[Senate Hearing 116-626]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 116-626

                       NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL
                 AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
                    THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND
                 THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           NOVEMBER 10, 2020

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                             


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-853 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                
                
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on November 10, 2020................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................     3
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    39
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    45
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    47
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    49
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    51
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    53
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    54

                               Witnesses

Dr. Greg Autry, Nominee to be Chief Financial Officer, National 
  Aeronautics and Space Administration...........................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Biographical information.....................................     7
Daniel Huff, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Legislative 
  Affairs, Department of Commerce................................    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Biographical information.....................................    21
Nathan Simington, Nominee to be a Commissioner, Federal 
  Communications Commission......................................    27
    Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Biographical information.....................................    30

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Greg Autry by:
    Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................    59
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................    62
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................    63
Response to written questions submitted to Daniel Huff by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    63
Response to written questions submitted to Nathan Simington by:
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    65
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    70
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    77
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    77
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................    83
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................    84

 
                       NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL
                 AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
                  THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND THE
                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2020

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in 
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Cruz, Fischer, 
Capito, Lee, Scott, Blumenthal, Markey, and Rosen.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order. Welcome. 
Today, the Committee will consider three nominations for 
important roles within the Committee's jurisdiction.
    The nominees before us today are Gregory Autry, the nominee 
for the Chief Financial Officer at the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration; Daniel Huff, who has been nominated to be 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Legislative Affairs; and 
Nathan Simington, nominated to be a Member of the Federal 
Communications Commission. Welcome to all three of you.
    The Chief Financial Officer at NASA is charged with 
overseeing financial and budgetary matters for the agency. Dr. 
Greg Autry has been nominated for this key role.
    Dr. Autry previously worked as a Professor at the 
University of Southern California and was the Director for the 
Pacific Commercial Space Flight Initiative from 2018 until 
2020.
    He currently serves as the Vice President of Space 
Development for the National Space Society. Since 2018, he has 
served--since 2018 he has served as a Member of the Commercial 
Space Transportation Advisory Committee, COMSTAC.
    In 2017, he served as the interim White House Liaison for 
NASA. Dr. Autry also has taught at Florida Tech International 
Space University Center for Space Entrepreneurship at the 
Kennedy Space Center, and that is a mouthful.
    Greg Autry received a BA in history and computer science 
from California Polytechnic University in 1999. Dr. Autry also 
received his MBA from the University of California Irvine in 
2002 and his Ph.D. in management, economics, and public policy 
in 2013 from the University of California Irvine's Paul Merage 
School of Business.
    The Department of Commerce has a wide range of policy areas 
within its portfolio and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce 
for Legislative Affairs is an important liaison between the 
department and Congress on all of them.
    Daniel Huff is the nominee for this position. Mr. Huff is 
currently serving as a detailee through the Office of 
Presidential Personnel in the Executive Office of the President 
where he works as an Advisor.
    When he began his service as a detailee this spring, Mr. 
Huff worked for the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
as the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of 
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity where he began working in 
the spring of 2019.
    However, his home agency employer recently became the 
Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration 
where he is now a Deputy Chief of Staff.
    From 2011 to 2019, Mr. Huff worked as a counsel at the U.S. 
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary and earlier 
in his career he worked as crime and terrorism counsel at the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
    He received his BA in mathematics, economics, and history 
from the University of Toronto in 2002 and his JD from Columbia 
Law School in 2005.
    The Federal Communications Commission is the Nation's 
independent government agency which regulates interstate and 
international communications matters.
    Mr. Nathan Simington has been nominated to serve as a 
member of the FCC for a term of 5 years. From July 1, 2019, Mr. 
Simington has been a senior advisor for the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, at the 
Department of Commerce since June 2020.
    Before joining the NTIA, Mr. Simington was senior corporate 
counsel for Bright Star Corporation in Miami, Florida, where 
his portfolio included wireless credit, mergers and 
acquisitions, tower services operations and logistics, head of 
security, and regulatory compliance. Prior to joining Bright 
Star, Mr. Simington practiced law as an associate at major law 
firms in Chicago and Washington.
    Nathan Simington graduated from Lawrence University in 2001 
with a Bachelor's degree in music and received Master's degrees 
from the University of Rochester in 2006 and 2007. In 2011, Mr. 
Simington received his JD degree from the University of 
Michigan Law School.
    I would like to thank all of the nominees for testifying 
today and for your willingness to serve in these positions, and 
as a matter of fact, some of you went to extra effort to 
testify in person and we very much appreciate that.
    I now turn to the Acting Ranking Member of the Committee, 
Senator Blumenthal, for his opening remarks. You are 
recognized, sir.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
having this hearing. Thank you to each of the nominees for your 
public service in the past and in the future. Never more 
important than we have public servants of integrity and ability 
in these kinds of very important positions.
    I want to focus on the FCC in particular. As all of us 
know, whether we are parents or teachers or involved in our 
education system, distance learning has been both a blessing 
and a curse.
    It has exposed huge inequities in our society from the 
homework gap, digital divide, and other kinds of needs that 
have not been addressed, quite simply, in providing distance 
learning for students during this pandemic. And there has been 
simply inadequate access which we need to remedy.
    We need to provide electronic devices and Internet access 
to low-income students or other students and young people and 
seniors.
    In Connecticut, a study by the Connecticut Conference of 
Municipalities recently showed that 36 percent of our seniors 
have no access to broadband connection. Thirty percent or more 
in communities of color have no sufficient access.
    The FCC needs to do more. After Hurricane Katrina, it did 
do more than it is doing now. The FCC took sweeping action to 
keep connected those whose lives had been upended by the 
disaster and it dedicated $200 million to fund connectivity 
efforts.
    I have advocated and so have many of my colleagues using 
Lifeline and E-Rate to do more.
    Mr. Simington, I suggest that that will be a very important 
challenge to you and the FCC, going forward, so far unmet.
    I also note that you were selected to replace Commissioner 
O'Reilly, whose nomination was pulled after he expressed some 
doubt about President Trump's Section 230 Executive Order.
    Commissioner O'Reilly told C-SPAN that he had, quote, 
``deep reservations''. They, meaning Congress, provided any 
intentional authority for the FCC on this matter, referring to 
Section 230.
    In a later speech, he appeared to challenge the Order on 
First Amendment grounds. But Chairman Pai and Commission Carr 
seemed to be intent on moving forward.
    I am very concerned that you have been sent to the FCC on a 
mission to execute that Order. In fact, President Trump tweeted 
just this afternoon, ``We need action now on this very 
important nomination.''
    As you may know, it is not that often that the President of 
the United States tweets about a nominee appearing before a 
Committee that very afternoon, which seems to make clear what 
he hopes and expects from you, which I think should trouble us 
on this Committee and in the Senate.
    The FCC cannot be simply an instrument of political policy 
or bullying. This Committee should take seriously the risk that 
the FCC will have diminished independence and, in fact, become 
a tool of the President, this President, for the next 70-plus 
days because that is how long he will be there, but possibly of 
the interest groups that have spurred the President's 
involvement in this issue.
    So I look forward to asking about these topics, but equally 
important the others who have been nominated as well to NASA 
and the Department of Commerce. These positions are extremely 
important and I hope that you too will preserve the 
independence of your agencies.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
    We are going to have opening statements in a moment. But 
there is a required question that I think we will get out of 
the way before we get into specific issues.
    The Committee has a history of asking nominees at the 
beginning of the nomination hearings to state for the record 
that they pledge to work with Congress and the Committee in a 
cooperative manner.
    So let me ask you specifically this question. If confirmed, 
will you pledge to work collaboratively with this Committee and 
provide thorough and timely responses to our requests for 
information as we work together to address this important--to 
address important policy issues?
    Dr. Autry?
    Mr. Autry. Certainly, that is critical.
    The Chairman. And Mr. Huff?
    Mr. Huff. Yes, certainly.
    The Chairman. And Mr. Simington?
    Mr. Simington. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. OK. Now, at this point, I guess we will begin 
with Dr. Autry. Your statements will be admitted into the 
record in full and you are recognized for five minutes to 
summarize your opening statement. So we welcome you here and 
eager to hear from you, sir.

                  STATEMENT OF DR. GREG AUTRY,

             NOMINEE TO BE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,

         NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. Autry. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, Acting Ranking Member Blumenthal, members of the 
Committee and your staff.
    It is an honor to be here, nominated by the President and 
considered by this august body for this important appointment. 
I am cognizant of the timing of this hearing and thank you 
again for being here under these circumstances.
    I would also like to thank my wife, Susan, and my son, 
Gage, for attending, and my stepdaughter, Kristin, who was 
unable to because of the restrictions.
    I was raised by a single mother under often difficult 
circumstances. Watching Neil and Buzz walk on the surface of 
the Moon pulled me from a confusing environment into a world of 
amazing possibilities.
    I saw a better future for myself, for our nation, and 
humanity. NASA's amazing scientific accomplishments in the 
robotic exploration of our solar system inspired my choice of a 
STEM career in computing. I founded a series of tech startups 
and worked as an engineer and a manager in the corporate world.
    Upon completing an MBA at UC Irvine's Merage School of 
Business, I was invited to join the faculty. I found I had a 
real passion for teaching management, entrepreneurship, and 
economics to engineers.
    I began researching the space industry in 2003. My Ph.D. 
thesis explored governmental influence on industry emergence 
within the space context.
    As a faculty member at USC's Marshall School of Business, 
my deep connection with America's traditional space firms and 
startups built a reputation as an expert researcher and 
commentator on the business of space.
    I have also been proud to advocate for human and civil 
rights in China, U.S. manufacturing jobs, and the protection of 
American intellectual property. I have helped many students 
secure space jobs.
    I have supported several in their applications to the 
Brooke Owens Fellowship, which provides mentoring for 
undergraduate women. I have also mentored many startups. One of 
these, Relativity Space, has raised over $175 million. They are 
using private capital to refurbish older test stands and 
buildings at NASA's Space Flight Center.
    Serving on the NASA Agency Review Team gave me the 
opportunity to delve deep into the agency's projects and 
accounting.
    Former NASA CFO David Radzanowski has written a letter to 
this committee, noting ``Dr. Autry understands the role of the 
CFO and its responsibilities. I believe you can count on him to 
continue to deliver the high-quality management, oversight, and 
reporting that has distinguished the Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer at NASA for the last decade.''
    The 1,800 employees in the Office of the CFO have been 
doing a great job under superb leaders. If confirmed, I look 
forward to joining Administrator Bridenstine and his excellent 
team in implementing the agency's ambitious goals.
    I have been an advocate for NASA's many fold missions 
including planetary exploration, astronomy, earth sciences, 
aircraft research, and human exploration. I have been a 
longtime supporter of the International Space Stations, COTS, 
and the commercial crew program.
    Reaching Mars via the Moon will require all that America 
has to offer. I have been a public supporter of all the 
components of the Artemis system including the Space Launch 
System, Orion Capsule, and Lunar Gateway.
    Artemis gives SLS/Orion a mission worthy of their 
capabilities, an issue that concerned me prior to the 
administration's bold commitment to deep space exploration and 
economic development of cis-lunar space.
    NASA's talents, the immense capabilities of its prime 
contractors, the innovative spirits of new startups are all 
part of national competitive advantage that will make this an 
American century in space, returning value to our taxpayers, 
and empowering humanity. This task demands innovative financial 
leadership that I am ready to provide.
    Why spend money in space when we have problems here on 
Earth? During Apollo, our Nation was engaged in an intractable 
cold war, a bloody ground conflict in Vietnam. There were 
bitter disagreements at home over the draft, civil rights, 
racial injustice, and women's equality.
    Several beloved American leaders were assassinated, 
protests roiled our campuses, and riots rocked our cities. The 
Hong Kong flu pandemic killed nearly 100,000 Americans in 1969.
    Among that chaos, NASA's moon landing stands as an iconic 
inspirational moment of those times. Space exploration shifted 
our tech sector into overdrive and gave us insights and 
solutions for our environmental challenges.
    The payback has been huge. America can afford to have a 
future. If I am confirmed as the CFO of NASA, I look forward to 
working with you to ensure that the funds required to build 
that future are wisely spent and accounted for in accordance 
with the appropriations of the U.S. Congress.
    Thank you again for your consideration. I hope you will 
move to confirm my nomination and I am eager to address any 
concerns or questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr. 
Autry follow:]

  Prepared Statement of Dr. Greg Autry, Nominee to be Chief Financial 
         Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the 
committee and staff.
    It is an honor to be here, nominated by the President and 
considered by this august body for this important appointment. I am 
cognizant of the timing of this hearing and thank you again for being 
here under these difficult circumstances. I'd also like to thank my 
wife Susan, daughter Kristen and son Gage for attending.
    I was raised by a single mother, under often difficult 
circumstances. Watching Neil and Buzz walk on the surface of the moon 
pulled me from a confusing environment into a world of remarkable 
possibilities. I saw a better future for myself, our Nation and 
humanity. NASA's amazing scientific accomplishments in the robotic 
exploration of our solar system inspired my choice of a STEM career in 
computing. I've founded a series of tech startups, selling a couple of 
them. I've worked as an engineer and manager in the corporate world.
    Upon completing an MBA at UC Irvine's Merage School of Business, I 
was invited to join the faculty. I found I had a real passion for 
teaching management, entrepreneurship and economics to engineers. I 
began researching the space industry in 2003. My PhD thesis explored 
governmental influence on industry emergence within the space context. 
As a faculty member at the University of Southern California's Marshall 
School of Business my deep connection with America's traditional space 
firms and startups built a reputation as an expert researcher and 
commentator on the business of space. I have also been proud to 
advocate for human and civil rights in China, U.S. manufacturing jobs 
and protection of America's valuable intellectual property.
    I've helped many students secure space jobs and internships. I have 
supported several in their applications to the Brooke Owens Fellowship, 
which provides mentoring for undergraduate women. I've also mentored 
many startups. One of these, Relativity Space, has raised over $175 
million. They are using private capital to revitalize older test stands 
and a derelict 200,000 square foot building at NASA's Stennis 
Spaceflight Center.
    Serving on the NASA Agency Review Team in 2016 gave me the 
opportunity to dive deep into the agency's projects and accounting. 
Former NASA CFO, David Radzanowski, has written a letter to this 
committee noting that, ``Dr. Autry understands the role of the CFO and 
its responsibilities . . . I believe you can count on him to continue 
to deliver the high-quality management, oversight and reporting that 
has distinguished the Office of the Chief Financial Officer at NASA 
over the last decade.''
    The 1,800 employees in the Office of the CFO have been doing an 
excellent job under superb leaders. If I am confirmed, I look forward 
to joining Administrator Bridenstine and his excellent team in 
implementing the agency's ambitious goals.
    I have been an advocate for NASA's manyfold missions including 
planetary exploration, astronomy, Earth sciences, aircraft research and 
human exploration. I've been a longtime supporter of the International 
Space Station, COTS and the commercial crew program.
    Reaching Mars, via the moon, will require all that America has to 
offer. I've been a public supporter of all the components of the 
Artemis program including the Space Launch System, Orion Capsule and 
the Lunar Gateway. Artemis gives SLS/Orion a mission worthy of their 
capabilities, an issue that did concern me prior to this 
administration's bold commitment to deep space exploration and economic 
development of cis-lunar space. NASA's talent, the immense capabilities 
of its prime contractors and the innovative spirit of new startups are 
all a part of the national competitive advantage that will make this an 
``American Century in Space,'' returning value to our taxpayers and 
empowering humanity. This task demands innovative financial leadership, 
that I am ready to provide.
    Why spend money in space when we have problems here on Earth? 
During Apollo, our Nation was engaged in an intractable Cold War and a 
bloody ground conflict in Vietnam. There were bitter disagreements at 
home over the draft, civil rights, racial injustice and women's 
equality. Several beloved American leaders were assassinated. Protests 
roiled campuses and riots rocked our cities. The Hong Kong flu pandemic 
killed nearly 100,000 Americans. Amongst that chaos, NASA's moon 
landing stands as the iconic inspirational moment of those times. Space 
exploration shifted our tech sector into overdrive and gave us both 
insights into and solutions for our environmental challenges. The 
payback has been huge. America can afford to have a future. If I am 
confirmed as the CFO of NASA, I look forward to working with you to 
ensure that the funds required to build that future are wisely spent 
and accounted for in accordance with the appropriations of the United 
States Congress.
    Thank you again for your consideration. I hope you will move to 
confirm my nomination. I am eager to address any concerns or questions 
you may have.
                                 ______
                                 
                      a. biographical information
    1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Gregory 
Willard Autry, Greg Autry, Greg W. Autry.
    2. Position to which nominated: Chief Financial Officer, NASA.
    3. Date of Nomination: July 21, 2020.
    4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

        Residence: Information not released to the public.
        Office: Information not provided.

    5. Date and Place of Birth: April 25, 1963; Torrance, CA.
    6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your 
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including 
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).

        Susan Autry, wife, Retired Public School Principal.

        Gage Autry, son, 23, Student, University of Southern 
        California, Major. Accounting. Graduated June 2020. Part time 
        employment at Elevated Materials, bookkeeping, customer 
        service. Currently applying for USAF Office Training School.

        Kristen Wilkens, step-daughter, 42, Art Professor, Librarian.

    7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school 
attended.

        PhD 2013--University of California, Irvine, The Paul Merage 
        School of Business. Management (focus Economics & Public 
        Policy)

        MA 2002--University of California, Irvine, The Paul Merage 
        School of Business. Masters in Business Administration

        BA 1999--California Polytechnic University, Pomona. History

        Incomplete (BS) 1982--University of California, Irvine. 
        Computer Science (left school to pursue entrepreneurial 
        ventures in technology)

    8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all 
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to 
the position for which you are nominated.

        Interim White House Liaison, National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration (NASA), Temporary Presidential Appointment. 
        January, February 2017

        Founder, Southern California Commercial Spaceflight Initiative
        University of Southern California. 2018 to present

        Assistant Clinical Professor
        University of Southern California, Lloyd Greif Center for 
        Entrepreneurial Studies, Marshall School of Business. August 
        2014 to present

        CEO, Network Corps
        Enterprise application development firm focused on Health Care 
        solutions for Kaiser Permanente. Apple authorized developer. 
        (Sold network-engineering division to Enhanced Technologies)
        January 1997-August 2014

        CEO, Wired Images
        Digital Web Content production for Internet retailers, sold to 
        PlanetRx.com. 1999-2000

        Technical Services Manager, CompuCom Systems
        Managed service operations for IT solutions at CompuCom after 
        they acquired my startup (Riverside Doctor Micro). 1994-1997

        CEO, Riverside Doctor Micro Computer Services
        Apple authorized dealer and Computer services firm sold to 
        CompuCom Systems (NASDAQ: CMPC) in 1994. 1986-1994

        Programmer, Hemascience Labs/Baxter Fenwal
        Software development for medical device. 1985-1986

        Software Engineer, Honeywell Training and Control Systems 
        Division
        Software for production engineering on various military 
        projects. 1984-1985

        Manager, Bronco Computer Store, Cal Poly Pomona
        Established campus computer store at the university. 1984

        CoFounder & CEO, HAL LABS
        Entertainment Software developer. Founded in high-school, this 
        firm developed Atarisoft PAC MAN for Apple II and was 
        eventually reorganized by my partner as Future Point and sold 
        to Blizzard Entertainment. 1981-1994 (full time 1981-1983)

    9. Attach a copy of your resume. Attached
    10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time 
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other 
than those listed above, within the last ten years.

        Member, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 
        (COMSTAC), a Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) within DoT. 
        2018-2019. Reappointed 2020-2022

    11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, 
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise, 
educational, or other institution within the last ten years.

        President, Greg Autry Consulting Group, LLC 2019-

        President, Netcrew Inc (DBA Network Corps) 1994-2014

        Secretary, 121c inc (DBA Elevated Materials) 2015-2016

        Board Member, 121c inc (DBA Elevated Materials) 2015-

        Advisor, Relativity Space, 2019-

        Editorial Board, New Space Journal, 2015 to current

        Presidential Transition Team NASA Agency Review Team, 2016-2017

        Advisory Council on Sustainability Education, University of 
        California Irvine, 2012-2013

        Leader, U.S. Young Scholar & Experts Delegation to the Republic 
        of China (Taiwan), 2012

    12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten 
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, 
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or 
religiously affiliated organization, private club, or other membership 
organization. (For this question, you do not have to list your 
religious affiliation or membership in a religious house of worship or 
institution.). Include dates of membership and any positions you have 
held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or 
organization restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, 
religion, national origin, age, or disability.

        Republican Party (registered voter)

        National Space Society, 2017, Board Member, VP

        Coalition for a Prosperous America, 2018-, Advisory board

        American Jobs Alliance, 2012-2016, Board member

        Sigma Eta Pi, 2016--faculty advisor, student entrepreneurship 
        club

        Member, Committee on the Present Danger, China 2020-

        Board of Directors, National Space Society, 2018-2020

        Vice President of Space development, National Space Society, 
        2019-

        Advisory Board, Coalition for a Prosperous America, 2017-

        Board Member, American Jobs Alliance, 2012-2016

    I would never join or support any organization that restricted 
membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, 
age, or disability.
    13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office 
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any 
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are 
personally liable for that debt.
    I have not been a candidate for an elected public office.
    14. List all memberships and offices held with and services 
rendered to, whether compensated or not, any political party or 
election committee within the past ten years. If you have held a paid 
position or served in a formal or official advisory position (whether 
compensated or not) in a political campaign within the past ten years, 
identify the particulars of the campaign, including the candidate, year 
of the campaign, and your title and responsibilities.
    Republican Party (registered voter)
    15. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $500 or more for the past ten years.

        Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R, CA) 2011--$250, 2013--$400, 2014--
        $400, 2014--$400, 2016--$400, 2018--$400.

        I hosted a small fund raiser at my home for Rep. Rohrabacher in 
        May of 2018.

        Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) 2018--$400 (from memory, don't find 
        this online)

        Rep. John Culberson (R, TX) 2018--$500

        Mark Takano (D, CA) 2013--$50

        Chris Hearsey for Congress (D primary MD) 2016--$49

    16. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    I was elected President of my PhD cohort in 2008.
    17. Please list each book, article, column, Internet blog posting, 
or other publication you have authored, individually or with others. 
Include a link to each publication when possible. Also list any 
speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for 
which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of these 
publications unless otherwise instructed.
    I'm a prolific writer and speaker. I have spent some time reviewing 
and hired a research assistant to help me compile a list, attached.
    18. List digital platforms (including social media and other 
digital content sites) on which you currently or have formerly operated 
an account, regardless of whether or not the account was held in your 
name or an alias. Include the name of an ``alias'' or ``handle'' you 
have used on each of the named platforms. Indicate whether the account 
is active, deleted, or dormant. Include a link to each account if 
possible.

        Facebook:
        GregWAutry https://www.facebook.com/gregwautry/
        Greg.Autry1 https://www.facebook.com/greg.autry1
        Active

        Instagram
        GregWAutry https://www.instagram.com/gregwautry/
        Active
        (do NOT confuse me with gregautry.cga)

        Twitter:
        @GregWAutry https://twitter.com/GregWAutry
        Active
        (do NOT confuse me with @CGAGreg)

    19. Please identify each instance in which you have testified 
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each 
testimony.

        March 21, 2013, Cyber Attacks: An Unprecedented Threat to U.S. 
        National Security, Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and 
        Emerging Threats, House Foreign Affairs Committee

        March 28, 2012, The Price of Public Diplomacy with China, 
        Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Foreign 
        Affairs Committee.

    20. Given the current mission, major programs, and major 
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been 
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you 
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for 
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that 
position?
    During my service on the NASA Agency Review Team and as interim 
White House Liaison, I spent three months of 7-day weeks, reviewing 
every program and budget within the space agency along with a team of 
experts. I had access to the agency's internal financial documents as 
well as well as its leadership and staff. I was briefed directly by and 
spent time with NASA CFO, David Radzinowski. I worked closely with Greg 
Kennedy, who served as interim CFO as a member of the Trump ``Beachhead 
Team'' in 2017. I remain friends with both Mr. Radzinowski and Mr. 
Kennedy to this day and have their expertise and experience to call on 
at any time. I am well acquainted with NASA's previous and current 
leadership including the Administrator, whom I knew well before he was 
appointed to that position. I am also acquainted with the leadership at 
most of the NASA centers.
    I have two decades of research and service within the space 
industry. I publish frequently and am often a featured speaker at space 
related conferences. This has provided me with a unique standing in the 
industry and already have good working relationships with the 
executives and representatives of NASA's major vendors. I've also had 
the opportunity to work with many other agencies in the space arena 
such as FAA's Office of Space Transportation, the Office of Space 
Commerce in the Dept. of Commerce and the National Space Council. I 
have worked with Members of Congress and their staffs on space policy 
issues. I have visited the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japanese 
Agency (JAXA) as well and have cordial relationships there. I believe I 
am well respected by almost all the stakeholders that care critical to 
the success of NASA. These are relationships most new CFOs would need 
to spend years cultivating. A head start on that relationship building 
will move the agency forward quickly, at a time when it has a very 
aggressive goal of placing astronauts on the Moon by 2024.
    Our NASA Agency Review Team established an outline for the White 
House's NASA budget priorities. As NASA's White House Liaison and a 
member of the ``Beachhead Team'' I assisted in preparing the 2018 White 
House budget request for NASA. This included meeting with OMB and 
negotiating budget items. I also met with members and staff of 
appropriations, commerce and technology committees in the House and 
Senate to discuss the agency's requirements and their priorities.
    I hold a Masters in Business Administration degree and a PhD in 
Management with an emphasis in Economics and Public Policy and in 
Strategy. I have 18 years of experience teaching and mentoring business 
students. Many of these students are executives or managers at large 
firms. My expertise has been in assisting commercial space startups. A 
firm founded by two students I've mentored, Relativity Space, has 
raised over $175m in venture financing.
    I've served for two years on the Commercial Space Transportation 
Committee, FACA at FAA. COMSTAC provides input to the FAA's Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (AST) on rulemaking and industry 
promotion. I currently chair the Safety Working Group, which is 
compiling recommendations for industry guidelines and best practices in 
protecting the private civilian passengers on soon to be flying U.S. 
commercial spacecraft.
    21. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to 
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting 
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large 
organization?
    Pursuant to the Chief Financial Officer's Act, an Agency CFO is 
statutorily empowered to ``direct, manage and provide policy guidance 
and oversight of agency financial management personnel, operations and 
activities'' of their agencies. Managing the team responsible for this 
work is the primary function of the CFO. The OCFO is composed of a team 
of civil service professionals including three Deputy CFOs and an 
Associate Deputy CFO. Each NASA center (research facilities around the 
country) has a Center CFO and staff. The professional expertise of 
these individuals in governmental cost accounting and in managing the 
uniquely high-risk programs is substantial. As Chief Financial Officer, 
it would be my responsibility to Manage the Office of the CFO and it's 
activities across NASA Headquarters, nice NASA Centers, the NASA Shared 
Services Center and one Federally Funded Research and Development 
Center (JPL).
    The most important specific tasks of the NASA OCFO are:

        Providing accurate, timely and actionable budget and financial 
        information to the Office of the Administrator, to the heads of 
        the Mission Directorates and to the Center Directors.

        Ensuring agency compliance with Federal Law and Generally 
        Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Federal Account 
        Standards Board (FASAB) standards.

        Ensuring agency systems and internal controls are compliant 
        with the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), OMB 
        circular A-123 and the Digital Accountability and Transparency 
        Act.

        Providing accurate budget and financial information to the 
        White House, OMB, Congress and public through the President's 
        Annual budget, NASA's four-year strategic plan, annual 
        financial reports and performance plans and in response to 
        specific requests.

        Working with the Executive Office of the President and OMB to 
        develop the President's budget and subsequently with Congress 
        for budget approval. The OCFO includes a Agency Appropriations 
        Liaison specifically tasked for working with the House and 
        Senate Appropriations Committees and Budget Committees.

        Providing tools and research to support NASA mission 
        development and operations over extended timelines in areas 
        such as cost estimation, joint confidence levels (cost and 
        schedule forecasting), independent program assessments and 
        enterprise risk management. Risk management at NASA is a 
        singularly important endeavor and crosses many domains 
        including the financial. It is important to note that nearly 
        every program at NASA is, by the nature of the agency, an 
        attempt to accomplish something that has never been previously 
        attempted by any organization. While our space agency is 
        renowned for its incredible successes, planning and conducting 
        operations hundreds or even millions of miles from Earth will 
        not always go as planned. The anticipated failure rate of 
        programs at NASA is much higher than at most governmental 
        agencies. It is also important to recognize that NASA risk 
        management often incorporates human safety elements, 
        particularly in the Human Exploration Mission Directorate.

    Most NASA programs are multi-year efforts and several span decades. 
Delays and budget overruns, while always undesirable, are not 
surprisingly common with NASA programs. Providing continuity to long-
run programs and managing down fanatical risk without impeding 
innovation or increasing risk to human safety is a task unique to the 
NASA CFO. NASA greatly improved its financial reporting and recent 
agency audits have praised the agency's efforts.
    I've had professional experience working in and managing budgets in 
organizations both large and small; from $100,000 to $300 million. Most 
budget principals scale to larger baselines. The majority of my 
experience has been in entrepreneurial ventures and small businesses 
and startups and I view that as a positive. The goal at NASA today 
should not be to keep the traditional, large organizational bureaucracy 
on course but to do more with less and to do it faster. The practical 
and responsive nature of dynamic startup organizations is a perspective 
badly needed in governmental agencies in general and in keeping with 
the innovative nature of this administration and the space agency 
itself.
    I have worked within large organizations including the University 
of California system, the University of Southern California. In 2017, I 
worked at NASA Headquarters coordinating 2018 NASA budget request with 
the White House and OMB. This included meeting with Congressional and 
Senate appropriations staff.
    In the private sector I've been employed by two multinational 
corporations, Baxter (Healthcare) and Honeywell. At CompuCom systems I 
worked with the approximately $300 million budget for Southern 
California operations within a $2 billion budget. I also directed 
service teams in multiple locations across the Western United States. 
While the services personnel reported to me through my local managers, 
constant coordination was also required with the independent sales 
managers at each location.
    22. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the 
department/agency, and why?
#1 The Budget
    There has never been a more important time for strategic, space 
savvy leadership in NASA Office of the CFO. The agency is facing its 
biggest financial management challenge since the days of booming 
budgets under the Apollo program. NASA has been blessed with visionary 
support from President Trump and Vice President Pence. They have 
assembled a highly regarded space leadership team at NASA, the National 
Space Council, DoD, OSTP and Commerce. The White House has also issued 
an aggressive set of space policy directives and established ambitious 
goals for NASA. These goals include a sustainable human return to the 
Moon with the first landing in 2024. They have also called for the 
commercialization of Low Earth Orbit (LEO Commercialization) and of 
lunar resources. These goals are to be achieved with the increased use 
of public-private partnerships, cross agency cooperation (NSC, DoT, 
FCC, Commerce) as well as increased engagement with and financial 
support from our international partners.
    NASA has received strong bipartisan support for its work on these 
missions and the agency's budget has received the first significant 
increase in nearly thirty years. In nominal terms the NASA budget 
remained nearly flat between 1992 and 2024 at approximately $19 
billion. However, without adjustment for inflation or the growth of 
government NASA's share of total Federal spending fell by more than 
half, from approximately 1 percent to just 0.42 percent. The White 
House 2020 NASA budget request was $22.619 billion, and Congress passed 
a $22.629 billion budget, which was signed by the President in December 
2019. The President has requested $25.246 billion for FY 2021.
    While the budget is larger the goals are even bigger. 
``Accomplishing a whole lot more, with just slightly more,'' must be 
the agency's mantra. The White House, Senate and House all have 
slightly different priorities. The NASA Administrator and CFO are often 
in the crosshairs of the fine points of those differences. Meeting the 
White House's ambitious goals while maintaining all the programs that 
the Congress demands be kept will not be easy to do, nor to explain 
even in the best of circumstances. The agency has wisely leveraged 
private sector investments to lower NASA's investment and risk via 
carefully structured RFPs for the Lunar Gateway and the Human Landing 
Systems (HLS). Managing these public-private partnerships effectively 
will be crucial to the success of this program and the OCFO will play a 
key role in that process.
    The recent COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic impacts make 
these far from the best of times to conduct an ambitious space 
exploration program. Framing the NASA mission within the realm of 
national R&D and infrastructure development is critical. I have done a 
great deal of writing and speaking on the ways in which the space 
investments of the 1960s and 1970s fueled the technology driven 
economic expansions of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. The Congress and the 
American public must see the immediate benefits in employment and the 
future economic growth associated with NASA's work.
#2 Getting to the Moon by 2024
    NASA's headline Artemis program must make rapid, visible progress 
in fulling the Vice President's ambitious directive to place the first 
woman and next man on the lunar surface by 2024. Significant delays or 
failures in this program, could put the agency's reputation at risk and 
undermine public support,
    Over the last two decades, the agency has suffered a series of 
high-profile delays, embarrassments and program cancellations. George 
W. Bush's Constellation Program was canceled by an Obama White House 
that saw it as behind schedule and over budget. Tepid support from the 
Obama White House, under funding and vendor management issues resulted 
in delays on development of HEOMDs primary exploration tools, the Space 
Launch System and the Orion Deep Space Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. 
Reduced Congressional funding and vendor management issues resulted in 
delays for the Commercial Crew systems designed to return Americans to 
the International Space Station on U.S. rockets and space craft. The 
Obama White House's Asteroid Redirect Mission was also canceled by the 
incoming Trump team at the recommendation of the Agency Review Team I 
served upon.
    I have great confidence that NASA can transcend this recent 
history. The agency enjoys a growing budget, bipartisan congressional 
support and a very strong new leadership team. Administrator 
Bridenstine has demonstrated the agency's new sense of alacrity and 
commercial savvy in last year's awards for the Lunar Gateway Power 
Propulsion Element (PPE) and Minimal Habitat (MHM). Newly appointed 
Associate Administrator Doug Loverro has followed that path with the 
selection of three Human Landing System (HLS) systems. The Office of 
the CFO will play a critical role in securing and managing the funds 
required to complete the Artemis landing, safely and on schedule.
    The cooperation of America's best international partners will also 
be required to make Artemis a success. Associate Administrator Gold has 
been doing great work in that regard with the Japanese and European 
Space Agencies. Ensuring that our international partners deliver 
funding and real value rather than seeing American taxpayers 
subsidizing foreign astronauts will be a critical oversight function of 
the OCFO.
#3 Enabling Commercialization
    The Space economy is already over $350 billion annually and 
projections from Bank of America suggest it will grow to $2.7 trillion 
over the next two decades, or roughly the size of the UK economy. The 
White House, with broad Congressional support, has called for 
Commercializing Low Earth Orbit and the development of lunar resources. 
NASA plays a leading role in making this happen and stands to benefit 
from cheaper commercial solutions in space transportation, logistics 
and communications.
    LEO commercialization is case where a relatively small amount of 
well-placed NASA funding. Doing so will leverage existing industry 
capabilities and attract new private investments that will fulfill both 
NASA mission requirements and produce sustainable new capabilities and 
infrastructure in the growing space economy. The retirement of the 
International Space Station, sometime between 2025 and 2030 poses a 
challenge for NASA's access to Low Earth orbit, a vital location for 
experimentation and potentially for departure of future space 
exploration systems. Abandoning human LEO activities to our 
international competitors is not a viable geopolitical choice. 
Successfully commercializing operations there will free the agency and 
its budget for deep space exploration at the Moon and eventually on 
Mars.
    NASA's efforts to spark commercial efforts aboard the ISS National 
Laboratory via its support of the Center for the Advancement of Science 
in Space (CASIS) have been slow and at times, troubled. It is critical 
that NASA effectively assist in the transition to commercial space 
services in LEO, lead by American firms, without getting bogged down in 
the attempt to force the creation of markets or lured into picking the 
winners or losers in that market.
                   b. potential conflicts of interest
    1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation 
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates, 
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement 
accounts.
    Outside of my teaching for USC and International Space University/
Florida Tech (summer), I am occasionally paid small amounts ($100-$300) 
when I publish in Foreign Policy or the LA Times. This totaled less 
than $2,000 for 2019. I'm a regular Forbes Contributor and they have an 
agreement to pay for articles. I've not received any monies and I don't 
anticipate it would exceed $1,000 a year at this point.
    I am occasionally paid for speaking to groups in public or private 
venues or for webinars/conference calls. The paid speeches are 
typically on Global Trade and China relations and audiences are usually 
corporate executives or investment professionals trying to understand 
the shifting trade landscape. (I'm never paid for speaking on space at 
conferences).
    I have worked several times with Signum Global a US-UK advisory 
group. There is no formal agreement, but I am typically paid $1,000 to 
$1,500 for a phone call and $3,000 to $5,000 plus travel for a personal 
appearance.
    I would cease all these relationships upon nomination. There should 
be no linger entanglements.
    2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, 
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business, 
association or other organization during your appointment? If so, 
please explain.
    No. I would resign from all such positions upon nomination.
    3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other 
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in 
the position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you will 
resolve each potential conflict of interest.
    I am an investor in 121C Inc. (DBA Elevated Materials). The firm 
upcycles Carbon Fiber waste from the aerospace industry into various 
products (skateboards, drone frames, drums). I am not involved in daily 
operations, but I do advise on business strategy and have assisted with 
investor and supplier relationships. The company does regular business 
with Toray, SpaceX, Virgin Orbit and Virgin Galactic. It has done work 
and is positioning to increase business with most other aerospace firms 
and suppliers including Boeing and Northrup Grumman. I don't see any 
direct conflict of interest--the scrap upcycling is not of financial 
interest to NASA and is broadly supported by all aerospace firms. 
However, I would remove myself from my advisory role and any other 
functions with the firm.
    4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for 
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in 
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the 
position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you will resolve 
each potential conflict of interest.
    I don't see any such situation.
    5. Identify any other potential conflicts of interest and explain 
how you will resolve each potential conflict of interest.
    I have directed a Southern California Commercial Spaceflight 
Initiative at the University of Southern California which has received 
contributions from the space industry in cash and in kind of about 
$40,000 for the period 2018-2019. The funds are primarily used in 
support of a small annual academic workshop. For reasons internal to 
USC the Initiative has not be active in 2020. I don't really see this 
as a conflict of interest, but I would cease my relationship with that 
effort for practical reasons. Either another professor would take up 
the effort or it would be suspended, and remaining funds returned to 
the donors or allocated to other university projects supporting 
students and aligned with their wishes.
    6. Describe any activity during the past ten years, including the 
names of clients represented, in which you have been engaged for the 
purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or 
modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and 
execution of law or public policy.
    I have worked for free as an advocate for trade reform and 
commercial space legislation. Specifically, I helped the Coalition for 
a Prosperous America oppose the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) trade 
agreement. This involved writing, speaking and visiting with Members of 
Congress and their staff. I was never paid or compensated. My airfare 
and hotel were occasionally covered. Coach, and hotels less than $200/
night.
    I worked independently as a concerned citizen in support of 
increased NASA budgets and the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness 
Act of 2015 (CSLA). I met with Members of Congress and their staff to 
discuss these issues. Several members of the House Science and 
Technology Committee in particular, have respected my input on matters 
of U.S. national competitiveness in space and were willing to meet with 
me individually. I was acting purely as a concerned citizen and not 
paid nor guided by any organization or firm.
    Neither of these activities were partisan in nature. Both my 
efforts were successful with broad, bi-partisan support. In the space 
arena in particular, there was virtually no opposition to the Cruz-
Nelson supported CSLA.
                            c. legal matters
    1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics, 
professional misconduct, or retaliation by, or been the subject of a 
complaint to, any court, administrative agency, the Office of Special 
Counsel, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other 
professional group? If yes:

  a.  Provide the name of agency, association, committee, or group;

  b.  Provide the date the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or 
        personnel action was issued or initiated;

  c.  Describe the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or 
        personnel action;

  d.  Provide the results of the citation, disciplinary action, 
        complaint, or personnel action.
    No.
    2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by 
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, 
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic 
offense? If so, please explain. No.
    3. Have you or any business or nonprofit of which you are or were 
an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency 
proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation? If so, please 
explain.
    I had a business dispute that was settled in arbitration in 1994.
    4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, please explain. No.
    5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual 
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or 
any other basis? If so, please explain. No.
    6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in 
connection with your nomination.
    I cannot think of any specifically.
                     d. relationship with committee
    1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with 
deadlines for information set by congressional committees, and that 
your department/agency endeavors to timely comply with requests for 
information from individual Members of Congress, including requests 
from members in the minority? Yes.
    2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can 
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal 
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
    3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested 
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with 
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
    4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly 
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be 
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
                      Greg Autry--Curriculum Vitae
Education

PhD 2013                  University of California, Irvine, The Paul
                           Merage School of Business
                          Management, Economics & Public Policy (+
                           Strategy Comprehensive)
 
MBA 2002                  University of California, Irvine, The Paul
                           Merage School of Business
 
BA 1999                   California Polytechnic University, Pomona
                          History (+ 72 units of Computer Science)
 

Academic/Governmental/Non-Profit Experience
Director, Pacific Commercial Spaceflight Initiative, Aldrin Space 
Institute 2018-Current (formerly the Southern California Commercial 
Space Flight Initiative at the University of Southern California)

Adjunct Professor, Florida Tech/International Space University Center 
for Space Entrepreneurship, June 2019-Current (summer entrepreneurship 
course at Kennedy Space Center)

Assistant Clinical Professor, University of Southern California, Lloyd 
Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Marshall School of Business. 
August 2014-July 2020

Vice President of Space Development, National Space Society, 2018-
Current

Chair, Safety Working Group of the U.S. Commercial Space Transportation 
Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), FAA, Two-Year appointment by Secretary of 
Transportation as a Special Government Employee (SGE) to Federal 
Advisory Committee (FACA). Reappointed for additional two-year term, 
April 2020 and appointed Chair of Safety Working Group, May 2018-
Current

Member, Presidential Transition Agency Review Team, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), December 9, 2016-January 
20, 2017

Interim White House Liaison, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA), Temporary Presidential Appointment. January 20-
February 24, 2017

Adjunct Professor, Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, 
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. August 
2013-June 2014

Adjunct Lecturer, Paul Merage School of Business, University of 
California, Irvine. 2003-2014

Adjunct Lecturer, Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman 
University. Spring 2013
Entrepreneurial and Professional Experience
CEO, Network Corps
Enterprise application development firm focused on Health Care 
solutions for Kaiser Permanente. Apple authorized developer. (Sold 
network-engineering division to Enhanced Technologies) January 1997-
August 2014

CEO, Wired Images
Digital Web Content production for Internet retailers, sold to 
PlanetRx.com. 1999-2000

Technical Services Manager, CompuCom Systems
Managed service operations for IT solutions at CompuCom after being 
acquired. 1994-1997

CEO, Riverside Doctor Micro Computer Services
Apple authorized dealer and Computer services firm sold to CompuCom 
Systems (NASDAQ: CMPC) in 1994. 1986-1994

Programmer, Hemascience Labs/Baxter Fenwal
Software development for medical device. 1984-1986

Software Engineer, Honeywell Training and Control Systems Division
Software for production engineering on various military projects. 1983-
1984

CoFounder & CEO, HAL LABS
Entertainment Software developer. Founded in high-school, this firm 
developed Atarisoft PAC MAN for Apple II and was eventually reorganized 
by my partner as Future Point and sold to Blizzard Entertainment. 1981-
1994
Boards and Service
Advisor, Relativity Space
Have advised former USC students Jordan Noone and Tim Ellis since the 
founding of their 3D Printed Rocket startup. Signed as official Advisor 
in 2019. Firm has raised over $175m to date.

Member, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), 
2018-Current
Federal Advisory Committee within FAA. Appointed by Elaine Chao, 
Secretary of Transportation, 2018. Reappointed by Secretary Chao, 2020.

