
predictions seven times in 13 days, and it really threw chaos
into not only our private-sector homes but in the public
sector, our sheriffs being able to react and do what they
needed to do on a timely basis. What is the National Weather
Service and NOAA doing with the Corps to help prevent something
like that in the future?
Hon. Brown. Yes, sir. I just met with General Bostick three
Fridays ago. We were discussing these very issues. Let me put
this in a broader context. We are in the midst of what we are
calling evolving the National Weather Service, and a lot of the
things that we're doing were harvested from two Congressionally
mandated reports, one from the National Academy of Sciences and
one from the National Academy of Public Administrators, and one
of those reports used the bumper sticker ``Second to None.''
That is our vision for this evolution. As part of evolving the
Weather Service, Senator Shelby just recently joined Secretary
Pritzker down at Alabama to cut the ribbon on the National
Water Center. That Water Center will bring more precision to
the way that we analyze water threats to our nation.
Mr. Abraham. Do you think that'll improve the
hydrological----
Hon. Brown. Dramatically, sir. We are working on plans
internal to NOAA to take our current technology, which gives us
a basin-level forecast, and neck it all the way down to street-
level forecast.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. I thank the gentleman.
We'll enter into round two since we've still got some
Members here that might have some questions.
I'd like to hit on a key point. We had maybe a discrepancy
here earlier between the testimony received before this
Committee in February about commercial aircraft data and then
of course testimony today, and here's one thing that I'd like--
the premise that we got from your written testimony, Annex 1 of
Resolution 40, WMO 40, has eight subsections that detail the
types of data being essential and that must be free and
unrestricted. Subsection 8 specifically addresses satellite
data products and calls for ``those data and products from
operational meteorological satellites that agree between WMO
and satellite operators. These should include data and products
necessary for operations regarding severe-weather warnings and
tropical cyclone warnings.'' So that's section 8 which I think
is clear. I think that can be interpreted in different ways.
Here's the point, though. Annex 1 of subsection 3--earlier
you were talking about what data is essential. Annex 1 of
subsection 3 specifically identifies aircraft data as a
designated data set that is deemed essential and that must be
``free and unrestricted.'' And yet at the same time, the NOAA
policy--on your Web site, there's a list of data--you know,
data sets that are not free and unrestricted, you know, and
aircraft data, ACAR's data and our data, that data is delayed
for 48 hours, and the purpose for that is because the contracts
that you've entered into with Panasonic and I think Rockwell
Collins as well, they want to make sure that their data is
protected because if that data is not protected, if it's
immediately given to the world for free, then they lose their
market, and if they lose their market, then there would be no
data, and I think that's the point that I'd like to make is
that this data policy is critically important for actually
creating the markets that drive the innovation that we see from
whether it's Panasonic or Rockwell Collins that drive the
competition, the ability to get more data to feed these global
condition, initial condition models that ultimately help us
better predict weather. For example, you know, my goal in
Oklahoma is to be able to predict tornados more timely and
accurately.
And there's one thought I'd like to just impart, Admiral,
and you know, I'm not going to pretend like I've got, you know,
some words of wisdom for a 40-year admiral from the United
States Coast Guard, but when I came in Sunday night to come to
Congress, I was hungry. It was 9:30 at night. I'm hungry, and I
decided I wanted to get a cheeseburger. Well, at 9:30 at night,
I was able to get a cheeseburger. Now, if that cheeseburger
being food, if food was to be declared, you know, a global
public good and therefore necessary to be given away for free,
that cheeseburger would not have been available to me. That
cheeseburger was available because, as Mr. Perlmutter correctly
identified in his comments, the shareholders of that firm--it
was McDonald's--the shareholders of that firm, they're
interested in making a profit, and because there is a profit
motive, there was that global public good that was able to give
me nutrition at night.
Now, I'm now claiming necessarily that McDonald's is the
best nutrition, but you get my point, that you've got to have
the market in order to get the products that are necessary for
that global public good. My concern is, we need to make sure
that if there is a global public good, that that good gets
produced, and if we don't have a market, then that good never
gets produced. So while it may be global and public, if it
doesn't exist, it can't be utilized, you know, to the advantage
of people who are seeking that data.
