The original post on this subject is WRONG ....
What Sanotorum is trying to do is RETURN the NSW/NOAA BACK to the services (for free) that existed between 1991 and 2004. A careful examination of the facts (if you are able to understand plain english) is found in the following transcript: http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.View&ContentRecord_id=1219&Region_id=0&Issue_id=0&CFID=12399164&CFTOKEN=39260958 AND http://src.senate.gov/public/_files/radio/santorumNewsConf6_9_05.mp3 ----------------- Fair Forecasts May 6, 2005 - For Immediate Release May 6, 2005 Contact: Elizabeth Chapman (202) 224-0610 (754 words) Fair Forecasts By Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) Located on the shores of a Great Lake, Erie, Pennsylvania suffers from unpredictable weather patterns resulting from the “lake effect.” It took years fighting with the National Weather Service (NWS) to get adequate high quality local radar coverage for Erie and northwestern Pennsylvania, in spite of the dangerous changing weather. In my opinion, the Erie radar and other such services that need upgrading around the country should be a priority for NWS. However, instead of spending their resources on priorities like Erie’s unpredictable weather, NWS is seeking to duplicate services currently available. American taxpayers pay for the services of NWS. Therefore, it is prudent to ask the question, “How best can the National Weather Service serve the taxpayers of the United States?” The NWS can best serve the American taxpayers by focusing on its core responsibilities—utilizing its resources to provide the best possible forecasting information—rather than using limited public resources to aggressively compete with existing private sector forecasting services. Back in 1890 when the current NWS statute was enacted, the public received its weather forecasts and warnings almost exclusively from the Weather Bureau, NWS’ predecessor. In the late 1940s, a fledging weather service industry began to develop. From then until December 2004, NWS has had policies sensitive to the importance of fostering the industry’s expansion, and since 1948 has had formal policies discouraging competition with industry. Fourteen years ago NWS took the extra step of carefully delineating the respective roles of NWS and the commercial weather industry, in addition to pledging its intention not to provide products or services that were or could be provided by the commercial weather industry. This long-standing non-competition and non-duplication policy has had the effect of facilitating the growth of the weather industry into a billion dollar sector and of strengthening and extending the national weather enterprise, now the best in the world. It has increased the quality of choices for consumers, resulting in a multitude of popular choices including The Weather Channel. Yet in December 2004, the parent agency of NWS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), repealed the 1991 non-competition and non-duplication policy with the private sector. This action taken by NOAA affects several companies in Pennsylvania who currently provide weather services as their business and employ close to 400 Pennsylvanians. With the jobs and public safety of Pennsylvanians as my first priority, I introduced the National Weather Service Duties Act to restore NWS’ non-competition policy that was in effect from 1991 to December 2004. My legislation will in no way change the kind of data NWS provided from 1991 to December 2004. As a matter of fact, my bill ensures that information issued by NWS will be done so in real time and simultaneously to all members of the public. Taxpayers pay for accurate and timely severe weather warnings by NWS. Funding for NWS then should be directed toward that core mission and toward fulfilling its duties to taxpayers. If you, as a taxpayer, received information from NWS during the time of the non-competition, non-duplication policy (1991-2004), you will continue to receive that information if my legislation is enacted. In contrast, doing nothing threatens the dissemination of quality weather services now free to most consumers. Another example that highlights NWS’ need to expend their resources on important tools rather than duplicating services and websites is NWS’ inadequacies during the 2004 hurricanes, such as Hurricane Charley. As Hurricane Charley hit southern Florida, the United States’ most sophisticated research aircraft for collecting data on hurricanes, two P-3 Orions, were nowhere near the eye of the storm. Instead they were studying monsoon effects in Mexico and air pollution in New Hampshire. Had the hurricane hunter planes studied the path of the storm, NWS could have helped to prevent the upheaval of many Floridians from their homes, and assisted the millions of Floridians impacted by the uncertainty of the path of a dangerous and deadly hurricane. The National Weather Service Duties Act asks NWS to restore their 14-year policy of non-competition with the private sector and get back to their core responsibilities of providing severe weather forecasts. The cost of receiving weather information will not change, and NWS will not cease dissemination of regular daily forecasts, weather information, and climate data. You will continue to receive weather services, and several hundred Pennsylvanians will keep their jobs. Most importantly, Pennsylvanians can be rest assured that NWS will be concentrating its efforts on public safety. I believe that is reason enough to support the National Weather Service Duties Act.
Not to sure if RichH is trying to be insulting or just heated, but most laws are not written in plain english. While Sen Santorum gets contributions from commercial interests, other Senators do too,so thats a non-issue I think, that's just business in Washington. * Mr. Landau, I think I agree with Franklin's reading of the bill, Section 2(f) pretty well defines products or sevices to include weather forecasts, Section 2(b) sez that they can't compete with the private sector unless the private sector is unwilling or unable to offer a product or service, and the bill insures that info they do issue shall be through data portals designed for volumn access by commercial providers (and other methods as the Sec of Commerce considers appropriate). I don't think I have taken anything out of context in my reading of this bill. The only current service that is protected by the bill is severe weather warnings. Every other service that the NWS has is up for commercialization. * Now both the press release and a couple of posters on this thread assure us that all of our free <well paid for by taxes> services will continue, but I see nothing in that bill that protects any of those services, and in plain english, I think that the assumption that it will be business as usual at the NWS after this bill is passed is wishful thinking. * Reading the plain english of Sen Santorum's bill, I see nothing about the issues mentioned in his news release (P3 Orion airplanes or Lake Erie weather forcasts) but it does seem to go far to ensure his district has 400 private sector jobs that depend on free weather data paid for by tax payers.