Member of the Board, National Space Society
World's largest non-profit advocacy organization for space settlement. 
Founded by Werner von Braun (NSI) and Gerard K. O'Neill (L5). 2018-2020

Board Member, Interstellar Labs
New Space Startup headquartered in Paris, France. Dedicated to 
producing enhanced environmental control and life support systems 
(ECLSS) via a closed environment habitat (biodome) research and eco-
tourist destination. Facilities targeted for construction in Mojave 
California and Kennedy Space Center. 2019-Current

Board Chair, 121C Inc./Elevated Materials
Commercial spacecraft carbon fiber upcycling. Manufacturers consumer 
products including three successful Kickstarter campaigns. USC Student 
startup. Raised over $1.5million in private investment. 2014-Current

Chair, Southern California Commercial Spaceflight Initiative Workshop, 
Los Angeles, CA. October 2019
Speakers I recruited included: Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast (USAF ret.); Kevin 
O'Connell, Director of the Office of Space Commerce; Brigadier General 
Steven Butow, Defense Innovation Unit.

Chair, International Space Development Conference 2019, Washington, 
D.C., Jul. 2019
Speakers I recruited included: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. NASA 
Associate Administrator for Science Mission Directorate Thomas 
Zurbuchen, National Space Council Executive Secretary Scott Pace.

Editorial Board, New Space Journal, 2015-current

Advisory Board Member, Coalition for a Prosperous America, 2017-Current

Board Member, China California Heart Watch, 2011-2012

Board Member, American Jobs Alliance, 2012-2016

Member, White House Presidential Transition Team (NASA) 2016-2017

Senior Economist, Coalition for a Prosperous America, 2013-2016

Member, Advisory Council on Sustainability Education, University of 
California Irvine, 2012-2013

Leader, U.S. Young Scholar & Experts Delegation to the Republic of 
China (Taiwan), 2012

PhD Class President, The Paul Merage School of Business, University of 
California, Irvine, 2008
PhD Dissertation
Title: Governmental Roles in the Emergence of New Communities of High 
Technology Organizations

Committee: Peter Navarro, Claudia Bird Schoonhoven, Yan Gong

Proposal Defended: July 18, 2012; Dissertation Defended: July 25, 2013 
PhD Awarded: September 2013

Description: This dissertation examined the government influence on the 
environment in which a new community of entrepreneurial organizations 
emerges. The research context is New Space, entrepreneurial firms 
pursuing commercial space launch, satellite and related businesses. 
This dissertation contributes to the entrepreneurship, community 
ecology and institutional theory literatures.
Research Interests
Governmental influence on entrepreneurial environments

Commercial spaceflight and UAS policy

Innovation policy, trade policy, technology transfer and national 
competitive advantage
Publications
Selected Published Academic Papers and Case Studies
Bhattacharya, B., Autry, G & Perry V. 2020 ``Rocketing into the Future 
of Manufacturing'', Harvard Business School Publishing Case Catalog

Autry, G. & Obasaju, L. 2018 ``Mojave Spaceport: Entrepreneurship in 
the Public Sector'', Harvard Business School Publishing Case Catalog

Autry, G. September 2018. ``Commercial Orbital Transportation Services: 
A Case Study for National Industrial Policy,'' New Space Journal. Vol. 
6, No. 3.

Autry, G., Huang, L. 2014. ``An Analysis of the Competitive Advantage 
of the United States of America in Commercial Orbital Human 
Spaceflight,'' New Space Journal. 2(2): 83-110 Based on research 
commissioned by the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation

Autry, G., Huang, L. 2016 Strawther, Zhu, ``XCOR Aerospace: New Space, 
New Place?'', Harvard Business School Publishing Case Catalog

Autry, G., Huang L., Dann, Kim, Siward, ``RelishMIX: Building Social 
Media Management Tools for Hollywood'', Harvard Business School 
Publishing Case Catalog

Autry, G. 2011. ``Space Policy, Intergenerational Ethics and the 
Environment,'' Proceedings of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics Annual Conference (SPACE 2011), AIAA 2011-7033
Academic Conference Papers and Presentations
Autry, G. and Davidian, K. 2019, ``Process Approach for Organizational 
Change and Innovation Research'', Research Caucus, Academy of 
Management Conference, Boston MA. Panel: Andy Van de Ven, Jennifer 
Woolley, Andy Aldrin

Autry, G. and Davidian, K. 2014 ``Overview of U.S. National Competitive 
Advantage in Human Orbital Spaceflight,'' Proceedings of the American 
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Annual Conference (SPACE 
2014)

Huang, L. and Autry, G. ``Rebels with a Cause: Perceptions, Beliefs, 
and the Coopetitive Dynamics of Entrepreneurs in the Emergence of the 
New Space Industry,'' This paper was accepted for presentation at the 
2014 Babson College Entrepreneurial Research Conference
Published Book
Navarro, P. and Autry, G. 2011. Death by China: Confronting the Dragon, 
A Global Call to Action. Prentice Hall/Pearson. Amazon Bestsellers Rank 
(4/25/2018): #3 International Economics, #5 Political Freedom, #1 Trade 
& Tariffs
Textbook Contracted for Publication
Autry, G. Small Business Management: The New Entrepreneurial Dynamic. 
Proposal was peer reviewed and has been accepted for publication by 
Flatworld. The anticipated publication date is Fall 2020
Book in Progress
Autry, G. The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth: The Entrepreneurial Space 
Race. This book will survey the entrepreneurial teams creating 
spacecraft technology startups in the emerging community known as ``New 
Space''
Selected Business Press Articles
Autry, G. September 20, 2019 ``President Trump's China Policy is 
Working, but You'd Never Know if From the Media Reports,'' LA Times

Autry, G. June 20, 2019 ``Space Research Can Save the Planet--Again,'' 
Foreign Policy

Aldrin B. and Autry, G. September 20, 2017 ``It doesn't take a rocket 
scientist to run NASA'', Space News

Autry, G. 2012 ``New Space'', Global Trade: 82-91

Autry, G. and Navarro P. 2009 ``Leveraging Business Cycle Ups and 
Downs,'' Financial Executive Magazine: 36-41

Forbes Contributor (regular)

Numerous other pieces in: Space News, The San Francisco Chronicle, The 
Los Angeles Times, The Orange County Register, The Baltimore Sun, 
Huffington Post
Documentary Film
Navarro, P. (Director); Addis, M.; Autry, G.; Zarinko, J.; (Producers); 
Sheen, Martin (narrator), Death by China, 2012
Selected Conference Presentations and Panels

``China U.S. Trade Tensions'', UBS European Conference, London, UK. 
November 12, 2019

``The Economist Debate: Free Trade'', World Trade Symposium (The 
Economist), New York City, November 7, 2019.

``Mission Opportunities: Gateway to the Three Comma Club'', Panel 
Moderator with: General Seven Butow; Col. Charles Miller Belmont; Tow 
Cwik, NASA JPL; Steven Isakowitz, CEO Aerospace Corp. Air Force Space 
Pitch Day, San Francisco, CA. November 6, 2019

``Failure is an option: Lessons from the Commercialization of U.S. 
Spaceflight'', UDIP Conference, Oxford University, UK. Plenary Session, 
August 1, 2019

``Japan--U.S. Conference on Peace in Northeast Asia 2019'', Panelist 
with former senior US, Japan, Korea, China diplomats and military 
leaders, Tokyo Japan, January 17, 2019

``Space Force'', Panel Moderator with: Doug Loverro, former Deputy Sec. 
Def.; Terry Virts, former NASA Astronaut; George Nield, Former FAA Ast. 
Admin.; Brian Weeden, Secure World Foundation. Politicon, Los Angeles, 
CA, October 12, 2018

``Commercial Space Regulation'' Panel Moderator with: Rep. Dana 
Rohrabacher, Dr. George Nield, Lorretta Whitesides. International Space 
Development Conference, Los Angeles, CA, May 27, 2018

``Funding Innovation'' Space Symposium, Tech Track Speech, Colorado 
Springs, CO, May 14, 2018

``Space Policy in the Trump Age'' Space Technology and Investment 
Forum, Plenary Session, August 30, 2017

``Commercial Spaceflight'' Heritage Foundation, Eagle Forum Collegians 
Summit Washington, D.C., July 19, 2017

``The View from Beijing: Chinese Space Efforts Past, Present and 
Future'' Space Technology and Investment Forum, Plenary Session, August 
2016

``Debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership v. Dan Ikenson, CATO'' 
American Manufacturing Strategies Summit, Costa Mesa, California, 
November 2015

``Overview of U.S. National Competitive Advantage in Human Orbital 
Spaceflight'' American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (SPACE 
2014), San Diego, California, September 2014

``Overview of PARTS Analysis'', Emerging Space Industry Leaders 
Workshop, Stanford University Department of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics, Stanford, California, May 29-30, 2014

``Space Policy, Intergenerational Ethics, and the Environment'' 
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (SPACE 2011) Long 
Beach, California, September 2011

``California's New Space Industry''
Panel Moderator, California Democratic Party Convention, Sacramento, 
California, April 29, 2011
Congressional and Parliamentary Testimony and Presentations
``China's Endgame Strategy--Leveraging U.S. Capital and Research to 
Leapfrog America in Cyber, Military and Space Tech'' Congressional 
Defense Forum Foundation Policy Forum, Capitol Hill, Rayburn 
Congressional Office Building, Washington, D.C., June 23, 2017

``Cyber Attacks: An Unprecedented Threat to U.S. National Security''
Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, The U.S. House Foreign 
Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Washington, D.C., 
March 21, 2013

``The Price of Public Diplomacy with China''
Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, The U.S. House Foreign 
Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Washington, D.C., 
March 28, 2012

``Exposing the Cost of China's Cyber Assault Against America''
Congressional Defense Forum Foundation Policy Forum, Capitol Hill, 
Rayburn Congressional Office Building, Washington, D.C., September 20, 
2013

``Grounding China's Reality Distortion Field''
Presented at the House of Commons, Ottawa, Canada, November 2, 2011
Grants
FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation grant, $65,000 annually 
sub-award via the Aldrin Space Institute, Florida Institute of 
Technology. Raised matching funds from industry participants including 
Deloitte, SpaceX, Virgin, Aerospace Corp, JPL and NASA Ames. Pacific 
Commercial Spaceflight Initiative

Interdisciplinary Teaching Grant, $20,000, Greg Autry (Marshall School 
of Business), Dana Milstein (Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and 
Sciences--Writing Program), and Vahe Peroomian (Dornsife College of 
Letters, Arts and Sciences--Physics and Astronomy)--Terraforming Mars: 
A Sustainable Habitation and Development of Humanity's Second Home
Awards & Certifications
FAA Remote Pilot in Charge Certification (commercial drone operator 
part 107), April 2017

Microsoft MCSE (certified systems engineer), 1997

Cisco CCNA (certified network administrator), 1998

PhD (peer) Teaching Awards 2010 and 2011, ``Good with MBA Students 
Award'' 2012

2012--Outstanding Teaching Assistant: Full Time, Fully Employed, and 
Executive MBA cohorts

2011--Outstanding Teaching Assistant: Fully Employed and Executive MBA 
cohorts

2010--Outstanding Teaching Assistant: Full Time, Fully Employed, and 
Executive MBA cohorts

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Autry.
    Next, Mr. Huff, you are recognized for five minutes, sir.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL HUFF, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
          LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    Mr. Huff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Ranking 
Member Pro Tempore. It is an honor to be here. I grew up, of 
course, Jewish and I had a number of Catholic friends and they 
had confirmations, and I did not. So it is now nice to be here 
as a part of a confirmation process.
    But, you know, I think that talking about being an honor to 
be here, it really is, and it is a phrase that is used, I 
think, in a perfunctory way and I do not mean it in that way at 
all.
    I grew up in Boston surrounded by history. My mother used 
to read to me about Sam Adams and Paul Revere and John Hancock 
and his big signature, and that really instilled in me a love 
for the country and set me on a path to public service.
    My first job in Washington was with Senator Specter from 
Pennsylvania and I remember sitting behind him in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee in the staff row and looking out and just 
being so thrilled to even be there, and if you had told me then 
that I would one day be on the other side of the dais I do not 
think I would have believed you. So I want to say believe me 
when I say it really is an honor to be here.
    What interests me about the Commerce Department really is 
its broad jurisdiction. When I went off to college, I asked my 
father, you know, what should I study, and he taught math at 
Harvard and he said, well, you know, you really should get the 
building blocks of modern analysis, mathematics, economics, 
learn some history too, and that will sort of set you up to 
understand a lot of very different things.
    And so it did, and the Commerce Department looks at marine 
fisheries and patents and trade and economic data and all sorts 
of tremendously different things, statistics at the Census 
Bureau, and just being in an environment where you get to learn 
and work with and learn new things every day about new issues 
really fascinates me.
    But, of course, in any job interview you have to explain 
not simply why you want the job but why they should want you, 
and I think that I bring to the table certain unique 
characteristics.
    In particular, I served almost a decade on the Senate and 
House Judiciary Committees. That gave me real perspective on 
how to serve as a bridge between Congress and agencies, because 
I have seen oversight and legislative efforts between Congress 
and the Executive Branch from across administrations of both 
parties.
    I have seen it from both sides. I, essentially, know the 
things that--the gimmicks and the games and sort of the 
negotiations, the really good things that happen, and I think 
that gives me a special perspective and would really situate me 
well to be--I do not want to say perhaps an advocate is the 
wrong word but a strong voice for Congress's prerogatives with 
the agencies.
    The other thing that I think I bring to the table perhaps 
more of a unique way is as a proven history of coming up with 
creative solutions to problems.
    I did this for my former boss, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, and 
I think--I hope I could do it here, too, because I know between 
the Executive Branch and the legislative branch issues arise 
and sometimes you have to find some compromise, and I sort of 
take--I am not good at everything but I am good at coming up 
with fresh ideas and I think that I could come up with a fresh 
perspective that, hopefully, can help resolve certain issues in 
certain circumstances and keep things between the branches 
moving well.
    I guess a third point is that on the House Judiciary 
Committee I did a lot of work on state issues--issues of state 
taxation, and that really introduced me to a lot of state and 
local level officials, and I really learned to see how they 
view the Federal Government.
    And part of the Commerce Department's portfolio really does 
deal in trade issues and things that affect states in a very 
local way and I think that having those relationships and the 
benefit of that perspective will also make me an effective 
person in this role, which governs not just relationships 
between the Executive Branch and Congress but also between the 
Executive Branch and state and local officials.
    So, in closing, I want to thank President Trump for 
nominating me and my friends and family for being with me every 
step of the way.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    [The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr. 
Huff follow:]

 Prepared Statement of Dan Huff, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for 
              Legislative Affairs, Department of Commerce
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell and distinguished Members 
of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to appear before your 
Committee, it is an honor.
    Saying ``it's an honor'' is something of a stock phrase in 
Washington, but I do not mean it in a perfunctory way. I grew up in 
Boston where history was all around me. My mom used to read to me about 
Paul Revere, Sam Adams and the Boston Tea Party. It filled me with 
pride in our country and set my sights on a path to public service. My 
first job in Washington was as a staff member on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. I vividly remember sitting at hearings like this one in the 
staff row behind Senator Specter brimming with excitement. If you had 
told me then that I would one day be on the other side of that dais, I 
don't think I would have believed you. So thank you again for affording 
me the opportunity to appear before you as you consider my nomination.
    What I love about the Commerce Department is its broad 
jurisdiction. From marine life, to the census, to international trade 
to patents, it spans a breadth of scientific and economic knowledge 
with which the members of this Committee are intimately familiar. When 
I went off to college, I was not sure in what to major. My dad, who 
taught math at Harvard, suggested a broad path of study. He told me 
that mathematics and economics are the language of modern policy 
analysis and that I should focus on getting the building blocks. I 
added history for good measure. I believe that my broad educational 
background in these areas makes me uniquely suited to communicate with 
you, if confirmed, about the myriad of issues within the Department's 
jurisdiction. I love learning new things and, I know that, if 
confirmed, the Commerce Department portfolio would be an endless source 
of interesting issues for me to help you tackle.
    But of course, as with any job interview, I need to explain not 
just why I want the job, but why you should want me.
    The position of Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs 
requires a deep understanding of both the Senate and House. The 
Assistant Secretary serves as a bridge between the Department and 
Congress.
    I spent nearly a decade as counsel to the House and Senate 
Judiciary Committees. In those roles, I was responsible for both 
oversight and legislative initiatives. Accordingly, I have deep 
experience with, and healthy respect for, the oversight 
responsibilities of Congress. I know what it is like to make reasonable 
oversight requests only to have them stonewalled by an agency. Having 
seen both sides, I will be an effective advocate for Congress's 
prerogatives within the Department.
    In addition, I have a proven record of finding creative solutions 
to problems. As issues arise between Congress and agencies, whether on 
oversight requests or constituent needs, I would be able to inject 
fresh thinking that could help foster compromise.
    Finally, the Assistant Secretary position is responsible not just 
for relationships with Congress, but also with the States. As a staff 
member on the House Judiciary Committee, I was the lead staffer on a 
number of interstate commerce issues, most prominently the Internet 
sales tax issue. Through this work, I built relationships at the state 
and local level and came to a better understanding of the way that 
these jurisdictions view and interact with the Federal government. If 
confirmed, I believe this perspective would be valuable in helping to 
advance the Commerce Department's trade promotion agenda.
    In closing, I want to thank President Trump for nominating me, and 
my family and friends who have been with me every step of the way.
    With that, I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you Mr. 
Chairman.
                                 ______
                                 
                      a. biographical information
    1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Daniel Huff; 
Dan.
    2. Position to which nominated: Assistant Secretary for Legislative 
Affairs, Dept. of Commerce.
    3. Date of Nomination: 7/21/20 (approximately).
    4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

        Residence: Information not released to the public.
        Office: Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania 
        Ave NW, Washington, DC 20502.

    5. Date and Place of Birth: July 2, 1979; Boston, MA.
    6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your 
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including 
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
    7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school 
attended.

        a. Columbia Law School, JD, 2005
        b. University of Toronto, BA, 2002

    8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all 
management level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to 
the position for which you are nominated.

    a.  Detailee, Executive Office of the President, Office of 
        Presidential Personnel

    b.  Department of Housing and Urban Development, General Deputy 
        Assistant Secretary

    c.  Stonington Global LLC, Independent advisor

    d.  House Judiciary Committee, Counsel

    e.  Middle East Forum, Director of the Legal Project

    f.  Senate Judiciary Committee, Counsel

    g.  Advisor, Tancredo for President

    h.  McKinsey & Company, Management Consultant

    9. Attach a copy of your resume. See attached.
    10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time 
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other 
than those listed above, within the last ten years. None.
    11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, 
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise, 
educational, or other institution within the last ten years.
    Partner/Founder, YayNay LLC
    12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten 
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, 
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or 
religiously affiliated organization, private club, or other membership 
organization. (For this question, you do not have to list your 
religious affiliation or membership in a religious house of worship or 
institution.). Include dates of membership and any positions you have 
held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or 
organization restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, 
religion, national origin, age, or disability.
    Republican Jewish Coalition
    13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office 
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any 
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are 
personally liable for that debt. No.
    14. List all memberships and offices held with and services 
rendered to, whether compensated or not, any political party or 
election conn1tlttee within the past ten years. If you have held a paid 
position or served in a formal or official advisory position (whether 
compensated or not) in a political campaign within the past ten years, 
identify the particulars of the campaign, including the candidate, year 
of the campaign, and your title and responsibilities. None.
    15. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $500 or more for the past ten years. None.
    16. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition 
for outstanding service or achievements.

   Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, Columbia Law School

   University of Toronto Scholarship

   Howard Ferguson Scholarship; University College, U. of 
        Toronto

    17. Please list each book, article, column, Internet blog posting, 
or other publication you have authored, individually or with others. 
Include a link to each publication when possible. Also list any 
speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for 
which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of these 
publications unless otherwise instructed.

   Eiden Probe, Trump Taxes Raise Similar Questions, The Wall 
        Street Journal (Nov. 24, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/
        biden-probe trump-taxes-raise-similar-questions-11574634388

   Robert Mueller Has a Money Problem, The Wall Street Journal 
        (Mar. 24, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/robert-mueller-
        has-a-money-problem-11553468712

   Will the Market Adrenaline Last? Fox News.com, May 10, 2010

   Why Is America Curbing Free Speech, and Giving Extremists 
        What They Want? Fox News.com, Sept. 24, 2010

   Is the First Amendment in Jeopardy? Fox News.com, Jul. 6, 
        2010

   The latest terrorist tactic: litigation, The Daily Caller, 
        Jan. 11, 2011

   Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Daniel Huff, It's time to fight back 
        against death threats by Islamic extremists, The LA Times, 
        Sept. 27, 2010

   Profiling airline passengers is constitutional and 
        effective, The Daily Caller, Dec. 10, 2010

   Islamic Extremist Targets Facebook Users, FrumForum, Oct. 
        29, 2010

   The Speech Act should not pre-empt state law, The National 
        Law Journal, Aug. 9, 2010

   A Silver Lining at the Human Rights Council, The Legal 
        Project Blog, Mar. 26, 2010

   Eitan Meyer & Daniel Huff, OIC places the United States in 
        its crosshairs, The Legal Project Blog, Dec. 27, 2009

   Extraordinary Rendition: Constitutional Issues, Law Library 
        of Congress, Washington, D.C., Dec. 5, 2007. Video available 
        here.

   Islamists New Weapon: Libel Law, FrumForum, Jan 25, 2010, 
        http://frumforum.com/entry/islamists-new-weapon-libel-law

   Lawfare: The Use of Law as a Weapon of War, New York County 
        Lawyers' Association, with John Bolton and others, moderated by 
        James Taranto, Mar. 11, 2010. (My remarks focused on how 
        predatory lawsuits threaten the vital role private citizens 
        have played in aiding the government in the identification of 
        terrorists and sources of terror financing.)

   Islamists' Twin Assault on Free Speech, teleconference town 
        hall, Oct. 28, 2010. Audio available here.

   I believe I wrote an opinion piece in the university paper 
        in the 2001-2002 school year regarding terrorism, but I don't 
        recall if it was actually published and have been unable to 
        find a copy. If found, I will forward.