I've heard you reference the three to one, you know, we get
three times as much as we give, and I don't doubt that your
numbers are correct on that, but I would attest is that if we
maybe change, nuance the data policy for satellites, what we
have actually done for commercial aircraft data and maybe
provide a 48-hour delay, that while it could still be three to
one with what the United States provides compared to what we
receive, or we provide the one and we receive the three, that
whole pie would be much bigger than it is now, in other words,
because we would leverage commercial, we'd have more data,
better data, cost-competitive data, innovation that we don't
currently receive, which means the pie gets bigger, which
provides better ability of NOAA to save lives, to save
property, which I think is the goal of everybody here.
The other thing that's important is, you know, I've read
articles recently indicating that there are--when you think
about the numerical weather modeling, there are as many as, you
know, seven or eight companies that do numerical weather
modeling, and if NOAA is--or the National Weather Service is
one, then we could cost-share with all of this commercial data
that might be available. NOAA could be one purchaser of the
data. In essence, you'd be spreading the cost for the purchase
of that data among eight different entities that are all
interested in feeding their numerical weather models.
So I guess my point in this--and I'm out of time so I'm
going to not ask you a question but just leave you with the
idea that there could be a nuanced position where when you look
at aircraft data from commercial aircraft feeding the global
initial conditions that ultimately help us predict weather,
maybe considering a nuanced position for satellite data, GPS
radio occultation, hyperspectral sounding, these kinds of
things that the commercial sector is ready, willing and able to
do just as Panasonic and Rockwell Collins, not to mention all
of the airlines are ready, willing and able to do, something to
think about because the goal here is more data, better data,
and of course, improved capability to detect and predict
extreme weather events.
And I'll give you ten seconds if it's okay with the Ranking
Member.
Hon. Brown. Thanks, Chairman. We'll take that on board for
consideration as we learn forward.
Chairman Bridenstine. Thank you, and I turn it over to the
Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just want to
point out that you have just mentioned feeding, pie and
cheeseburgers, so I think somebody needs to bring the Chairman
some lunch.
So thank you very much, Vice Admiral Brown, for your
thoughtful testimony and your commitment to NOAA's mission. I
just want to make, first of all, a point that at our last
hearing, Dr. Bill Gale cautioned us as we move forward, that we
really need to be careful to not break what's working well, and
he talked about a principle known as no degradation of
services, and with NOAA's commitment and our commitment to
high-quality services, I just hope that we can add that to the
list, whether it be to Mr. Perlmutter's list of five or just to
make sure that we keep that in mind going forward.
I also wanted to follow up on the discussion about the WMO
Resolution 40 and suggest that we have further conversations
about this in the Subcommittee and the Committee. There's been
suggestions, well, is this a treaty, is it a contract, is it a
law, but when we're looking at an international agreement, I
think we can all agree it's an agreement with a number of
member of countries. There are significant ramifications of
violating that type of international agreement. So we really
need to have a follow-up discussion about that and look forward
to talking with you about that going forward.
And I also wanted to, you know, talk about in regard to the
WMO resolution, the importance of continued international
engagement by NOAA, even outside the WMO. That's really
critical. I was--I have been constantly impressed in this
Subcommittee and this discussion as well as in space issues
that oftentimes these issues defy other global conflicts and
the importance of international engagement is so critical that
we set aside other differences and continue that international
collaboration.
I also wanted to follow up on, we've been talking a lot
about satellites. I wanted to just mention and ask about the
IOOS. As someone who represents a coastal community, the
Integrated Ocean Observing System is really critical. So if we
can come back down to Earth for a few minutes and talk about
the importance of the buoys and the sensors and the coastal
radars, and are there analogous conversations going on with the
private sector? Because I know that that is sort of a
partnership between federal, regional and the private sector,
so if you could address that important issue? Thank you.
