[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 QuestionsAnswers 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]