    18. List digital platforms (including social media and other 
digital content sites) on which you currently or have formerly operated 
an account, regardless of whether or not the account was held in your 
name or an alias. Include the name of an ``alias'' or ``handle'' you 
have used on each of the named platforms. Indicate whether the account 
is active, deleted, or dormant. Include a link to each account if 
possible.

        https://www.instagram.com/huffsomefun/?hl=en (dormant)

        https://www.snapchat.com/add/huffun (dormant)

        https://twitter.com/realdanhuff (dormant)

        https://www.instagram.com/danhnffl776/?hl=en (dormant)

        https://www.facebook.com/dan.huff.927 (dormant)

    19. Please identify each instance in which you have testified 
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each 
testimony. None.
    20. Given the current mission, major programs, and major 
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been 
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you 
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for 
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that 
position?
    The position of A/S for Legislative Affairs requires a deep 
understanding of both the Senate and House. The A/S serves as a bridge 
to Congress. I spent nearly a decade as counsel to both the House and 
Senate Judiciary Committees. In that role, I was responsible for both 
oversight and legislative initiatives. Accordingly, I have deep 
experience with and healthy respect for the oversight prerogatives of 
Congress. I know what it is like to make reasonable oversight requests 
only to have them stonewalled. On the legislative side, I was the lead 
staffers on a number of interstate commerce issues most prominently the 
Internet sales tax issue. Through this work, I better understood the 
importance of strong national frameworks to keep the U.S. competitive 
globally.
    My broad educational background in economics, mathematics and law 
makes me uniquely suited to understand the myriad issues within the 
Department's vast jurisdiction from the Census Bureau, to PTO, to NIST 
to NOAA.
    21. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to 
ensure. that the department/agency has proper management and accounting 
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large 
organization?
    If confirmed as A/S for Legislative Affairs, my role in those 
issues would necessarily be limited. That said, I managed over 400 
people as a General Deputy Assistant Secretary (GDAS) at HUD. As GDAS, 
I introduced a number of' process improvements into daily operations 
including a centralized database of' commonly used forms. Prior to 
coming to Washington, I was a management consultant with McKinsey and 
Company where I helped advise senior business leaders in Fortune 50 
companies on management issues.
    22. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the 
department/agency, and why?

   The Census--By law, the President must receive the count by 
        December 31, 2020, and report to the House Clerk within one 
        week of the opening of the 117th Congress. Making sure not just 
        that the that count is done properly, but that it is perceived 
        as done so it critical. Congress will have many questions 
        heading in into the fall so it is critical to have someone 
        there who can serve as an effective bridge.

   Fair Trade--With the economy already hurt by the COVID-virus 
        making sure U.S. manufacturers compete on a level playing field 
        is even more important to getting America back on its feet. The 
        Commerce Department needs to redouble its efforts to ensure 
        robust enforcement of, for example, section 232 tariffs as well 
        as antidumping and countervailing duty laws.

   Leadership in Space--Certain space related responsibilities 
        have been transferred to the Commerce Department from DOD. 
        These include critical policies to avoid in-space congestion 
        and collisions as commercial space commerce increases and 
        ensure the integrity of space-based position, timing and 
        navigation services. These duties in the final frontier will 
        require much analysis and hard work.
                   b. potential conflicts of interest
    1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation 
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates, 
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement 
accounts.

        McKinsey & Company Retirement Program:

                1. Special Situations Enhanced-Liquidity USD

                2. Passive U.S. Bonds

    2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, 
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business, 
association or other organization during your appointment? If so, 
please explain.
    No. Per my ethics agreement I will step away from my involvement 
with YayNay LLC.
    3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other 
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in 
the position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you will 
resolve each potential conflict of interest.
    None. The OGE has cleared me following my divestiture of stock in 
Microsoft.
    4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for 
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in 
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the 
position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you will resolve 
each potential conflict of interest. None.
    5. Identify any other potential conflicts of interest, and explain 
how you will resolve each potential conflict of interest.
    None. I have a passive interest in a startup software company I 
founded, YayNay LLC, in which I would no be longer active pursuant to 
my OGE agreement.
    6. Describe any activity during the past ten years, including the 
names of clients represented, in which you have been engaged for the 
purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or 
modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and 
execution of law or public policy.
    As part of my approximately 1 month consulting job with Stonington 
Global, I advised on their efforts to aid their client B&H camera with 
issues relating to sales tax collection legislation.
                            c. legal matters
    1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics, 
professional misconduct, or retaliation by, or been the subject of a 
complaint to, any court, administrative agency, the Office of Special 
Counsel, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other 
professional group? No.
    If yes:

  a.  Provide the name of agency, association, committee, or group;

  b.  Provide the date the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or 
        personnel action was issued or initiated;

  c.  Describe the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or 
        personnel action;

  d.  Provide the results of the citation, disciplinary action, 
        complaint, or personnel action.

    2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by 
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, 
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic 
offense? If so, please explain. No.
    3. Have you or any business or nonprofit of which you are or were 
an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency 
proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation? If so, please 
explain. No.
    4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, please explain. No.
    5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual 
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or 
any other basis? If so, please explain. No.
    6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in 
connection with your nomination.
    N/A.
                     d. relationship with committee
    1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with 
deadlines for information set by congressional committees, and that 
your department/agency endeavors to timely comply with requests for 
information fron1 individual Members of Congress, including requests 
from members in the minority? Yes, to the best of my ability.
    2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can 
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal 
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes, to the best of my ability.
    3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested 
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with 
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes, to 
the best of my ability.
    4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly 
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be 
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
                                 
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you very much for that testimony.
    Mr. Simington, you are recognized for five minutes, sir.

 STATEMENT OF NATHAN SIMINGTON, NOMINEE TO BE A COMMISSIONER, 
               FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Mr. Simington. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, 
and Acting Ranking Member Senator Blumenthal and distinguished 
members of the Committee, it is an honor and a privilege to 
appear before you today.
    I am humbled to have been nominated by President Trump to 
serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Communications 
Commission and it is an honor to have this committee consider 
my nomination.
    I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to you and 
your staffs. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet 
with you and discuss issues of great concern to you and your 
states.
    Now more than ever, during the COVID pandemic, 
telecommunications are at the center of how we work, study, and 
carry out our lives. If I am so fortunate as to be confirmed, I 
commit to continued close engagement with all of you and the 
public good.
    If the Committee will indulge me a moment, I would like to 
recognize my family. In attendance today are my sons, Adrian, 
who is 14, and Lawrence, who is eight. My beloved wife, Larisa, 
and our son, George, who is three, are unable to attend.
    My family is the center of my life and I am greatly blessed 
to have their love. I would also like to thank my parents, 
Erroll and Ruth Simington, for their constant support and 
encouragement. In addition, I would like to extend my 
congratulations to Messrs. Huff and Autry on their nominations.
    I come before this Committee at a momentous time. America 
is where innumerable communications technologies were born, 
from the transistor to the laser to the communications 
satellite.
    The first cellular phone call was placed by an American 
engineer on the streets of New York. American 
telecommunications innovation has been an enormous boon to the 
world.
    And yet, too many Americans remain disconnected. As a boy 
from a farming family, growing up we had a telephone and three 
snowy television channels at our farmhouse.
    But my parents had a computer in the basement, too, and it 
was my passport to a world of technology and education. I value 
connectivity because this childhood experience put me on the 
road to appear before this august committee today.
    We have a tremendous opportunity before us as a nation to 
complete the long project of closing the digital divide. Our 
fellow Americans cannot, must not, be left disconnected, even 
as communications technology advances. The opportunities before 
us will remain beyond our grasp so long as so many Americans 
are foreclosed by geographical or other barriers from reaching 
them.
    Furthermore, for the first time, American 
telecommunications leadership may be in question. The 
persistence of the digital divide is a factor in this.
    If some Americans are denied access to advanced 
technologies, we are denying ourselves the benefit of their 
contributions and this lack can compound once it becomes 
generational. Philo Farnsworth, so the story goes, invented 
television image scanning while plowing a field.
    May this union of the pastoral and the cutting edge inspire 
us to ensure that all of our children are able to fully realize 
their potential.
    My journey has taken me from my family farm to higher 
education and opportunity in America. I was a top lawyer at an 
international wireless mobility company and I am now fortunate 
to work at the executive branch's telecommunications agency, 
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    I believe this experience gives me a valuable perspective 
on the challenges and opportunities before the industry, the 
Commission, and the American people.
    So I would like to briefly outline the view and approach 
that, if I am confirmed, I would bring to the Commission under 
the umbrella of four principles.
    First, regulatory stability. We have all reaped great 
benefits from vigorous competition in telecommunications. The 
Commission must always place the public interest first and to 
do so to improve consumer welfare it must be careful not to 
chill development by going over the line with intrusive, 
disruptive, and burdensome regulation.
    Second, universal connectivity. I would like to point out 
two success stories, the recent improvements of service and 
reach.
    Since 2015, broadband has grown much faster and much 
cheaper. The volume of data carried over each megahertz of 
consumer wireless has increased by over 4,000 percent and we 
are much closer to closing the digital divide than we were a 
few short years ago.
    This is a record to be proud of. If I am confirmed, I will 
continue to uphold Congress's mandate to the Commission under 
Section 254, while always looking for opportunities to improve 
and extend the connectivity.
    Third, public safety and national security. Congress has 
directed the Commission to keep the spectrum commercialization 
pipeline full. But conflicts have arisen with public uses.
    Congress, the Commission, and public users can reconcile 
these conflicts and get win-win outcomes. The COVID pandemic 
has demonstrated the strength of America's networks under 
strain while exposing weaknesses in delivery of vital services.
    I understand the conflicts and challenges. If I am 
confirmed, I will protect public interests even as sorely 
needed spectrum commercialization continues briskly as directed 
by Congress.
    Fourth, public interest. The Commission's efforts are 
justified in the end only if the American people are well 
served. The Commission must prevent illegal marketing, keep 911 
up to date, balance the rights of television companies, and 
restrain unwanted robocalls, which is perhaps the issue that 
most unifies Washington.
    These issues are not as flashy as the policy debates over 
spectrum auctions or broadband build outs. But for many 
Americans, they are where telecoms' rubber meets the road.
    If I am confirmed, I will be a strong advocate for the 
Commission's public interest mandates and engage with Congress 
and the public in furtherance of them.
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Acting Ranking 
Member Blumenthal, and members of the Committee, please accept 
my thanks once more for considering my nomination and I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr. 
Simington follow:]

     Prepared Statement of Nathan Simington, Nominee to Serve as a 
            Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished Members 
of the Committee, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you 
today. I am humbled to have been nominated by President Trump to serve 
as a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, and it is 
an honor to have this Committee consider my nomination.
    I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to you and your 
staffs. Over the past several weeks, you have given me the opportunity 
to meet with you and discuss issues of great concern to you and your 
states. Now more than ever, telecommunications are at the center of how 
we work, study, and carry out our lives. Thank you for sharing your 
insights on the Commission's role in advancing the public interest; 
thank you as well for discussing current challenges and possible 
solutions. If I am so fortunate as to be confirmed, I commit to 
continued close engagement with all of you in the public good.
    If the Committee will indulge me a moment, I would like to 
recognize my family. In attendance today are my sons Adrian, who is 
fourteen, and Lawrence, who is eight. My beloved wife Larisa and our 
son George, who is three, are unable to attend. My family is the center 
of my life and I am greatly blessed to have their love. I would also 
like to thank my parents, Erroll and Ruth Simington, for their constant 
support and encouragement. In addition, I would like to extend my 
congratulations to Messrs. Huff and Autry on their nominations.
    I come before this Committee at a momentous time. America is where 
innumerable communications technologies were born, from the transistor 
to the laser to the communications satellite. The first cellular phone 
call was placed by an American engineer on the streets of New York. 
American telecommunications innovation has been an enormous boon to the 
world.
    And yet, too many Americans remain disconnected. As a boy from a 
farming family, when I was growing up, we had a telephone and three 
television channels at our farmhouse. But I had a computer in the 
basement too, and it was my passport to a world of technology and 
education that was like sheer magic. This was long before commercial 
internet, but I have never forgotten the experience of designing an 
adder circuit on a fuzzy green screen, with a copy of the 1986 World 
Book at my elbow to look up unfamiliar words. I value connectivity in 
part because this childhood experience put me on the road to appear 
before this august Committee today.
    We have a tremendous opportunity before us, as a nation, to 
complete the long project of closing the digital divide. Our fellow 
Americans cannot, must not, be left disconnected even as the world 
enters the fifth generation of wireless communication. The 
opportunities before us will remain beyond our grasp so long as so many 
Americans are foreclosed, by geographical or other barriers, from 
reaching them.
    Furthermore, for the first time, American telecommunications 
leadership may be in question. The persistence of the digital divide is 
a factor in this. If some Americans are denied access to advanced 
technologies, we are thereby denying ourselves the benefit of their 
contributions, and this lack can compound once it becomes generational. 
Philo Farnsworth, so the story goes, invented television image scanning 
while plowing a field. May this union of the homely and the cutting-
edge inspire us to ensure that all of our children are able to realize 
their potential.
    My journey has taken me from my family farm to opportunity in 
America. I was a top lawyer at an international wireless mobility 
company, and I am now fortunate to work at the executive branch's 
telecommunications agency, the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration. I believe this experience gives me a 
valuable perspective on the challenges and opportunities before the 
industry, the Commission, and the American people. With this in mind, I 
would like to briefly outline the view and approach that, if I am 
confirmed, I would bring to the Commission. I will discuss this under 
the umbrella of four principles.
    My first principle is regulatory stability. We have all reaped 
great benefits from vigorous competition in telecommunications, enabled 
by private infrastructure investment. The Commission must always place 
the public interest first. And to do so, to improve consumer welfare, 
it must be thoughtful about potential chilling effects on development 
if its regulatory efforts go over the line and become intrusive, 
disruptive and burdensome.
    By sticking to stability, competition and consumer protection, we 
stand the best chance of seeing continued telecommunications 
development and modernization. We will support innovation and 
entrepreneurship and promote consumer welfare. And we will modernize to 
continue creating good jobs and increasing productivity. If I am 
confirmed, I will support the Commission's ongoing commitment to light-
touch regulation.
    My second principle is universal connectivity. The commission's 
record over the past few years should be assessed by looking at two 
success stories: the improvement of service and the growth in 
connectivity. Since 2015, broadband has grown much faster and much 
cheaper. Since 2012, the volume of data carried over each megahertz of 
consumer wireless spectrum has increased by over 4,000 percent. And we 
are much closer to closing the digital divide today than we were a few 
short years ago. This is a record to be proud of. If I am confirmed, I 
will continue to uphold Congress's mandate to the Commission under 
Section 254 while always looking for opportunities to improve and 
extend connectivity. The Commission's current efforts to expand access 
are exciting. I would love to do my part in delivering on them.
    My third principle is public safety and national security. Congress 
has directed the Commission to keep the spectrum commercialization 
pipeline full, but conflicts have arisen with public uses. Congress, 
the Commission, and public users can reconcile these conflicts and 
achieve win-win outcomes. The COVID pandemic has demonstrated the 
strength of America's networks under unprecedented strain; however, it 
has also exposed weaknesses in our ability to deliver vital services. 
As a senior advisor at a public agency, I understand the conflicts and 
challenges that we face in vindicating these vital interests. If I am 
confirmed, I will ensure that public interests are protected while 
sorely needed spectrum commercialization continues briskly in 
accordance with the will of Congress.
    My fourth principle is serving the public interest. All of the 
Commission's efforts are justified, in the end, by whether the American 
people are well-served by telecommunications. The Commission must 
prevent illegal marketing, keep 9-1-1 up to date, balance the rights of 
television providers, and restrain unwanted robocalls--perhaps the 
issue that most unifies Washington. These issues may not be as flashy 
as the policy debates over spectrum auctions or broadband buildouts, 
but for many Americans, they are where telecom's rubber meets the road. 
If I am confirmed, I will be a strong advocate for the Commission's 
public interest mandate functions, and I will commit to having an open 
door and top-notch responsiveness to concerns from Congress and the 
public.
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee, please accept my thanks once more for considering my 
nomination. I look forward to answering your questions.
                                 ______
                                 
                      a. biographical information
    1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used):

        Nathan Alexander Simington.

    2. Position to which nominated: FCC Commissioner.
    3. Date of Nomination: September 16, 2020.
    4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

        Residence: Information not released to the public.
        Office: National Telecommunications and Information 
        Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
        Avenue NW, #4899, Washington, D.C. 20230.

    5. Date and Place of Birth: January 31, 1979; Saskatoon, 
Saskatchewan, Canada.
    6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your 
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including 
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
    My wife's name is Larisa Loredana Simington. She is currently a 
full-time homemaker and was last employed as a music professor at 
Eastern Michigan University, in 2011.
    7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school 
attended.

        Juris Doctor, University of Michigan, 2011

        Master of Arts, University of Rochester, 2007

        Master of Music, University of Rochester, 2006

        Bachelor of Music, Lawrence University, 2001

    8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all 
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to 
the position for which you are nominated.
    I worked in various teaching and part-time positions while an 
undergraduate and in graduate school. In 2007-2008, I worked for a year 
as an assistant at marketRx, a pharmaceutical market-research company 
that has since been acquired by Cognizant Technologies. While in law 
school, I worked as a research assistant for Prof. Cindy Schipani at 
the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, then as a summer 
associate at Mayer Brown LLP's Chicago office. Upon graduation, I was a 
Public Interest Law Initiative Fellow while studying for the bar, then 
formally began my legal career with Mayer Brown LLP upon completion of 
the bar exam.
    I practiced law in Chicago for four years, with Mayer Brown LLP and 
Kirkland & Ellis LLP. During this period, I worked with and learned 
from some of the most prominent asset finance lawyers in the world. I 
then practiced for two years with Chapman and Cutler LLP in Washington, 
D.C., again specializing in asset finance and related areas of 
securities and bankruptcy law. In 2017, I was recruited to work at 
Brightstar Corp. by the then-head of their financial services group.
    At Brightstar, I was core leadership on the financial services 
team. We designed and implemented retailer and carrier financial 
products currently in use worldwide. This business was very successful 
and grew to have the highest revenue per employee of any group within 
Brightstar.
    Thanks to my success in this area, I found myself asked to take 
increasing responsibility. In addition to financial services, I became 
responsible for global treasury, distressed credit, acquisitions and 
divestments, audit and internal compliance, domestic sales channels, 
and our Sprint relationship. In this expanded role, I had daily contact 
with the senior leadership team, including the general counsel, the 
chief financial officer and the treasurer, and frequent contact with 
executives at SoftBank, our corporate parent. I directly supervised all 
lawyers worldwide below the general counsel level with respect to any 
portfolio under my control. I was the legal lead for over $800 million 
of credit facilities worldwide and for an American trade credit program 
with an annual turnover of over $4 billion. I turned down a promotion 
to Associate General Counsel in order to accept my current position 
with the Department of Commerce.
    My experience with Brightstar has put me on the front lines of the 
wireless industry, from domestic retail dealers to carriers overseas. I 
know current economic and financial concerns intimately and I am deeply 
informed on accounting, operations, and above all, capital management 
issues. To win the race for 5G, establish universal access and fulfill 
the mandate of the FCC, America must coordinate across government and 
private industry to remove the barriers holding back the dynamism of 
our wireless sector. Spectrum initiatives, though necessary, will not 
win this race by themselves. America must also help its carriers and 
tower companies to maximize capital efficiency while incentivizing the 
broadest penetration of advanced technologies into consumer markets. I 
know the operational and financial landscape and, as an FCC 
commissioner, I will make sure that American. industry has the 
assistance and support that it needs to unleash its full creativity on 
this issue.
    9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy of my resume is attached.
    10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time 
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other 
than those listed above, within the last ten years.
    I have no previous government experience.
    11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, 
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise, 
educational, or other institution within the last ten years.

        Senior corporate counsel--Brightstar Corp. (2017-2020)

        Associate--Chapman and Cutler LLP (2015-2017)

        Associate--Kirkland & Ellis LLP (2013-2015)

        Associate--Mayer Brown LLP (2011-2013)

        PILI Fellow--Active Transportation Alliance (2011)

        Summer Associate--Mayer Brown LLP (20l0)

        GMAT Instructor--Veritas (2009-2010, part-time)

    12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten 
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, 
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or 
religiously affiliated organization, private club, or other membership 
organization. (For this question, you do not have to list your 
religious affiliation or membership in a religious house of worship or 
institution.). Include dates of membership and any positions you have 
held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or 
organization restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, 
religion, national origin, age, or disability.
    I have been a member of the Illinois state bar since 2011. The 
Illinois state bar does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, 
color, religion, national origin, age, or disability. I am a member of 
the Kirkland & Ellis alumni organization. The Kirkland & Ellis alumni 
organization does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, 
religion, national origin, age, or disability. I am a member of the 
University of Michigan alumni organization. The University of Michigan 
alumni organization does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, 
color, religion, national origin, age, or disability. Other than those 
and my church membership, I have no applicable affiliations to 
disclose.
    13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office 
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any 
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are 
personally liable for that debt.
    I have never been a candidate for or held any public office.
    14. List all memberships and offices held with and services 
rendered to, whether compensated or not, any political party or 
election committee within the past ten years. If you have held a paid 
position or served in a formal or official advisory position (whether 
compensated or not) in a political campaign within the past ten years, 
identify the particulars of the campaign, including the candidate, year 
of the campaign, and your title and responsibilities.
    I am a registered Republican, but otherwise have no memberships or 
offices in any party or election committee. I have never held a paid 
position with a campaign or served in a campaign in any advisory 
capacity or position.
    15. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign 
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar 
entity of $500 or more for the past ten years.
    I have never made any political contributions.
    16. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition 
for outstanding service or achievements.

        University of Michigan Law School--Dean's Scholarship, $60,000 
        (2008-2011)
        Presser Graduate Award, $10,000 (2005)

    17. Please list each book, article, column, Internet blog posting, 
or other publication you have authored, individually or with others. 
Include a link to each publication when possible. Also list any 
speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for 
which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of these 
publications unless otherwise instructed.
    While in private practice, I co-authored a client alert titled 
''SEC proposes amendments to money market fund rule''. This alert is 
available online at https://www.lexology.com/libra1y/
detail.aspx?g=c4731b5d-6999-401b-8682-7d6afd1ff6ee.
    While a college student, of legal drinking age, I wrote an untitled 
column about craft beers for The Lawrentian, Lawrence University's 
student-run newspaper. Most of the columns are not available online, 
but I was able to find two archived columns:

        ``Southern Germany brings tradition and individual talent to 
        beer'', available at http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/106248, 
        and ``Let your beer reflect the seasons: May is for light 
        German beers'', available at http://www.lawrentian
        .com/archives/105372.