Hon. Brown. Ranking Member, with regards to IOOS, I just
addressed the capital--the Congressional Oceans Caucus, Senate
Oceans Caucus, on this issue. It's 11 regional associations
sort of fusing intergovernmental, academia, private sector. I
think it works well. It's clearly a disaggregated form of
observing, and all of that is batched up and fed into databases
that help NOAA make predictions about various things. A lot of
it is port centric. For instance, we had the head of the Marine
Exchange for the Port of LALB come talk to us about the power
of the fusion of all of those observing systems and the
collaboration to talk about the conditions within the port and
the approaches to the port.
Your broader question is about relative health of the
observing systems in situ versus satellite. It's something
that's a part of my portfolio. I chair something called the
NOAA Observing Systems Council. Our job within that council is
to attend to the health. A lot of that is a function of the
budget obviously. Those in situ measurements are also critical,
particularly for some of the other things that we do in NOAA,
and it's the fusion of all of these things from the depths of
the ocean to the surface of the sun that give us the insight
that we need to protect America.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
One more question. Can you talk a little bit about some of
the possible innovations--you know, we hear about--you
mentioned the collecting rainwater at the White House, but apps
on phones--I mean, are there other areas where we could be
going to really capitalize on the innovative culture and
society that we have to help strengthen all the data that NOAA
has, and what are some of the potentials?
Hon. Brown. I talked about the rainwater gauge in the White
House. That's a part of the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail
and Snow Network, and it's called CoCoRaHS. CoCoRaHS is now the
largest provider of daily precipitation observations in the
United States, and yesterday there were more than 8,000
observations that were reported, and as I said before, we
ingest that data because it gives us real time what's happening
on the ground, and we can use it to reconcile our forecasts and
our models.
The second one is what I'll call--I think it's a great
innovation. It's called the mPING app. The NOAA National Severe
Storms Laboratory is collecting public weather reports through
a free app available for smartphones and mobile devices, and
mPING starts--stands for Meteorological Phenomena
Identification Near the Ground, and obviously our sensors don't
necessarily go all the way to the ground. So this also provides
supplemental observations for us to get smarter and deeper in
our insight about what's happening.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific, and I see my time has long expired.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. I have a couple of those apps, and they're
really cool, so I congratulate you on that.
The Chairman used the word ``augment'' in his opening and
in his initial questions to you, and I guess where I'm coming
from is, I want to see us continue to build out and I would
hope accelerate our JPSS and our GOES-R and to eliminate
whatever gaps or chasms might exist. I see the private sector
as helping you refine this bulk of information that you gather,
and so, you know, I think it's going to take a little bit of
everything to really, you know, just almost have instantaneous
information that helps them deal with tornados, helps us deal
with fires and floods in Colorado, those kinds of things.
So today I was very pleased with the step forward I think
we've taken in the Middle East with the Iranian peace agreement
and we'll see how that transpires, but we had China and Russia
and the European community--France, Germany--and Iran
obviously. In connection with--you said we were a leader on the
WMO. I mean, how many countries are involved, and do you think
as a leader in kind of organizing this weather community we
would have influence on maybe reshaping WMO a little bit?
Hon. Brown. Congressman, there are 191 members that are
signatories to the WMO. That includes all of the major
countries of the world. Obviously, weather is a concern for
every nation for its citizens. We are a leader. We're admired,
we're respected. Our Deputy Administrator for the National
Weather Service, Laura Furgione, is our U.S. representative to
the WMO. She just came back a month or so ago from two weeks in
Geneva where diplomats were discussing and debating these
things. You know, as a world leader, we have to be careful
about how we express our influence, and as I thought about
this, if from a scientific basis we legitimately want to
recommend a change, I think we should do that, but it has to be
scientifically sound because that list on Resolution 40, Annex
1, is managed by scientists and operators, and through the
process of the WMO, we have empowered those folks to have the
insight necessary to make those judgments. Is there something
that we could do to influence that list? Yes. I just hope it
would be for the right reasons.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, and I think it will be. I mean, the
Chairman and the Ranking Member and I have had a chance to meet
with a lot of--a number of scientists who are also, you know,
starting their businesses or have developed businesses, and
they want to--they have a new algorithm or they have a new
approach to something, and I guess I'm not afraid of taking
advantage of their--what they believe are steps forward, and I
don't want NOAA to be nervous about that either, and I don't
think you are, but I agree with you. It's not just for profit's
sake that I'm looking for this to happen. This is really coming
back to those first two things are the public safety aspect of
your job. You know, I don't want anybody getting--you know, I
want to minimize the number of people who get flooded and, you
know, their car goes boom right into the South Platte River.