    Other than the above, I have authored no books, articles, columns, 
Internet blog postings, or other publications, individually or with 
others, and I have given no relevant speeches.
    18. List digital platforms (including social media and other 
digital content sites) on which you currently or have formerly operated 
an account, regardless of whether or not the account was held in your 
name or an alias. Include the name of an ``alias'' or ``handle'' you 
have used on each of the named platforms. Indicate whether the account 
is active, deleted, or dormant. Include a link to each account if 
possible.
Major Platforms:
        Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nsimington
        (active account with few posts.)

        Twitter: https://twitter.com/nsimington
        (nominally active account, 2 tweets, no deleted or concealed 
        tweets.)

        LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nsimington/
        (active account.)

        Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/
        UCyUXyl_PMKosUGipvdF9GYA
        (active account used for media viewing and family videos with 
        no public uploads.)
Miscellaneous:
        https://www.violinist.com/directmy/bio.cfm?member=nsimington
        (dormant, last active in 2007.)

        https://www.flickr.com/photos/288632l4@N08/
        (dormant, still contains a few family pictures.)

        https://www.chess.com/member/nsimington
        (active.)

        https://www.hulver.com/scoop/user/nathan/
        (dormant, last active in 2014.)

        Google+ account linked to my gmail account; this was dormant at 
        the time that Google+ was discontinued in 2019.

    19. Please identify each instance in which you have testified 
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each 
testimony.
    I have never testified before Congress in any capacity either 
orally or in writing.
    20. Given the current mission, major programs, and major 
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been 
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you 
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for 
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that 
position?
    I currently serve as Senior Advisor at the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the 
Department of Commerce. NTIA serves as the President's principal 
advisor on telecommunications policies and shares, with the FCC, the 
task of regulating the use of wireless spectrum in the United States. 
In this role, I have worked on a wide variety of broadband and spectrum 
matters, including the American Broadband Initiative, FirstNet, the 
World Radiocommunication Conference, and interagency spectrum 
management and repurposing initiatives. I also work on securing global 
supply chains and initiatives to replace existing insecure wireless 
infrastructure.
    I have extensive experience working on telecommunications issues in 
the private sector. For over three years, I worked at a global 
telecommunications company that provided logistics, consulting and 
operations services to most of the world's most important manufacturers 
and wireless carriers, as well as industry intermediaries such as 
distributors and insurance companies. In this job, I quickly rose to 
become the top internal attorney beneath the general counsel and 
frequently served as the lead attorney to senior executives and the 
board of directors on ``bet-the-company'' issues.
    Prior to my in-house experience, I worked as counsel for prominent 
law firms, including both Kirkland & Ellis and Mayer Brown. In those 
jobs, I routinely lead deals with complex regulatory requirements, 
including liaison work with the SEC to bring over $50 billion of trust 
assets into compliance with new regulatory requirements. I also worked 
on utility projects and on wireless device and cell tower deals, thus 
becoming familiar with the legal and business nuances of each.
    My public and private-sector experience provides me with the 
background needed to help the FCC carry out its vital 
responsibilities--from extending America's global leadership in 5G and 
other next-generation technologies, to ensuring the security of 
America's networks and supply chains, to promoting the buildout of 
high-speed networks to every community in this country.
    America has been the world leader in telecommunications since the 
earliest days of radio. Beyond technological leadership, America has 
also led the world in connectivity. We must remain true to our heritage 
in pursuing the goal of universal access to the latest and foremost 
communication technologies.
    Now, for the first time, strategic rivals have emerged to threaten 
American primacy and, thereby, our economic position, our technological 
leadership, our national security, and our promises to the American 
people of continuing leadership and access to advanced 
telecommunications. My experience in cutting-edge management practices 
in the wireless industry gives me a window into the challenges facing 
every wireless-industry executive team. My experience at NTIA gives me 
a front-line perspective on the challenges of onshoring and secure 
supply chains. As a commissioner, I would work with companies across 
the telecommunications sector to identify and resolve current 
challenges, and I would do so without either weakening the market model 
that American freedom requires or placing undue burdens on the public 
purse. In particular, the Universal Service Fund (USF) managed by the 
FCC is a key component by which America ensures that all citizens are 
able to obtain necessary telecommunications access. My expertise in 
telecommunications finance will help the FCC in its mission to make the 
most of the USF in order to benefit all Americans, including those 
whose communities are currently underserved or for whom access is 
prohibitively expensive.
    This is a vital part of fostering a competitive and dynamic market 
for wireless innovation. With 50 percent of worldwide Internet use 
taking place via smartphone, and 20 percent of Americans using 
smartphones as their sole Internet device, there is no closing the 
digital divide without careful attention to cost barriers imposed by 
device and service costs. To extend American leadership in 5G wireless 
and win the race to nationwide universal 5G, the FCC must engage 
productively with industry to reach free-market solutions to current 
capital constraints. The FCC's expert work on spectrum will be 
complemented and strengthened by work on the financial front. I have 
the necessary industry insight to solve these problems, and I believe 
that this is the most impactful work I could do to strengthen America 
and help the American people. I want my children to grow up in an 
America full of renewed promise and true to the American heritage of 
innovation and achievement.
    21. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to 
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting 
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large 
organization?
    I have extensive relevant real-world management experience. I 
worked closely with my former employer's CFO and Treasurer on a daily 
basis. I have managed many billion-dollar bond deals. I closed one of 
the largest asset-based loans in the wireless industry during the COVID 
crisis, and I designed complex accounting-based financial products in 
present use worldwide. Additionally, as senior counsel at my former 
employer, I led the legal team for data-security auditing and 
compliance. This required an organization-wide audit and validation of 
controls of all kinds. In order to obtain the necessary certifications, 
we had to examine every contract and process to make sure that our 
clients could have total faith in our data integrity and security when 
we were handling sensitive personal or health data.
    I am very familiar with lean, high-productivity operations. I was 
core management on our product team with highest profitability per 
employee; we reached this goal by constantly working to identify the 
best uses of resources and exercising great care in our choices about 
where to allocate them. I am also familiar with fraud identification 
and examination techniques. As a commissioner, I would work closely 
with the Office of the Managing Director to obtain necessary reporting 
before formulating my own assessment of controls and audit reports. I 
would work with the audit team to ensure that controls are 
affirmatively followed and understood at the operational level. And I 
would contact other agencies to determine their concerns, if any, with 
present FCC processes and outcomes.
    This experience will prove especially relevant to management and 
oversight of the USF. The USF supplies vital programs relating to 
universal access. As an FCC commissioner, I will ensure careful 
oversight of the USF to maintain public confidence in the FCC's 
stewardship and continued success in its mission.
    22. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the 
department/agency, and why?
    The FCC faces many challenges. The first major challenge is freeing 
spectrum for consumer use while ensuring that Federal agencies can 
continue to carry out their missions unobstructed. This poses technical 
and regulatory obstacles to private and public actors as we work 
together to win the race to 5G. Winning this race will provide a 
cornucopia of great innovations to all Americans. These include low-
latency industrial controls through the ``Internet of Things'', new 
personal medical devices and telemedicine to improve pandemic 
responses, and even self-driving cars. 5G is how we will reach the 
promise envisioned in 1990s in the earliest days of consumer internet. 
But to get there, we must harmonize these new spectrum and bandwidth 
needs with established defense and infrastructure needs. Regulators, 
agencies and industry must collaborate to find the best outcome for 
all.
    The second major challenge is telecommunications supply chain 
security. Achieving true supply-chain security will include reforms at 
all levels, including software audits, semiconductor manufacturing re-
onshoring, tower equipment pulls and replacements, and the fostering of 
a stronger domestic high-tech sector. Secure supply chains will be a 
boon to all Americans, bolstering national security, preventing 
industrial espionage and ensuring the security of personal data. This 
also represents an opportunity to accelerate the buildout of more 
modern Internet and wireless infrastructure. The FCC already plays a 
significant role in this effort, but it will remain a challenge for 
years to come.
    The third major challenge is closing the digital divide to reach 
full digital inclusion. To reach this goal, the FCC must foster 
continued growth in connectivity without undermining market-based 
solutions. The FCC will achieve this by an intelligent use of 
regulatory and oversight powers to encourage coordination between 
government and industry to achieve widespread prosperity and 
sustainable progress.
                   b. potential conflicts of interest
    l. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation 
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates, 
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement 
accounts.
    I have no such financial arrangements other than interests in three 
retirement accounts. One of my retirement accounts is a Vanguard 
account sponsored by Kirkland and Ellis. The second is an interest in 
the Chapman and Cutler master trust operated by OneAmerica. The third 
is a JP Morgan account sponsored by Brightstar. Upon appointment, I 
would divest from all of these and roll the funds into my present U.S. 
Government retirement account.
    2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, 
to maintain employment affiliation, or practice with any business, 
association or other organization during your appointment? If so, 
please explain.
    I have no such commitments, agreements or expectations, whether 
formal or informal.
    3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other 
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in 
the position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you will 
resolve each potential conflict of interest.
    I have no such investments, obligations, liabilities or other 
relationships.
    4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial 
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for 
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in 
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the 
position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you will resolve 
each potential conflict of interest.
    I have no such business relationship, dealing or financial 
transaction potentially constituting or resulting in an actual or 
possible conflict of interest.
    5. Identify any other potential conflicts of interest, and explain 
how you will resolve each potential conflict of interest.
    My present agency, NTIA, is a co-regulator of wireless spectrum 
with the FCC. NTIA is also the President's advisor on 
telecommunications policy. In both capacities, NTIA routinely 
communicates with and petitions the FCC. As an FCC commissioner, I 
would not allow this present institutional affiliation to affect my 
judgment or decisions relating to matters before or involving the FCC. 
Furthermore, the FCC is an independent agency, so as an FCC 
commissioner, I would have heightened accountability to Congress as 
well as the executive branch. In my opinion, I have not had involvement 
with any NTIA matters currently before the FCC to an extent requiring 
recusal, but in any situation involving a potential conflict of 
interest, I would seek advice from Federal ethics counsel prior to 
taking any action.
    6. Describe any activity during the past ten years, including the 
names of clients represented, in which you have been engaged for the 
purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or 
modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and 
execution of law or public policy.
    I have never been involved in any activities in which I was engaged 
for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, 
defeat or modification of any legislation or affecting the 
administration and execution of law or public policy.
                            c. legal matters
    1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics, 
professional misconduct, or retaliation by, or been the subject of a 
complaint to, any court, administrative agency, the Office of Special 
Counsel, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other 
professional group? If yes:

  a.  Provide the name of agency, association, committee, or group;

  b.  Provide the date the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or 
        personnel action was issued or initiated;

  c.  Describe the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or 
        personnel action;

  d.  Provide the results of the citation, disciplinary action, 
        complaint, or personnel action.

    I have never been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics, 
professional misconduct, or retaliation, or been the subject of a 
complaint to, any court, administrative agency, the Office of Special 
Counsel, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other 
professional group.
    2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by 
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, 
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic 
offense? If so, please explain.
    I have never been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any 
law enforcement authority, whether Federal, State, or otherwise, other 
than for a minor traffic offense.
    3. Have you or any business or nonprofit of which you are or were 
an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency 
proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation? If so, please 
explain.
    Neither I, nor any business or nonprofit of which I am or were an 
officer has ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency 
proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation, with the 
following exceptions:

    1. Brightstar Corp. As a large international corporation, 
Brightstar Corp. routinely engages in civil litigation as both 
plaintiff and defendant. Brightstar Corp. is not, on information and 
belief, currently implicated in any administrative proceedings. On 
information and belief, there are four currently pending civil cases in 
the United States to which either Brightstar Corp. or its primary 
United States operating company, Brightstar US, LLC, are a named party:

        Ben Nash v. Brightstar Corp., Case no. 3D19-2093, before the 
        Third District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, and 
        Brightstar Corp. v. Chaim Tzvi Nash AKA Ben Nash, and PCS 
        Wireless, LLC, Case no. N20M-09-011, before the Delaware 
        Superior Court. These cases involve a dispute over certain used 
        wireless devices and associated pricing practices. The amount 
        in controversy is approximately $10 million.

        Brightstar US, LLC vs. Reliance Communications, LLC, Case no. 
        0611601/2019 before the New York Superior Court. This case is a 
        suit brought by Brightstar against a wireless device 
        distributor for nonpayment. The amount in controversy is 
        approximately $6 million.

        Brightstar Corp. et al., v. Warren Barthes et al., Case no. 
        2019-030740-CA-01, before the Circuit Court for the Third 
        District of the State of Florida. This case is a suit brought 
        by Brightstar against the former owner of a business acquired 
        by Brightstar alleging malfeasance prior to and subsequent to 
        acquisition. The amount in controversy is approximately $10 
        million.

    2. NTIA. As a major Federal government agency, NTIA is routinely a 
party to administrative proceedings and is also involved in civil 
litigation from time to time. However, the NTIA is currently not party 
to any administrative proceedings.
    The sole currently pending Federal case to which NTIA is a named 
party is In Re Subpoena to National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, Case No. 1:19-mc-00040-RDM. This matter is before the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. NTIA was subpoenaed 
by Frontier to produce records related to a qui tam case involving a 
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program grant, which is pending in 
U.S. District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia--CityNet, 
LLC v. Frontier West Virginia Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:14-CV-15947). 
The U.S. Government declined to intervene in the qui tam case. The 
subpoena matter has been stayed since April 16, 2020, pending the 
resolution of the Frontier bankruptcy proceedings. NTIA is represented 
by the Office of the U.S. Attorney/District of Columbia in the subpoena 
matter.
    Additionally, there are two matters in which NTIA officials acting 
in their official capacities are named defendants.
    The first is Rock the Vote. et al., v. Trump. et al., Case No. 
3:20-cv-06021. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the 
Northern District of California on August 27, 2020. The plaintiffs have 
asserted various First Amendment claims against NTIA Deputy 
Administrator Doug Kinkoph, as well as President Trump, Attorney 
General Barr, Secretary Ross and OMB Director Russell Vought in their 
official capacities. The Department of Justice/Civil Litigation/Federal 
Programs is representing the U.S. Government in this case.
    The second is a complaint filed in Canada on August 24, 2020, by 
one Graham Schreiber, against various defendants, including current and 
former U.S. Government officials. The subject of the complaint appears 
to be Internet domain names. NTIA Sr. Telecommunications Policy Advisor 
Suzanne Radell, who has served as a U.S. Government representative on 
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Governmental 
Advisory Committee, is named in the complaint (along with almost 100 
other individuals and companies). The Department of Justice/Civil 
Litigation/Office of Foreign Litigation is representing the U.S. 
Government and is working through local counsel in Canada and through 
the State Department to assert the U.S. Government's sovereign immunity 
to the suit.
    4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, please explain.
    I have never been convicted, pled guilty, or pied nolo contendere 
to any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense.
    5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual 
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or 
any other basis? If so, please explain.
    I have never been accused, formally or informally, of sexual 
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or 
any other basis.
    6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in 
connection with your nomination.
    I do not feel that there is any additional information that should 
be disclosed in connection with my nomination.
                     d. relationship with committee
    1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with 
deadlines for information set by congressional committees, and that 
your department/agency endeavors to timely comply with requests for 
information from individual Members of Congress, including requests 
from members in the minority?
    Yes, absolutely. The FCC's nature, as an independent agency 
established by statute, makes it especially accountable to Congress. 
Insufficient responsiveness to Congress, including individual Members, 
calls the democratic mandate of the FCC into question. It would be a 
staffing priority for me to establish dedicated outreach channels in 
order to strengthen my connection to both sides of the congressional 
aisle, and I would be certain to treat requests from members in the 
minority with the utmost attention and respect.
    2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can 
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal 
for their testimony and disclosures?
    Yes, unquestionably. Whistleblowers can be unpopular among 
established members of a bureaucracy, including upper management. 
However, as a corporate lawyer, I firmly believe that suppressing the 
truth always makes everything worse, and the truth always, always comes 
out. Internal malfeasance festers and can bring healthy companies down, 
ruining the livelihoods of thousands of innocent people.
    I believe whist]eblowers are a vital and valuable resource to any 
organization. I have no prior Washington career and have no commitment 
to bureaucratic continuity to weigh against my intention to expose and 
resolve problems as soon as they manifest. I find the idea of 
retribution against witnesses viscerally offensive and damaging to any 
agency's democratic mandate--no officer of an agency has any legitimate 
power except that which is delegated to them by the American people in 
accordance with the Constitution.
    3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested 
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with 
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee?
    I will do so with pleasure. Congress has entrusted the FCC with a 
large budget drawn from regulatory fees; these fees are charged for 
access to resources held in trust for the American people. FCC 
personnel have been entrusted with the money, time and position to 
become some of the foremost experts in the world on their technical and 
regulatory issues. This includes an obligation to inform Congress, 
especially through its designated Committee, of the fruits of this 
expertise in comprehensive but digestible formats. If the FCC fails in 
this duty, it is depriving Congress of the power to legislate 
appropriately, so this is a major public trust.
    4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly 
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be 
reasonably requested to do so?
    It would be both my duty and pleasure to testify before any such 
committee at any time and for any reason that such committee deemed 
appropriate.



    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Simington, and thank 
you all.
    Senator Cruz has a tight connection to a flight back home 
to Texas and so I am going to let him step in front of me and, 
Senator Cruz, you are recognized for five minutes, sir.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 
graciousness. As you noted, you now have an enormous chit in 
your pocket, which I expect you to call in at some point.
    Dr. Autry, let us start with you, and as you may recall in 
2015 President Obama signed my bill, the Commercial Space 
Launch Competitiveness Act, into law, and a follow up to that 
legislation, the Space Frontier Act, passed the Senate last 
Congress.
    A provision of that legislation authorizes a lower Earth 
orbit commercialization program. In your judgment, how much 
progress do you expect the agency to make in the next 5 years 
for commercialization planning and what support does the agency 
need from Congress to boost commercialization efforts?
    Mr. Autry. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
    I do not know if you recall, we had a breakfast in a 
McDonald's in John Wayne Airport a couple years ago before we 
were both on a flight to Houston. I think I thanked you then. I 
would like to thank you again for your support of space and, in 
particular, the 2015 Commercial Space Launch Act and the 
follow-up legislation.
    LEO commercialization is important. As you know, there has 
been some fits and starts. To be clear, the job of CFO at NASA 
is not a policy position and my job is to make sure that we do 
what you folks want done and that we report back to you 
accurately that it has been done.
    That said, my personal opinion is that it is critically 
important that we need to get everything we can out of our huge 
investment and the partners' investment in the International 
Space Station.
    I believe there has been progress at CASIS and ISSNL after 
some fits and starts in that. I am glad to see that the PORT 
has been assigned to a vendor that will add an additional 
module specifically for commercial development.
    As you may know, there have not been funds coming forward 
for the Free Flyer program and I understand there are differing 
opinions on that.
    I look forward to getting into the agency and understanding 
what they intend to do with the $15 million they do have for 
that money and what their objectives are and report back to you 
at that time on what I have learned.
    But at this point, I do not have any further details on 
that other than I support, in general, where we are going and 
getting everything we can out of station.
    Senator Cruz. Well, I appreciate that very much, Dr. Autry, 
and you have shown to the folks at home just how sexy and 
glamorous working in the space industry is. Having breakfast at 
McDonald's in John Wayne Airport is pretty highfalutin.
    Mr. Autry. And Senator Cruz flies coach. I can tell you 
that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cruz. A lot.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cruz. I try to do my part.
    All right. Let us shift. I look forward to working with you 
on these issues and also working with you on issues concerning 
royalties for inventions and discoveries on station.
    That has been an issue we have been working in a bipartisan 
manner in this committee and working with NASA, and so I look 
forward to working with you, going forward, on those issues.
    Mr. Autry. Good. Again, it is not a policy position, but I 
think there is opportunities there that the CFO can engage in 
with your leadership.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you.
    Mr. Simington, let us shift to a very important topic, Big 
Tech. As you know, I have been very vocal that I am deeply 
concerned about the conduct of Big Tech and I think Big Tech's 
pattern of censorship and silencing views with which they 
disagree poses the single greatest threat in this country we 
have to free speech and poses the greatest threat we have to 
our democracy.
    What are your views on the issue of Big Tech censorship?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you very much, Senator. In brief, the 
question of Big Tech censorship is--although it is not 
primarily the concern of the FCC, I do not believe, 
nonetheless, these are issues of great concern to all of us.
    I think there has been an implicit bargain struck that we 
are now starting to call into question that there would be an 
open Internet with a free exchange of ideas and freedom as the 
primary basis.
    There is nothing--there is nothing illegal about having a 
partisan website or about having partisan traffic online, or 
about determining what sort of views should be allowed on a 
website and, of course, we would not want to contravene the 
First Amendment.
    But, on the other hand, I think a lot of people have found 
themselves recently unable to establish certainty about what 
they can say online, what will happen to the content of their 
speech and where, if not on the most popular venues or the 
venues with the greatest functionality, where online they are 
actually able to speak at all.
    Senator Cruz. As you know, Chairman Pai has announced a 
rulemaking on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Do 
you agree that that rulemaking is a good idea? Do you think 
Section 230 is in need of reform?
    Mr. Simington. Senator, I do, and I note that the General 
Counsel of the FCC has outlined the process by which he 
believes it is proper to accept jurisdiction.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, and I would ask if you are 
confirmed that you keep front and center the free speech values 
embodied in our First Amendment and the necessity of robust 
open debate.
    The most recent step of Big Tech censoring the New York 
Post, a major media outlet, constituted a dramatic escalation 
in those censorship efforts, and I think this is going to be an 
ongoing issue that we will wrestle with on the executive side 
and the legislative side for a long time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And thank you, Senator Cruz. Safe--and safe 
travels to you.
    Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As you may know, Mr. Simington, I have been a leading 
advocate of reform of Section 230 in the U.S. Senate and, 
certainly, a--I hope an advocate of free speech values.
    But I will be very blunt with you, I am deeply concerned 
that the President's Executive Order is, in effect, an assault 
on the credibility and legitimacy of the FCC. The NTIA, during 
your time there, in effect, acted as an arm of the President in 
supporting seeming retaliation against political rivals.
    Specifically, consumers deserve an independent FCC free 
from political interference and possible manipulation, whether 
it is on Section 230 or anything else, and I would like to know 
whether you helped to draft the NTIA's petition for rulemaking 
on Section 230?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
    Yes, I played a minor role in drafting the petition. The 
petition's substantive legal arguments had been, largely, 
outlined prior to my joining the NTIA.
    But there is a lot of work in bringing a piece of legal 
work to completion. I helped with the blocking and tackling. I 
helped with editing and cite checking.
    I, of course, discussed with the other members of the NTIA 
political staff the public relations and responses. Once it 
became clear that I was to be considered for this position that 
we are--the nomination which we are discussing today, then at 
that point I ceased any active work on the petition whatsoever 
and I was not involved in any of the drafts of response 
comments.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, you wrote a document to the 
Americans for Tax Reform to promote the Executive Order, didn't 
you?
    Mr. Simington. No. I am afraid, Senator, I do not believe 
that I ever sent a document to Americans for Tax Reform in any 
capacity.
    Senator Blumenthal. Did you take other steps to promote or 
defend the NTIA petition after it was published?
    Mr. Simington. One strategy item that was discussed that 
never came to fruition was to draft an op-ed for the agency 
head to place in the New York--I am sorry, in the--in the Wall 
Street Journal.
    I believe that op-ed was proposed, discussed, edited, but 
it did not, ultimately, wind up being submitted.
    Senator Blumenthal. So your active involvement was before 
the NTIA petition was submitted?
    Mr. Simington. I am sorry if I have been unclear, Senator. 
My involvement with the petition continued briefly after it was 
submitted, probably two or three weeks. As far--however, it 
terminated prior to the NTIA response.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me--let me come back. The 
Americans for Tax Reform, you submitted in a private forum?
    Mr. Simington. No, I have never submitted a document of any 
kind to Americans for Tax Reform, Senator.
    Senator Blumenthal. Did you present orally?
    Mr. Simington. No, I have never presented--I have never 
given any kind of formal presentation or address to Americans 
for Tax Reform.
    Senator Blumenthal. Did you--have you had any discussions 
with the White House about the issue of the FCC's planned 
rulemaking on Section 230?
    Mr. Simington. No, I have not discussed planned--any 
contemplated future action of the FCC on the part of 230 with 
the White House.
    Senator Blumenthal. How about on the topic of Section 230 
reform?
    Mr. Simington. Yes. During the time when I was being 
considered for nomination to the FCC, I had a conversation 
about a variety of topics of which 230 was a relatively minor 
part with members of the Presidential Personnel Office.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, in light of your participation in 
the NTIA petition and your discussions with the White House, I 
think you need to commit now to recuse yourself from voting on 
rulemaking with respect to Section 230.
    Will you commit to do so?
    Mr. Simington. I appreciate the question, Senator. In my 
judgment, which I do not consider final, I believe it would be 
premature to make such a commitment. As----
    Senator Blumenthal. Why would it be premature to make such 
a commitment? You have been involved in this issue in a formal 
way in an organization that has, in effect, advocated the 
President's position and you have talked to the White House 
about that position.
    Mr. Simington. Yes, that is correct. It would be--Senator, 
it would be difficult to avoid the conversational topic. It was 
not the focus of my conversations at the White House.
    However, I appreciate your concerns, and if I am confirmed, 
the first thing that I will do will be to go to the FCC Ethics 
Office and discuss this matter in detail and, of course, will 
abide by the recommendations as to recusal.
    Senator Blumenthal. On another matter, do you believe that 
the FCC has the ability to interpret E-Rate rules to allow 
schools to use their funds for students who are stuck at home 
right now?
    Mr. Simington. That is an excellent question, Senator, and 
one of--a matter of grave concern to us all because, as many 
people say, the schoolroom has become the kitchen table.
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, will you commit to interpreting 
the E-rate rules to allow schools to use their funds for 
students to do that?
    Mr. Simington. I sympathize with the result of--such a 
commitment would entail and, of course, I would pursue whether 
it would be possible to make that determination if appointed to 
the Commission.
    I am not privy to the Commission's internal deliberations 
in determining that that was not the interpretation that they 
wished to adopt and----
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, in the past I have 
asked the Chairman of the FCC to commit to using Lifeline funds 
for this purpose.
    Just one more question, Mr. Chairman.
    Will you commit to using at least $1 billion for Lifeline?
    Mr. Simington. I believe the current Lifeline budget is 
about $2.4 billion of which about $900 million and some is 
actively used. There is capacity for more of Lifeline to be 
used and I would be delighted to explore with you and your 
office and the Commission, if confirmed, methods of doing so.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me just say, Mr. Simington, I am 
deeply troubled by your lack of specificity on E-rate funds, on 
Lifeline, but most important, your apparent refusal to commit 
to recusing yourself, and I will put a hold on your nomination 
as long as you decline to make that commitment because I 
believe that the independence of the FCC above all, whether we 
agree or disagree with the outcome of its decision, is of 
paramount value.
    And I know that you have been sent to the FCC instead of 
Mr. O'Reilly because he was fired. He stood up to the 
President. We need the FCC to be independent.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
    Let us just nail down a couple of things here.
    Mr. Simington, if Senator Blumenthal is under the 
impression that you participated in drafting or participating 
in the writing of a policy paper for Americans for Tax Reform, 
he is under a mistaken impression. Is that your testimony?
    Mr. Simington. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. I am 
unsure where this was reported or how the distinguished Senator 
got this impression.
    The Chairman. But, nevertheless, it was--it was not you?
    Mr. Simington. That is correct.
    The Chairman. OK. And then with regard to my friend's 
request that you commit to recuse yourself from any 
deliberations of Section 230, would I be correct to assume that 
you are going to be guided by the--by the advice that you will 
receive from counsel including counsel in whatever ethics 
department you have there at the FCC? Is that your testimony?
    Mr. Simington. That is my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And so it would be premature to assume what 
their advice would be, but you will be guided by that?
    Mr. Simington. Senator, I would defer absolutely to the 
advice of ethics counsel.
    The Chairman. OK. And then--and then your participation in 
this NTIA petition for rulemaking of Section 230 was merely, 
sort of, being called into the game after the decision was 
already made and involved in what you call blocking and 
tackling. Is that right?
    Mr. Simington. Yes, that is----
    The Chairman. So and just explain to us what that would be. 
It does not sound like you were calling the shots on that.
    Mr. Simington. That is an accurate characterization, Mr. 
Chairman. I did not draft--I did not draft any of the original 
versions of the petition. My comments were made on finished 
versions.
    I did not coordinate or devise the legal strategy, and I 
would estimate that the number of words actually written by me 
in the petition would be on the order of 5 to 7 percent.
    The Chairman. OK. Well, let us move then to the RDOF, the 
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, which will make some 
$60 billion available to providers to serve unserved areas.
    Given the need for broadband today, I believe that 
providers should start building these new networks as soon as 
possible. So this summer I introduced the Accelerating 
Broadband Connectivity Act, which would reincentivize RDOF 
auction winners to start construction within 6 months of 
receiving funds and start service within 1 year.
    I assume that would be music to your ears, Mr. Simington, 
and would you like to say today that the Accelerating Broadband 
Connectivity Act is the right approach to accelerating the 
deployment of broadband through RDOF and why?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate--I would like to state my appreciation, for 
the record, for your leadership on this as well as that of 
Senators Capito and Blackburn.
    Assuming a passage and, obviously, if I were appointed, I 
would, of course, work with Congress in whatever determination 
they made as to how to deliver and implement and fund programs. 
I applied the sharp increase in timeline from completion in 
eight years to completion in three.
    During the time of this pandemic when, as many members of 
the Committee have noted, the ability to deliver services is 
greatly impacted. I believe that this will put services in 
front of people who desperately need them much quicker than it 
would otherwise.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. And then let us see if 
we can squeeze in something about rip and replace. You know, 
the President signed our Secure and Trusted Communication 
Network Act into law.
    While rip and replace is an important step toward securing 
rural networks we need to do more. What additional steps are 
available to the FCC to help secure our communications networks 
and encourage the development of next-generation technologies?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be 
brief since time is short.
    I think that the----
    The Chairman. But as you have seen, leeway is given to 
certain senior members.
    Mr. Simington. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
any leeway.
    So, but nonetheless, to help this happen something that is 
immediately within the FCC's powers is to make judicious use of 
waivers and to enable the use of test bids in order to promote 
domestic development in technology.
    Fundamentally, we find ourselves in this situation because 
we have become dependent on technology originating offshore 
that is incredibly difficult to audit.
    I have a copy of a report, which I would be happy to share, 
with your office that states that a single capacitor placed in 
the appropriate way can enable the security on a chip to be 
cracked.
    So the more control we have over the provenance and 
fabrication of chips the better, and the more we can develop 
our industry for that purpose and enable it at the FCC level, 
the better. If confirmed, this would certainly be a priority 
for me.
    I think as well this raises the larger question of 
engagement with Congress for joint actions to promote 
electronics, entrepreneurship, and domestic manufacturing, and 
enhanced activities in the--on the level of software supply 
chain security, which is going to be the security issue of 
greatest concern in the age of greater adoption of all around.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and if I might take a 
point of personal privilege, I assume that Adrian and Lawrence 
are sitting right behind you.
    Mr. Simington. They are, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Would they like to stand and give a wave to 
members of the Committee? Good to have you gentlemen with us. I 
hope this is not your last hearing before the Senate Commerce 
Committee.
    Thank you very much, and I am over my time.
    Senator Fischer, I believe, is next, joining us remotely.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for 
holding this nomination hearing today.
    Mr. Simington, according to the FCC's annual reports, 
between 2012 and 2018 American states and jurisdictions 
diverted more than $1.2 billion in 911 fees to non-911 
programs. Do you share concerns about the effects this fee 
diversion away from 911 services causes?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator. I do share this concern. 
Committed funds are committed for a purpose. Obviously, money 
is fungible, but the intent of the program is potentially 
violated if committed funds are diverted.
    Senator Fischer. Do you have any suggestions on ways that 
we could prevent states and other jurisdictions from diverting 
those fees?
    Mr. Simington. Senator, this is--this is a question that--
this is a question upon which I would need to consult with the 
enforcement bureau with the other Commissioners and with expert 
staff on the Commission in order to determine an action plan.
    There are several items docketed internally within the FCC 
for dealing with this, but I am not privy to the level of 
detail as to how far these are advanced.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. Also, in response to the 
pandemic Congress provided the FCC with funding through the 
CARES Act to support expanded telecommunications, broadband 
connectivity, and devices needed for telehealth services.
    Mr. Simington, do you believe that there are important 
takeaways from how the Commission stood up the COVID-19 
telehealth program and how quickly they were able to get the 
entire appropriated amount disbursed?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator.
    Yes, I applaud the efforts of the FCC on many fronts in 
ruling out a COVID-19 response, whether that was, as you say, 
getting telehealth up and running and functioning quickly.
    Of course, there are individual problems that have been 
discovered along the way. But, overall, we are very happy that 
it is there. In addition, the FCC has--went out and secured the 
historic Pai pledge to get private--the private industry to 
step up and make things easier for people who are suffering 
service disconnections and service lapses due to COVID.
    In general, I am very impressed by the response of 
America's regulatory bodies and networks under this time of 
great and unprecedented strain.
    Senator Fischer. As we are looking at the--another COVID 
package, I guess I am not asking if you are going to give 
advice to Congress at this point.
    But do you believe that Congress should consider 
prioritizing additional funding for this program? If you were 
going to prioritize this program where--I guess I am asking you 
how important do you feel it is?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator.
    Telehealth is a type of program that is--that is, in some 
ways, unprecedented at the FCC because it entails--it entails 
looking at the network infrastructure that is supporting the 
telehealth activities, which may vary immensely between 
locations, even similarly situated locations.
    It involves delivery of services. There are great 
geographical disparities in where telehealth is needed and it 
is not always obvious just on the basis of terrain or broadband 
penetration.
    There has been a great focus on delivering education 
services. Obviously, that is important. But telehealth has been 
the cornerstone of USF for a long time and telehealth relief 
is, obviously, more needed now than ever.
    So I would applaud Congress prioritizing this and I, if 
confirmed, would look forward to implementing this on the front 
lines with Congress.
    Senator Fischer. I would agree with you on that. 
Telehealth, I think, during this pandemic has just been vital 
in so many areas and so many states, and I think it has only 
highlighted how important it is and, really, what the 
opportunities are for it as we continue in the future.
    Next, sir, I would like to ask you about the Universal 
Service Fund and the high-cost program. It is a main avenue of 
Federal support for broadband network deployment in high-cost 
rural areas.
    Will you commit to ensuring this program has the 
sustainable resources needed to provide voice and broadband 
services in rural areas?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator.
    As you note, the high-cost program is used to deliver a 
variety of services, the demand for which rises and falls. For 
example, land lines, obviously, are falling but in some areas 
remain the best connection and with the most established 
infrastructure.
    Without being privy to the internal deliberations of the 
FCC on how it allocates funds, I cannot commit to a specific 
funding level.
    However, that is not to say that I do not recognize this as 
a key priority and I would work very closely with you and your 
office to ensure that necessary USF funds, particularly within 
the high-cost program, are delivered in order for services to 
maintain.
    Senator Fischer. And would you commit to ensure that the 
Universal Service Fund as a whole has the proper oversight to 
prevent waste, fraud, and duplicative spending?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator.
    I will absolutely commit to that, and there are many 
investigations over the last few years over into just exactly 
the sort of thing that you are talking about. Obviously, this 
is an enforcement priority at the FCC and if I become a 
Commissioner and I am confirmed, then it would continue to be a 
priority for me to ensure enforcement is working properly.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. And thank you, Senator Fischer.
    Senator Markey is next, joining us remotely also.

               STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    Mr. Simington, right now in the United States we have an 
educational crisis. We have millions of children, more than 10 
million, most likely, who do not have the Internet at home and 
that is leading to a homework gap that is leading to a learning 
gap which is leading to, ultimately, an opportunity gap for 
these young people, in the third grade or the fifth grade.
    If you do not have the Internet at home, you are going to 
be left behind and you are going to know that you have been 
left behind.
    Now, the Federal Communications Commission under Chairman 
Ajit Pai has ruled that the FCC cannot allocate E-rate funding 
for at-home learning, and since I am the author of the E-rate 
program I absolutely disagree with that interpretation and I 
think it is very shortsighted, but it is wrong as well.
    What is your interpretation, Mr. Simington, as to whether 
or not the Federal Communications Commission can use E-rate 
funding to help children at home get the connections which they 
need?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator.
    This is, of course, a question of vital concern. I think we 
all agree that learning in the home is how learning is taking 
place for the vast majority of America's students right now and 
I think we can further agree that deficiencies in equipment and 
facilities contribute to both the homework gap and the 
digital--well, they are symptoms of the digital divide and they 
contribute to the homework gap, and I agree with you that this 
is a matter of grave concern.
    As to the--as to the interpretation advanced by the 
Chairman, the Chairman, of course, sets the agenda of the 
Commission. But at the end of the day, the Commission is a 
collegial body and I view all decisions coming out of the 
Commission as being informed by that collegiality.
    And, as such, if I am confirmed to the Commission I would 
be one vote among five and one voice among five, and as such I 
would have to consult with the----
    Senator Markey. So what would--what would your voice be 
saying, Mr. Simington? Would it be saying, let us do it, or 
would you say, let us not do it? Would you agree with Chairman 
Pai or would you not?
    Mr. Simington. So I would need to discuss with the other 
Commissioners how they--how they arrived at this interpretation 
and what fears they have about other--about knock-on effects if 
this interpretation is adopted that you urge, and I cannot 
commit to a particular interpretation today but I certainly 
would commit to taking your concerns seriously, Senator, and to 
working with you----
    Senator Markey. Well, let me--let me--let me add on--let me 
add on here. You know, the Department of Interior also made a 
request.
    The Trump Department of Interior also made a request to the 
Federal Communications Commission to broaden its interpretation 
because, obviously, out in the Native American community there 
is a real need to have an expansive interpretation of the kind 
of virtual learning that can take place. And so Trump's own 
Department of Interior made this request as well.
    Do you think the Department of Interior made a mistake in 
making a request to the FCC that they broaden the 
interpretation so that there can be a greater, more expansive 
use, especially amongst the Native American community?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator.
    So I, certainly, would not say that it is ever a mistake to 
make such a request. The FCC is charged with making the 
determination and I have to--I have to assume that the FCC used 
their best judgment and took all aspects of the situation into 
account.
    That is not to say that I would come to the same 
conclusion. I do not want to prejudge the issue. But it is to 
say that I would need exposure to the internal deliberations 
that were--to get a full picture of how the FCC as a whole came 
to that interpretation.
    Senator Markey. Well, I know what Ajit Pai's decision was. 
He decided that he did not have the authority, which I totally 
disagree with, and the totality of the situation just boils 
down to him making a decision that it was the incorrect 
interpretation of the statute, which he is completely and 
totally mistaken about.
    So, again, this is a crisis. We have an incredible 
educational crisis in our country, especially amongst the poor 
and black and brown and immigrant children, Native American 
children.
    They are going to be left behind because the FCC has taken 
this extremely narrow interpretation of the use of E-rate 
funding and it is a huge mistake, and again, we are fighting 
hard to add money into whenever the next coronavirus package 
comes down the line to add $4 billion so that the funding would 
be there.
    But it is a step beyond which I think we really have to go 
because the funding should have been coming right out of the E-
rate program. That was my intent when I created the E-rate 
program and it still is today.
    So thank you, Mr. Simington, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
    Senator Thune.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing today and I appreciate all of our nominees' willingness 
to serve in these important positions.
    Mr. Simington, Universal Service Fund at the FCC has had a 
significant impact on states like South Dakota that have large 
rural areas. But more work needs to be done to connect rural 
Americans with reliable broadband services.
    As part of that effort, the FCC is currently conducting the 
first phase of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, the RDOF 
fund, which will provide $16 billion of funding for broadband 
services.
    As Commissioner at the FCC, will you commit to ensuring 
that any potential high-cost USF recipients are thoroughly 
vetted up front to confirm their ability to deliver on 
broadband service promises?
    Mr. Simington. I am delighted to make that commitment, 
Senator.
    Senator Thune. I, along with several of my colleagues on 
this Committee, have supported efforts to bolster the private 
sector's ability to build out 5G networks and believe any 
efforts to nationalize 5G would have an adverse effect on the 
United States' ability to win the race to 5G. Can you say--
express whether you have concerns or not with the idea of 
nationalizing 5G?
    Mr. Simington. Delighted to do so, Senator.
    So, first of all, I would like to state that I support the 
long-standing auction and commercialization regime that has 
been legislated by Congress. Congress has made its intention 
clear about every two years--actually, almost like clockwork--
that we are to continue commercializing spectrum, and if 
confirmed, I would certainly abide by the will of Congress on 
this point.
    Furthermore, I note that a commercialization regime via 
some other means such as a commercialized grant regime would 
contradict the path by which the United States unequivocally 
won the race to 4G and having a 4G economy.
    Beyond this, it is unclear to me how a U.S. Government 
network could be commercialized, legally speaking, and I guess 
the last point I would make on this is that spectrum is not a 
network and so far I have heard no proposals about building 
nationalized fiber, backhaul, towers and, as such, I am not 
sure that the--I am not sure that the prospects of so-called 
nationalized 5G are as real a threat as they are, obviously, an 
apparent one.
    But, of course--but, of course, that does not mean that we 
should create uncertainty in the market by leaving the issue 
out there. I think it is important to--for me to reassert that 
the--that Congress's regime is the one that I would consider 
myself bound by unless and until Congress were to radically 
change direction.
    Senator Thune. Good, and I hope the FCC would continue to 
reject the idea of nationalizing.
    During the COVID-19 pandemic we have seen increased demand 
for higher download and increasingly important upload speeds. 
At the same time, the continued deployment of 5G will require 
the densification of fiber networks in order to expand 5G in 
rural America.
    How important is it for Federal programs to ensure that 
broadband networks meet the needs of consumers today and in the 
future as we continue to eliminate the digital divide?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator. That is an excellent 
question, and for the--for the answer I would point in part to 
the funding mechanism for RDOF--rather, the tiering mechanism 
for RDOF, which contemplates both support for a minimal level 
of service and superior support for higher levels of service.
    So under the RDOF proposal as currently in place, 25/3, 
which is the considered the minimal Federal standard for 
broadband, does qualify for support, and if you look at a map 
of broadband coverage of the country as a whole, clearly, there 
are large swaths of the country where something is better than 
nothing and entering the modern age is--you know, is better 
than being left behind.
    As against that, 25/3 might not be totally future proof 
either, and in areas where there is already existing service at 
that level we would not want to fund anything duplicative, for 
example. So it would be ineligible for RDOF anyway.
    But the highest--the highest tier of latency and of upload/
download speed is eligible for the most support and so it works 
as a sliding scale so that we are able to get some support 
where it is needed and we are able to get the highest level of 
support for higher priority projects such as, for example, in 
an area that has the potential for highly advanced industrial 
automation by Internet of Things to have true 1/1 gigabit and 
get there right away and not wait another 10 years.
    Senator Thune. And you referenced this already, but 
spectrum we have got mid, low, high band spectrum, all of which 
are important. Will you commit to work with us to identify and 
move forward on opening up additional bands that can help 
advance U.S. leadership in wireless connectivity?
    Mr. Simington. I absolutely will, and I note that the NTIA 
has a current commitment to do this, which I actively support 
and I worked with OSM on.
    Senator Thune. Great. Final question. I understand you have 
already been asked this a couple different times, but let me 
just ask as well whether you would support a complete repeal of 
Section 230, if not, why, and as you perhaps know, I have a 
bill along with Senator Schatz to reform Section 230 and there 
are other bills out there as well. So what is your view on 
that?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your 
leadership and my thanks to Senator Schatz as well for his 
leadership on the PACT Act.
    My view is that--is that 230s repeal is, obviously, a 
matter for Congress. There have been calls for it on both sides 
of the aisle and there has been strong resistance on both sides 
of the aisle.
    Not being a legislator and not having any immediate 
prospects to becoming one, my views would just be advisory. As 
far as 230 reform and its possibilities at the FCC, my sense is 
that the FCC has indicated its ability to accept jurisdiction 
but has not necessarily indicated any particular direction and, 
certainly, not, to my knowledge there is no--there is no Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking out there, and I suspect the FCC, having 
taken so long to accept jurisdiction, will engage on a long 
process of being, first of all, guided by Congress to determine 
what Congress's future desires are for the direction of 230; 
second, establishing an evidentiary record and, again, in 
consultation with Congress; and third, making--looking for all 
the things that could go wrong because, in my judgment, 230 is 
an important law and we do not want to touch it and break a 
bunch of other things.
    Senator Thune. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I will submit a question for our other 
panelists, and congratulations on your nominations.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Thune.
    Senator Rosen.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Rosen. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Wicker. I 
appreciate--I appreciate you calling on me today. My questions 
are for Mr. Simington this afternoon and I want to talk a 
little bit about rural broadband and its impacts on maternal 
health.
    You know, in Nevada and across the country rural 
communities have been grappling with the impact of the 
coronavirus pandemic.
    We have all had to quickly adapt technologically, migrating 
to virtual tools and systems including distance learning, 
telework, and, of course, telemedicine. It has been 
incredibly--it has been incredible to see the way technology, 
specifically telehealth, has enabled patients to receive care 
safely.
    While telemedicine is not a complete substitute for 
receiving an in-person evaluation, it is useful in many 
applications including keeping pregnant and new mothers safe 
while accessing maternal care.
    That is why I introduced the Data Mapping to Save Moms' 
Lives Act alongside Senators Fischer, Young, and Schatz. This 
bipartisan legislation would direct the FCC to consult with the 
CDC to incorporate data on maternal health outcomes into the 
FCC's broadband health maps in order to show where poor 
broadband access and high rates of poor maternal health 
outcomes--well, see where they overlap. In this way, we want to 
determine where the telehealth services are needed the most.
    So, Mr. Simington, can you please talk about the importance 
of accurate mapping, particularly for understanding how access 
to broadband affects health outcomes amongst our high-risk and 
vulnerable population, and is mapping health outcomes something 
that you will be committed to doing and pursuing if you are 
confirmed to the Commission?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator, and first, let me begin 
by thanking you for your work in advancing this legislation and 
for identifying an issue that perhaps goes too often ignored.
    I would--I would certainly like to--I would certainly like 
to reiterate my support for the idea of telemedicine and for 
the concept of finding ways to deliver telemedicine more 
broadly and more efficaciously.
    But you have asked me to talk about mapping so I am going 
to focus on that. The difficulty until now is that mapping has 
resided in a disparate collection of agencies, and a number of 
different agencies have had different agencies have had 
different mandates that deliver--to deliver broadband subsidies 
or broadband build-outs at different levels of service.
    There just has not been a uniform clearinghouse 
establishing a single standard, and we are still not at a 
single standard. I want to be perfectly clear.
    The standards contemplated under the Broadband Data Act, 
although a great improvement, are still some time from being 
implemented so and that is particularly painful because we are 
in the middle of RDOF right now and we face the prospect of 
breaking ground before we have gotten to the best quality of 
geo-mapping and, in some cases, just operating with bare census 
tracks, although we are doing our best to get beyond that.
    The first thing that I would do to--if I were confirmed to 
the Commission to try to forward the goal of your legislation--
that is, of tying mapping to better understanding health 
outcomes--would be to look once more around the Federal 
Government and see what additional mapping resources could be 
brought to bear and, in particular, at the NTIA we have maps 
that contain certain proprietary overlays over the Department 
of Agriculture maps.
    I have discussed--I have discussed the pros and cons of 
bringing those into the FCC process internally within NTIA. 
This is certainly something I would continue to pursue if I 
were to be confirmed as a Commissioner.
    The second thing is----
    Senator Rosen. And--I am sorry. Let me--it is a matter of 
time. I have got just about a minute. I want to ask you one 
more thing quickly. Will have some questions for the record as 
well.
    But Nevada is home to 27 tribes, and according to the FCC 
less than half of rural tribal households have access to fixed 
broadband service.
    So in just about the minute I have left, we have a lot of 
issues in our tribal communities and I am an original co-
sponsor of the Extending Tribal Broadband Priority Act, which 
would require the FCC to open a new 2.5 gigahertz rural tribal 
priority window that would last at least 180 days.
    So would you support creating a new tribal priority window 
so that tribes across this Nation can address their disparities 
in broadband?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator. I would be delighted to 
endorse a tribal priority window. As you know, there was 
controversy between the FCC and a number of senators over the 
length of the priority window with the tension being between 
allowing more tribes to participate and breaking ground sooner.
    I think that the way to rectify this is to do better 
outreach to tribes earlier in the process in order to allow 
them to make more effective use of a shorter priority window.
    I say shorter. In this case, shorter might be better if it 
allows groundbreaking in 30 days instead of 180 days. But this 
would be a matter that I would continue to discuss with you and 
your staff to ensure the best outcome for underserved tribal 
communities.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I appreciate that. Particularly 
in the pandemic, some of those time lines that might have been 
more achievable need to be extended now as we respond to 
coronavirus.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
    Senator Capito.

            STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank our panelists today for joining us.
    Like many others, I have--my questions are for Mr. 
Simington. I appreciate the phone call that we had, Mr. 
Simington, and I would like to kind of jump off of what you 
have already been discussing, which is the RDOF.
    As we know, on October the 29th, 2020, just several weeks--
well, not even several weeks ago, the RDOF kicked off and I 
think it holds great promise.
    I mean, it has been held out to our state of--my state of 
West Virginia has having maybe almost as much as $700 million 
to close that digital divide.
    So I guess my question is, one, how long do you feel that, 
as this is moving forward, are we going to be able to get a 
clear perspective in individual states of how successful the 
RDOF has been, how many local folks are bidding and whether the 
coverage there is as grand and as large as we hoped that it 
would be? Do you have any perspective on timing and what those 
indicators could be?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator. Apologies. My mic was 
off.
    So the--so you raise a great point about RDOF and about 
timing indicators. I will note that this is one factor that 
leads me to be optimistic about the possibility of an 
accelerated broadband connectivity fund to get RDOF delivered 
faster.
    The timing--the timing implications of the current build-
out schedule, just to rehearse those, are 20 percent delivery 
in--20 percent delivery, then 40 percent delivery, then 60 
percent delivery, leading to completion of the original 
estimate by the end of year six with additional build-outs in 
year seven and eight to clear the original estimate if there 
is--if there was an under estimate or to pick up--pick up 
places to provide this service.
    The difficulty is an 8-year build-out schedule does not 
help anyone who needs service right now, and the accelerated--
the ABC fund approach would require delivery of service by the 
end of year one to at least some households. So that is one--
that is one promising approach that I would support.
    The other difficulty, of course, with--is the tension 
between time--between time to get the maps right and time to 
break ground. The longer we take to get the maps right the 
longer it takes to break ground, and this has been a chronic 
problem throughout RDOF in the planning phases that has led to, 
eventually, the auction taking place in anticipation of--in 
anticipation of the use of census tracks for much of the 
mapping.
    So I share your concerns and would look forward to 
discussing both of these issues further and, if confirmed, 
obviously, I would closely monitor RDOF throughout its life.
    Senator Capito. Well, I am hoping that the broadband data, 
which you have already addressed, will help us with the mapping 
issues and that can also help us with the RDOF.
    But the other thing that I have great concern about, having 
seen buckets of money coming in to our state in particular 
aimed at, you know, filling out the middle mile or getting it 
to that last house, and then, you know, a bundle of excuses by 
providers as to why that has not occurred.
    No claw back of any of the dollars and the lack of delivery 
of services at a level which has been promised has been very 
disappointing.
    So I guess I would prevail upon you, when I vote for your 
confirmation--hopefully, you will be confirmed--that the 
enforcement mechanisms that are in place are actually used and 
are tough enough to make sure that, you know, the promises made 
are the promises kept.
    And I think that, you know, in many rural areas it has been 
a lot of promises and a lot of money, quite frankly, that still 
has not delivered the service that I think the areas are due 
and expect and, certainly, in this COVID environment very much 
want.
    So I want to join with you and get an assurance from you 
that the enforcement mechanisms and the oversight would be 
there at the FCC if you were to be confirmed?
    Mr. Simington. Senator, I am delighted to offer you--to 
offer you full cooperation and active support and active 
coordination on--coordinating on enforcement to the fullest 
degree to ensure that monies spent on connectivity achieve 
connectivity without getting bogged down in a mire of waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    Senator Lee, you are the last one in the queue so you are 
recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I assume that 
means I have unlimited time.
    The Chairman. I do not think that is quite what I said, no.
    Senator Lee. OK. Just making sure.
    Thanks to all of you for being here. In the few minutes 
that we have got remaining in the hearing I want to cover a few 
important issues.
    Mr. Simington, thanks for the time that you have given to 
me so far to discuss issues that are before the Commission and 
that involve the Commission. It has been helpful and I want to 
spend some time today following up on a couple of things that 
you and I have previously discussed but have not been able to 
get through completely.
    I want to begin by talking a little bit about spectrum 
policy. As you know, spectrum is absolutely essential to the 
development of technology, the kinds of technologies that we 
are increasingly relying on, and because spectrum is a finite 
resource--it does not exist to an unlimited degree--we have to 
figure out ways to better use it and to better manage it.
    Some of that can be done through technology. Some of it 
also has to be done through improved public policy and through 
ways that we can figure out how best to allocate the spectrum 
for both licensed and for unlicensed purposes.
    One serious issue that I think is holding us back from 
better spectrum management and decisionmaking involves the 
dysfunctional interagency process dealing with spectrum. The 
FCC handles commercial spectrum bands and the NTIA handles 
government spectrum bands.
    So one question I wanted to ask you is should NTIA or a 
Federal agency be able to veto an FCC decision to license a 
band for a commercial purpose?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator.
    This is--this is, indeed, a major question. As you note, 
there have been repeated conflicts over particular spectrum 
auctions and particular bands, and it is leading increasingly 
to recourse to legislative solutions which, of course, we would 
all deplore, hoping it be handled appropriately between the 
agencies.
    As to the question of whether the NTIA should be able to 
veto the FCC, unfortunately, I am not sure that the Memorandum 
of Understanding is 100 percent clear. Different positions have 
been asserted by different agencies.
    Oddly, the NTIA has asserted that it is a co-regulator 
while certain language in--on FCC decisions--I am sorry, on FCC 
Report and Order that I have reviewed suggests that each agency 
may act unilaterally.
    So I think coming up with a more robust memorandum of 
understanding to address this exact point would be highly--
would be highly efficient in helping the agencies to resolve 
conflict.
    But I suspect, Senator, you are asking me if as a matter of 
policy I believe that that should be the case, and I would say 
that that would--that would seriously impugn the ability of the 
FCC to serve as the commercial spectrum regulator in the United 
States.
    Senator Lee. Fair point and well said.
    What about when a particular Federal agency--let us just 
say, hypothetically, the Department of Defense--steps in and is 
the one trying to halt it and it does so by saying national 
security. This cannot happen because of national security. If 
this happens, dogs and cats will be living together in the 
streets. The wrath of God, Book of Revelation type stuff. 
Complete apocalypse will be at our door.
    Should that make a difference if the agency trying to veto 
it is asserting a national security interest and reason why 
that license should not move forward?
    Mr. Simington. That is an excellent question, Senator, as 
well and very timely. I am going to answer it with respect to 
the Ligado matter specifically.
    So as you know, Ligado was a 5-0 decision by the FCC. If 
the question is did the FCC appropriately follow its statute 
and obey its legal standard, I would say that the answer has 
just got to be yes. I do not see any other way to read the 
record.
    As against that, the--we find ourselves in a little bit of 
a legal tangle because the Department of Defense also has a 
statute that says it cannot tolerate threats to military GPS 
and it is illegal for the DOD to consent to anything that would 
threaten military GPS, and that is the avenue through which the 
DOD is pushing back on this specific decision.
    So we have, so to speak, the immovable object and the 
irresistible force. Now, I think that this is--I think that 
this is a regrettable state of affairs and there is no way to, 
so to speak, formalistically resolve it within the system 
because we have two different legal standards that are--that 
are just inevitably in conflict and this is why we need a 
better interagency process that is capable of taking, perhaps, 
national security concerns into account without rising to the 
level of a veto.
    I know the veto would make the DOD, effectively, the 
spectrum regulator of last resort and, presumably, commercial 
license holders would be vastly unsettled by that outcome.
    So much more careful thought is needed on this in order to 
keep all the equities attended to.
    Senator Lee. All right. Gets even worse, of course, when 
that hypothetical Federal agency steps in and convinces 
Congress to resolve the issue for it, based on political 
considerations and scare tactics.
    Do you think that Federal agencies currently, as a general 
matter, do they use their spectrum allocations effectively and 
efficiently?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator.
    This is--this is a very interesting question because there 
is no doubt that on any given megahertz commercial operators 
send vastly greater quantities of signal.
    I mean, I noted--I noted in a statement--in my opening 
remarks that commercial usage of--commercial output over a 
given megahertz have expanded by about 4,000 percent over about 
the last 8 years and that is--that is, of course, greater than 
any comparable expansion of Federal activity.
    Now, as to the question of efficiency of use, the 
difficulty is that some bands and some uses are not susceptible 
to the sort of extremely dense uses you would see in the 
commercial world. So this really becomes a case by case 
question.
    Senator Lee. Mr. Chairman, I am undyingly deferential to 
you as the Chairman. I see my time has expired. I have one more 
question. It is a small question. It is not one----
    The Chairman. Does any member have an objection?
    Without objection.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The Senator may proceed.
    Senator Lee. All right. So I would like to know whether you 
regard the Internet as a public utility and whether, if 
confirmed, you would ever consider classifying the Internet or 
support classifying the Internet as a Title 2 common carrier?
    Mr. Simington. Thank you, Senator.
    Whether by the Internet we mean edge providers or whether 
we mean broadband delivery services, commercial wireless, I 
see--I see no reason to pursue reclassification.
    I think it would be much better for us to continue under 
Title 1 classification instead of changing the rules again 
after 3 years.
    Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During 
this time, senators are asked to submit any questions for the 
record with the final submission deadline being close of 
business Tuesday, November 24, 2020.
    The Committee then asks the witnesses that upon receipt of 
any questions for the record you submit your written answers to 
the Committee as soon as possible but no later than the close 
of business on Tuesday, December 8, 2020.
    With that, we conclude the hearing. Thank the nominees for 
their willing to serve and for their testimony.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to 
                             Dr. Greg Autry
    Question 1. NASA's CFO oversees a $22.6 billion budget that covers 
a range of projects with different needs. What in your past work 
experience enables you to lead such a large and critical budget?
    Answer. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. I appreciate the opportunity 
to discuss my qualifications.
    My service on the NASA agency review team provided me with an 
unparalleled opportunity to delve deeply into NASA programs, budgets 
and accounting. As the business professor on the team, I was often 
tasked with budget analysis and with engaging the Office of the CFO 
during our research. I would encourage you to reread the letter that 
then NASA CFO David ``Radz'' Radzanowski has sent to this committee in 
support of my nomination. He writes:

        ``Dr. Autry understands the role of the CFO and its 
        responsibilities to Congress, the NASA Administrator, the 
        Office of Management and Budget and the White House. I believe 
        you can count on him to continue to deliver the high-quality 
        management, oversight and reporting that has distinguished the 
        Office of the Chief Financial Officer at NASA over the last 
        decade.''

    The CFO's job is not one of managing the details of a $28 billion 
budget (NASA appropriations for FY 2020 were $22.6b, offsetting 
revenues from work done for other agencies and unobligated balances 
carried over from the previous year add more than $5b to total 
budgetary resources.) NASA CFO is a leadership position managing 1,200 
civil servants and 600 contract employees in the Office of the CFO. 
These highly qualified NASA personnel are fully capable of doing the 
bookkeeping, accounting and reporting. The agency recently issued 
another excellent Annual Agency Financial Report for FY2020 and 
received a 10th consecutive ``Clean'' opinion from the external 
auditor. I concede that I expect my supporting team to be more 
knowledgeable about the details of process and procedure than I.
    I have extremely broad management and finance experience. I've led 
small, innovative organizations as well as teams and budgets inside a 
large corporation distributed across several states. My management 
expertise resulted in me being requested by the University of 
California, Irvine to join their faculty following the completion of my 
MBA there. After several years of teaching, I was encouraged to pursue 
a PhD in Management and I was hired by the Marshall School of Business 
at the University of Southern California. My USC workshops attracted 
highly respected business and governmental space figures.
    I've taught management, accounting, finance and economics to 
executives, professionals and entrepreneurs for two decades. Many of 
the students I've mentored have gone on to great success in space 
firms. I would note that Relativity Space, whose founders I have 
mentored since their time at USC, just secured a new $500 million 
investment at a valuation of over $2 billion. This is on top of their 
previously raised $177 million.
    I possess a unique understanding of private sector space operations 
and insight into the agency from a programmatic and process viewpoint. 
The current and previous administration have, with Congressional 
support, expanded public-private partnerships significantly. The 
contracting landscape is evolving, and the vendor pool is expanding in 
ways that are challenging to career professionals at GAO and OMB. 
Moving ahead, maximizing the value of both traditional contractors and 
entrepreneurial firms requires an understanding of how they operate, 
what resources they have, and how they view their relationship with 
governmental. If confirmed, I will add significant value in ensuring 
that Congress gets what they expect from appropriations.

    Question 2. The CFO plays a very important role in promoting and 
securing funding for critical scientific programs. The 2018 NASA budget 
request that you worked on included cuts to climate studies and STEM 
programs. How did you come to the conclusion to cut these important 
programs?
    Answer. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to address this. 
The CFO isn't a policy making position, and the CFO does not establish 
the priorities of NASA budget. If confirmed it will be my job to 
implement the will of Congress as represented in appropriations. My 
efforts at securing science funds will be directed by the NASA 
Administrator with input from the Science Mission Directorate and the 
Decadal Survey.
    I am passionate educator and mentor to STEM students. My own STEM 
career was inspired by NASA's accomplishments. My wife has been a 
public-school teacher and principle. Your committee has received many 
letters in support of my nomination from leading space scientists and 
engineers I have had the pleasure to work with. These include Dr. Alan 
Stern, PI on the New Horizons probe to Pluto; Dr. Scott Hubbard, NASA's 
former ``Mars Czar,'' former Ames Director and professor of 
Astronautics at Stanford; along with most of the leadership at USC's 
renowned department of Astronautics, where Neil Armstrong earned an MS 
during his Apollo days. How STEM education is supported at NASA is not 
the decision of the CFO. I will implement the will of Congress under 
the direction of the NASA administrator.
    My record on NASA's role in understanding and improving the 
stewardship of our planet is clear. I would not have 20 solar panels on 
my roof or own two electric cars without NASA's important investments 
in STEM. While I don't take personal responsibility for the FY2018 
budget request, I will note that it did protect most of the very large 
increases that had been implemented in preceding years. The 2018 
request for ``Earth Systemic Missions'' was $778 million vs. the 2007 
budget of $473 million.

    Question 3. If confirmed as NASA's CFO, would you support funding 
for climate studies and STEM programs?
    Answer. CFO is not a policy position, and my personal beliefs and 
priorities will not set the budget. If confirmed, my job will be to 
manage Congressional appropriations responsibly, under the guidance of 
the NASA Administrator. I will do so at the highest ethical standard 
and provide accurate reports to stakeholders on how these funds were 
allocated. The NASA Administrator and Science Mission Director will 
advocate for programs they believe will return the most value from our 
taxpayer investment. Their choices will be informed by the decadal 
survey.
    My personal record supporting NASA's role in Earth Science research 
and in developing technologies that mitigate pollution is clear. It is 
critical that we understand our own planet's atmosphere, oceans and 
climate, and that we learn from the history of our neighboring worlds 
as well. Learning what events caused Mars to lose most of its 
atmosphere and surface water, and how the surface of our ``sister 
planet'' Venus was transformed into a hellish landscape by a natural 
runaway greenhouse gas syndrome, may give us insights into our own 
biosphere.
    NASA inspired my own STEM career in computing. And inspired me as a 
first-generation college student. I have spent a great deal of time 
connecting STEM students with careers in aerospace. Nothing would make 
me happier than being able to connect students with NASA, its rich 
educational resources, internships, and activities. Congress, the White 
House and the NASA Administrator will determine the best organizational 
mechanisms for this.

    Question 4. Can you please state whether you accept the 
overwhelming scientific consensus demonstrating that humans are the 
primary driver of climate change over the last 100 years?
    Answer. As noted, the CFO is not a policy position. I take our 
environment seriously. Lessons my stepfather, instilled in me still 
ring true, ``Always leave the camp cleaner than you found it'' and 
``Leave nothing but footprints.'' I grew up in the Los Angeles of the 
1970s, where the air was nearly as unbreathable as Beijing's is today. 
American ingenuity solved that problem. We should do our best to limit 
any emissions in ways that support American standards of living and 
competitive economic development. Someday, space-based solar power 
systems may provide zero pollution energy at night and under winter 
cloud cover (serious shortfalls of ground-based systems).
    That said, I am a social science researcher trained in economics 
and management theory and not a climate scientist. I should not 
interpret data and models that I do not fully understand. I would not 
expect a climate scientist to ``accept'' an economic theory, even if it 
were the dominant paradigm advocated by most leading economists. 
Science must not be politicized. From my outsider understanding of the 
topic, a majority of climate scientists believe that human activities 
have contributed to the emission of gases that can induce climate 
change and that this poses a significant ecological threat. That 
concerns me.
    If confirmed, my job will be to manage Congressional science 
appropriations responsibly, under the guidance of the NASA 
Administrator. I will do so at the highest ethical standard and provide 
accurate reports to stakeholders on how these funds were allocated.