You know, we had a bunch of that about a month ago. We had a
number of people die in floods, you know, in Colorado a month
ago. You know, forget about what happened in 2013.
Hon. Brown. So I agree with the Chairman's comments in
general about nuancing the system. I think we're smart enough,
creative enough, innovative enough to do that.
The other thing I would say on a broad term, if you take a
look at the state of weather over the last 40 years, very
dramatic scientific and technological advances. I think it's
going to be that future wave that drives conditions for
satellites in the future.
There's one additional caveat that I mentioned in my verbal
statement that I'm mindful of. I went and joined many of our
colleagues from DoD, NASA, National Geospatial Agency in Denver
recently at the Space Symposium, and what the folks on the
national security side are painting for the future of space is
something that's congested, contested and competitive. Nation-
states need to be very concerned about their critical
infrastructure that's up there including those that feed our
weather systems, and I just think we need to be thoughtful
about that as we move into the future too.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Admiral. I yield back.
Chairman Bridenstine. The gentleman yields back, and I
agree with you, congested, contested, competitive, and here's
what else I will tell you. We deal with this on the Armed
Services Committee. There are ways to deal with it.
Disaggregating is one. Taking advantage of commercial would be
a very quick way to disaggregate and distribute those sensors
and the distribution of weather data, and of course, we've done
that in the Department of Defense. We've done that with
communications. We've done it with imagery, and of course, the
commercial applications from GPS are quite robust as well. So I
agree with all that.
Regarding Mr. Perlmutter's comments on WMO 40, I think
there is a way where the way we interpret WMO 40 may be
different than a lot of the international partners that we
have, and if we could maybe come more in line with where they
are and at the same time when you mentioned this section 8 or--
what is it--Annex 1, section 8, and then of course Annex 1,
section 3, which provides information about commercial aircraft
data, that maybe the way we interpret it might be different
without having to go to our 91 international partners that are
signatories to the WMO 40. So just another thought.
Unless anybody has any more questions, I think this will be
the end of our hearing.
I want to just say thank you, Admiral, for being here, and
thank the Members for their questions. I love the way these
kinds of things go where they're bipartisan. We're all trying
to figure out how do we get the best data, the most data to
feed our numerical weather models and provide a little more
safety for our citizens.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from the Members if you have
more questions.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by The Hon. Manson Brown
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Prepared statement of Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johsnon
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd also like to welcome and thank Vice
Admiral Brown for appearing before us today.
This hearing is a necessary follow up to a productive hearing we
had in May with members of the weather community. I am pleased that we
will be able to continue the discussion with NOAA today.
Data gathered by NOAA satellites feed global weather models that
are critical to protect lives and property through accurate and timely
weather forecasts and warnings. Americans have always appreciated the
value of timely and accurate weather forecasts. Now, at a time when
climate change impacts are being felt by more and more people, the
importance of NOAA's weather satellites cannot be overstated.
What we learned from our hearing in May was simple: with respect to
new sources of commercial data, four things must remain intact: We must
continue to meet our international obligations; we must preserve the
ideal of free and open access to weather data; we must ensure the data
are useful and needed; and we must ensure that data purchased from
commercial entities do not degrade our ability to make accurate
forecasts. These are important to ensuring we have an approach that
provides long-term benefits to this country and the world.
As I said before, observing the Earth and its changes is a truly
global enterprise and we all benefit from deep and long-lasting
international engagement and data sharing. Anything that has the
potential to harm such arrangements must be dealt with from the
beginning.
To that end, I am pleased to learn that NOAA is taking a thoughtful
approach to expanding their use of commercial weather data, mindful of
the risks and open to its benefits. I look forward to discussing this
approach more today, and to be certain, in the coming months and years.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
[all]