    Question 5. The stated mission of the office of the CFO for NASA is 
``To be the credible expert, trusted advisor and source of quality 
information on matters related to finance and resources, including the 
management of associated risk, for NASA programmatic and institutional 
decision making.'' How will you be able to help a leading U.S. 
scientific agency understand and prepare for the effects of climate 
change?
    Answer. I will follow the will of Congress and support Congress in 
doing their job of appropriations by providing accurate financial 
reporting and timely answers to inquiries. However, I am not qualified 
determine how the agency should ``understand and prepare for climate 
change.'' I must leave that understanding to NASA's excellent 
scientists, and the preparations to engineers and facilities staff at 
our field centers. Where appropriate, I will strive to honestly convey 
the concerns and needs of these experts to Congress.
    I would politely suggest to Congress that when considering 
infrastructure spending bills, appropriations should be included for 
urgently needed repairs to NASA's aging infrastructure. The agency is 
burdened with a number of facilities constructed in the 1950s and 1960s 
that are badly in need of repair, updating, and environmental 
remediation. I look forward to working with you to ensure those 
facilities remain capable of supporting NASA's missions, and that they 
are safe for our workers under any anticipated conditions.

    Question 6. International cooperation is essential to the future of 
progress in space, from the International Space Station to addressing 
space junk. On Russian television you said that China is worse than 
1930s Nazi Germany government and you are a member of the group 
Committee on Present Danger: China, which believes that ``As with the 
Soviet Union in the past, Communist China represents an existential and 
ideological threat to the United States.'' Do you see any benefits to 
cooperating with China in the space domain?
    Answer. Thank you, Senator Duckworth, for the opportunity to 
address this extremely important question. The position of CFO is not a 
policy making one and my job will be to implement the will of Congress 
as directed by the NASA administrator under the guidance of the White 
House.
    I could not agree more with you about the critical importance of 
international cooperation in space. NASA has been, and continues to be, 
an agency that represents America at its best and positively engages 
with many nations in the grandest of human endeavors, with full 
transparency--something that some other national space agencies cannot 
claim.
    With specific regard to China, let me first say I sincerely wish 
that my admonitions over the last two decades had not been as prescient 
as they have turned out to be. I could enumerate the offenses of the 
current Chinese regime, but we all know what those are and how large 
their scale is. The U.S. Senate has reacted to recent gross violations 
of civil rights in Hong Kong and human rights among the Uighur peoples. 
I sincerely thank you for that.
    My respect and admiration for the people of China is backed by 
activities of record. I have traveled extensively in China as a 
researcher, tourist and volunteer. The committee has received letters 
in support of my nonmention from many of my Chinese American 
colleagues, students and friends. Wei Jingsheng, widely regarded as the 
Father of Chinese Democracy, wrote:

        When in California, I have made an effort to visit Dr. Autry at 
        his university and to show my support for his work in business, 
        economics, space and civil rights.

    I am not alone in my concern. A Pew research report last month 
showed that an unfavorable view of China is held by 73 percent of 
Americans, 73 percent of Canadians 73 percent, 75 percent of South 
Koreans 75 percent, 81 percent of Australians 81 percent and 86 percent 
Japanese.
    There are areas where cooperation with the Chinese regime in space 
will be required due to treaty obligations and safety concerns. There 
are also other areas where cooperation with China may be desirable. In 
particular, the exchange of scientific data and materials may 
accelerate our knowledge of the solar system without risk to our IP or 
security. These choices will be made by NASA Administrator, guided by 
the White House and Congress.

    Question 7. If the U.S. does not engage with China in space, are 
any other countries poised to counterbalance China's ambition and 
ensure that the space domain remains open and accessible?
    Answer. Another excellent question. Again, the CFO is not a policy 
making position, but my record on advocating for international 
engagement in space is very public.
    Our goals in space must include expanding human knowledge as well 
as developing the economic and material potentials of that domain. 
These activities will benefit the American taxpayers who fund them, but 
will also return value to everyone on Earth, as NASA has for decades.
    As we take our first steps into the solar system, we must be 
careful to avoid repeating the historical errors of the age of 
exploration and take carry only Lincoln's ``better angels of our 
nature,'' with us. There should be no place in the future of humanity 
for totalitarianism, censorship, religious oppression or ethnic 
persecution. The world expects no less of the United States.
    Many free nations have already joined our scientific and human 
exploration efforts in space. NASA's current work on the Artemis 
Accords, which will establish bold goals and set strong standards and 
behavioral norms in space, will benefit all nations. The swift adoption 
of these bilateral agreements by an expanding group of very diverse 
nations is a testament to the respect the world has for our space 
agency and our democratic institutions.

    Question 8. If confirmed, how will you engage with China 
productively to prevent further militarization of the space domain and 
a counterproductive new ``space race''?
    Answer. Again, the CFO is not a policy making position or 
diplomatic position. It is significantly removed from military policy 
and geopolitical strategy. Engagement choices will be made by the White 
House, Department of State, Congress and the NASA Administrator.
    As an economist and business expert let me note that a ``space 
race'' need not be military nor counterproductive. Competition in 
scientific discovery, human exploration, technological innovation and 
commercial development can be a powerful, positive force. Whether that 
competition is on an Olympic ice rink or in space, bold attempts to 
enhance national prestige have often been a force for good. Many 
tangible benefits to humanity were spawned by the first Space Race 
including GPS, satellite communications, Earth imaging and the research 
computing network that eventually became the Internet.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                             Dr. Greg Autry
    Question. NASA's EPSCoR program brings much-needed research 
investment to places outside the major tech hubs, including Montana, 
and has long enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress. Why has the 
Trump administration worked so hard to eliminate not just this program 
but the entire Office of Education at NASA, including in the FY2018 
budget that you helped to develop?
    Answer. Thank you, Senator Tester, for the opportunity to address 
this. The NASA CFO isn't a policy making position, and the CFO does not 
establish the NASA budget. If confirmed it will be my job to implement 
the will of Congress as represented in appropriations.
    My record in support of governmental funding for research 
investment is a strong and public one. As a business professor I 
specialized in teaching engineering students, and as a researcher I 
focused on the role of government in the emergence of new industries. I 
have noted my own STEM career was inspired by NASA's accomplishments in 
the 1960s and 70s. I went from being a first-generation college student 
to a professor at a leading university, mentoring STEM student.
    Regarding past decisions, I cannot speak for the White House on 
their broader goals. Specifically, I had no input whatsoever on any 
decision involving the EPSCoR program at the National Science 
Foundation.
    I do not take personal responsibility for the entire 2018 budget 
request nor the specific decisions concerning NASA's Office of 
Education. I don't believe anyone opposed NASA STEM engagement and the 
issue was more about the most effective mechanism for delivering it. I 
would need to look into the current state of this issue and report back 
to you. An outside study to determine whether a dedicated office at 
NASA HQ is the most effective way for NASA to deliver value to STEM 
education might be useful. If confirmed, I will implement Congressional 
STEM education appropriations under the guidance of the NASA 
Administrator.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                             Dr. Greg Autry
    Planetary Defense. NASA is tasked with the responsibility of 
planetary defense, however recent studies and reports indicate that 
planetary defense research and activities are underfunded at the 
agency.
    Question. How will you work with your NASA colleagues to ensure 
that this critical responsibility is adequately funded so that missions 
can meet their optimal timelines for launch?
    Answer. Thank you, Senator Sinema, for bringing up this important 
topic. The dramatic photos of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 slamming into 
Jupiter taken by NASA's Hubble space telescope promoted the first 
Congressional response to the NEO threat. Much is already being done. 
The Catalina Sky Survey, based at the University of Arizona, has 
discovered roughly 50 percent of the 20,000 known Near Earth Objects 
(NEOs). NASA's Planetary Defense Coordination Office is working with 
powerful partners in government and industry. DoD, DoE, NSF and FEMA 
are already engaged in this process with NASA's Planetary Defense 
Coordination Office (PDCO). In September, NASA signed an MOU with the 
newly created U.S. Space Force that includes cooperation on Planetary 
Defense. Whenever appropriate we should seek align the interest of 
America's private investors with NASA's goals in order to maximize 
return to our taxpayers.
    NASA is also engaging our international partners in addressing this 
global threat. The Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment (AIDA) 
mission, which combines ESA's Hera mission with NASA's Double Asteroid 
Redirect Test (DART) spacecraft which will test deflection techniques 
in space. Non-spacefaring countries can also contribute, and the 
International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN) is good example of this.
    If confirmed, I will prioritize bringing myself up to speed on the 
critically important NEOSM (Near-Earth Object Surveillance Mission) 
project and other proposals for tracking threats to our planet, and 
keep you informed on the progress.
    Testing mitigation options is important as well. Most important, as 
referenced in your question, is insuring the launch of NASA's DART 
spacecraft next July. DART benefits from years of investments Congress 
has supported in NASA's Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) systems, also 
being used on the upcoming Lunar Gateway. As CFO it would be a priority 
of mine to ensure that the DART project stays on schedule for its 
critical launch window. The target binary asteroid will not wait for us 
to be ready. If confirmed, I will do what is in my power to clear any 
bureaucratic delays and work with you and with OMB to make sure the 
funds appropriated for this are well and properly used, and that you 
are kept informed of the progress on the project. I look forward to 
working with you on planetary protection efforts if I am confirmed.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                              Daniel Huff
    Current Role at the International Trade Administration. In a letter 
to the Committee dated November 5, 2020, you noted that you are 
currently serving as Deputy Chief of Staff at the International Trade 
Administration (ITA) while also being detailed back to the White House 
as an Advisor in the Office of Presidential Personnel (OPP).

    Question 1. Please detail your current responsibilities at ITA.
    Answer. I am entirely focused on my White House detail and 
therefore not involved in the day to day operations of ITA.

    Question 2. Please specify the amount of time, during your term as 
an employee of ITA, that you have spent working on matters at ITA and 
the amount of time you have spent working on matters at OPP.
    Answer. I am focused entirely on the White House detail until it 
ends.

    Question 3. As part of your detail at OPP, do you play any role in 
recommending or vetting any nominees, Schedule C, on non-career SES 
appointees for positions at the Department of Commerce? If so, please 
detail specific nominees you have been involved with including their 
names and the positions for which they have been considered.
    Answer. My role at PPO is focused on legal issues and strategy. I 
am not involved in recruitment or vetting. However, I did pass on the 
resume of an acquaintance, Trey Mayfield, to the team that handles 
recruitment, and I believe he is now a lawyer in the GC's office at 
Commerce.

    Question 4. In your position at either ITA or OPP, have you been 
involved in the creation of any new Schedule C or non-career SES 
positions? If so, please list each position, when that position was 
created, and the name of the person (if any) currently occupying the 
position.
    Answer. No.

    Question 5. In your position at either ITA or OPP, have you been 
involved in the conversion of any Schedule C or non-career SES 
positions to positions in the career civil service. If so, please list 
each position, when that position was converted, and the name of the 
person (if any) currently occupying the position.
    Answer. No.

    Question 6. Please explain your role, if any, in the vetting or 
hiring of Nathan Simington to serve as a Senior Advisor at the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
    Answer. None. As noted above, I focus on legal issues and strategy 
at PPO.

    Question 7. Please explain your role, if any, in the vetting of 
Nathan Simington in connection with his nominations to serve as 
Commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
    Answer. As noted above, I focus on legal issues and strategy at 
PPO. However, I do recall that I sat in on his interview with PPO.

    Repeal of Fair Housing Rule at HUD. Your resume indicates that, 
prior to assuming your current duties, you served as the General Deputy 
Assistant Secretary, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, at 
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In this 
position, your resume indicates that you ``developed and oversaw key 
HUD policy initiatives featuring innovative approaches.''

    Question 8. Please detail any role you had in the July 2020 repeal 
of a 2015 Obama Administration rule (the ``Affirmatively Furthering 
Fair Housing'' or AFFA'' rule) that required communities receiving 
housing grants to take steps to eliminate segregation in their 
communities.\1\ Under the new rule, communities would be allowed to 
just self-certify these efforts.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Evan Weinberger, Trump Administration Repeals Obama-Era 
Fair Housing Rule, Bloomberg Law, July 23, 2020, available at https://
news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/trump-administration-repeals-obama-
era-fair-housing-rule.
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. I helped advise on and draft the rule. I recognize that not 
everyone agrees with it, but the legal and policy justifications set 
forth in the rule's preamble are persuasive.

    Transparency in the Release of Scientific Information and Data. On 
October 27, 2020, the New York Times reported that the Department of 
Commerce issued a memorandum in August 2020 that prohibits the release 
of any ``internal or external communications'' unless they are 
``approved by political staff at the department at least three days 
before being issued.'' \3\ According to the article, this policy 
applies to ``social media posts, news releases and even agencywide e-
mails.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Christopher Flavelle and Lisa Friedman, As Election Nears, 
Trump Makes a Final Push Against Climate Science, N.Y. Times, Oct. 27, 
2020, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/climate/trump-
election-climate-noaa.html.

    Question 9. Please detail any role you had in the drafting of this 
memorandum.
    Answer. None.

    Question 10. Please detail any role you currently have, ether in 
your position as Deputy Chief of Staff at ITA or as an Advisor in OPP, 
in the enforcement of the policy in this memorandum.
    Answer. None.

    Question 11. Does the policy announced in this memorandum also 
apply to communications, including e-mails and telephone calls, with 
Members of Congress or Congressional staff?
    Answer. Because I am not involved in enforcing it, I am afraid I am 
not in a position to provide the answer to this. However, if confirmed, 
I would be pleased to work to get you a prompt reply.

    Question 12. Does this memorandum have any exceptions that allow 
for Department employees to exercise their whistleblower rights with 
regard to the Office of Inspector General or Congress?
    Answer. Because I am not involved in enforcing it, I am afraid I am 
not in a position to provide the answer to this. However, if confirmed, 
I would be pleased to work to get you a prompt reply.

    Question 13. Please provide a copy of this memorandum. If you 
refuse to provide the memorandum, or any portion thereof, please 
provide a detailed explanation of this refusal, including the any 
specific privilege you are invoking and the name of the official 
directing you to invoke such privilege.
    Answer. I understand that the Department is waiting for a formal 
request by letter from Ranking Member Cantwell for the memorandum. I 
appreciate why that formality may frustrate you, but because I am not 
yet confirmed, and the President's term is almost over, I have no 
leverage to pressure the Department to release it otherwise. That said, 
if confirmed, I would do my utmost to get you the document promptly.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                            Nathan Simington
    It is important to understand that telecommunications services in 
remote, high cost areas such as Alaska must have support from 
predictable and stable FCC programs that help make the business case 
for service--including Alaska's version of the high cost USF program, 
the Alaska Plan. On August 23, 2016, the Commission adopted the Alaska 
Plan Order, which freezes $1.5 billion in funding over ten years and 
allocates that money to maintain, extend, and upgrade broadband service 
across certain areas of Alaska. The plan has been a significant 
success, and invaluable for Alaska. Due to the predictability provided 
by stable high cost funding in Alaska since the plan went into effect, 
over 50,000 locations in Alaska have had broadband deployed or 
upgraded, thousands of Alaskans are benefiting from upgraded wireless 
coverage, and major construction is happening in the middle mile space. 
The Alaska Plan will go through FCC staff review later this year and 
into next: wireline early next year and wireless beginning in 2021. As 
part of the plan, service providers have agreed to meet certain 
performance obligations--this review will look at these performance 
obligations.
    Statement: Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to address your 
questions and concerns. I am aware of the unique circumstances, 
challenges, and geographical situation of Alaska. I am also aware that 
Congress and regulatory bodies have been most successful in addressing 
Alaskan issues when they have taken Alaska's unique situation into 
account. I hope that my responses show both a present commitment to 
Alaskan issues and a desire to both work with your office and your 
constituents in good faith and to see for myself how better to serve 
the people of Alaska.

    Question 1. Would you agree that predictable and stable funding is 
crucial in order to provide service in remote, high cost areas like 
Alaska?
    Answer. Yes. And frankly, I do not believe the FCC's approach to 
universal service in Alaska has provided the predictable and stable 
funding necessary for providers to build and maintain service in 
remote, high cost areas. Among other things, this has had a negative 
impact on health care providers in the state that need connectivity to 
serve their communities and on the Alaskans that live and work in those 
areas. For instance, the FCC's 2019 revisions to the Rural Health Care 
(RHC) Program are credibly claimed to be producing anomalous and 
arbitrary rates that are the opposite of predictable and stable 
outcomes. The slow pace with which the FCC is acting on Alaska issues 
only compounds these problems.
    I believe strongly in regulatory certainty, rural connectivity and 
the expanded provision of vital services, such as health care, through 
telecommunications. Predictable and stable funding is crucial 
everywhere, but especially to provide service in remote, high cost 
areas like Alaska. Indeed, health care providers in Alaska and the 
wireless and wireline providers that serve them face a unique set of 
challenges. When it comes to building and maintaining networks in 
Alaska, the FCC needs to do a better job of taking those challenges 
into account when reaching its decisions. Without predictable and 
stable funding, providers in Alaska simply cannot make the investments 
necessary to bridge the digital divide.
    As someone who grew up in rural Canada, I believe I have a valuable 
perspective on the challenges of serving remote communities, and if I 
am confirmed I would bring that perspective to the FCC.

    Question 2. Will you commit to ensure that the Alaska Plan's 
reviews are completed through a fair and transparent process and with a 
reasonable outcome which will not delay or diminish broadband service 
in Alaska?
    Answer. Yes. If the FCC is to faithfully carry out its statutory, 
universal service obligations, it must complete the Alaska Plan review 
in a manner that provides a fair and transparent process and reaches a 
reasonable outcome. Indeed, fairness, transparency and the preservation 
of broadband service in Alaska must be baseline goals for the 
Commission's implementation of the Alaska Plan.

    Question 3. Will you commit to not reducing high cost funding to 
Alaska, including the Alaska Plan, Alternative-Connect America Cost 
Model (A-CAM), and Connect America Fund (CAF) II?
    Answer. Yes. The Alaska Plan, A-CAM and CAF II are already in 
progress. As such, it would be an extraordinary action to cut them and, 
based on the evidence I have reviewed, I see no reason or benefit to 
doing so.

    Question 4. It is obvious more funding is needed to finish 
extending broadband service to all rural Americans. Will you commit to 
increasing funding for broadband? If so, how do you think that should 
be distributed?
    Answer. I agree that additional funding will be necessary to extend 
broadband to every rural American. Current funding levels will not be 
enough to get the job done. If I am confirmed, I will work to ensure 
the FCC actually meets its obligations that Congress codified in 
Section 254 of the Communications Act. I commit to ensuring the level 
of funding necessary for the FCC to meet that statutory mandate. I will 
seek to ensure that such funding is distributed in a manner consistent 
with the principles of universal service established pursuant to 
section 254, with a particular focus on closing the digital divide in 
rural and high-cost areas, including Alaska. The circumstances leading 
to the persistence of the digital divide vary among communities, and 
the Commission should tailor its distribution of funds to ensure that 
each community is able to obtain meaningful connectivity. Expanding 
connectivity in high-cost and remote Alaskan communities must be 
reflected in the FCC's USF decisions. I am committed to reaching 
decisions that do just that, if I am confirmed.

    Question 5. What are your thoughts on introducing 5G terrestrial 
service into the 12 GHz band?
    Answer. It is critically important that we find way to make more 
spectrum available for 5G deployment. I favor exploring whether it is 
possible to use this potentially underutilized band in a way that 
results in a ``win-win'' for incumbent users, 5G operators, and the 
public at large.
    In order to create market certainty, the Commission should 
therefore make it a priority to act on the petitions currently before 
it regarding this band. If this band proves viable for terrestrial 
service, it may take years to resolve the required license 
reclassifications. Potential users will need to begin planning the 
necessary capital raises and go-to-market strategies. Current users 
will need lead time to modify installations and adjust to coexistence 
with terrestrial service. One thing is certain: we cannot wait in the 
race to 5G.

    Question 6. If you are confirmed, will you commit to come to Alaska 
early in your term for over a week to experience the geography, 
climate, and other factors that make Alaska a uniquely challenging 
environment for telecommunications services?
    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would be honored to travel to Alaska 
for over a week early in my term. I am eager to see the challenges, 
successes, and ongoing needs of Alaska and Alaskans. If confirmed, I do 
not believe that I would be able, without visiting Alaska, to 
effectively assess, respond to or support Alaskans' unique conditions 
or needs. Hopefully my time in Alaska will help guide me to make the 
right decisions and give me material to further enhance my ability to 
advocate with colleagues on issues important to your state.
    The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and the FCC is 
administering the Rural Health Care (RHC) USF program in a manner that 
is destructive to Alaska. It has had severe negative effects on our 
carriers, our health care service providers, and the availability of 
service for some of the most vulnerable populations in the country--
many whose only option is telemedicine. Issues include retroactive 
funding cuts, years-long languishing funding requests and appeals, a 
slow and opaque process, and new rule changes that will 
disproportionately impact Alaska.

    Question 7. Will you commit to work with me to solve these issues 
as expeditiously as possible?
    Answer. Yes. I believe the FCC's USF decisions are credibly claimed 
to be producing arbitrary and anomalous results in Alaska. As noted 
above, the FCC's 2019 RHC decision is just one example. The slow pace 
with which the FCC has reached these determinations has only compounded 
the problems. Providers--whether serving health care facilities or 
remote communities in Alaska or elsewhere--need greater certainty and 
predictability to make the massive investments necessary to build and 
extend broadband service.

    Question 8. Will you commit to work to convince your fellow 
commissioners to help solve these issues as expeditiously as possible?
    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that my FCC 
colleagues understand basis for the credible claims of arbitrary and 
anomalous results the agency's decisions may be producing in Alaska and 
convince them that the agency should take expeditious action to address 
those issues.

    Question 9. If some of your fellow commissioners continue to treat 
Alaska unfairly, how will you push back?
    Answer. There are a number of issues the FCC could resolve right 
now that would bring much needed certainty and predictability to 
communities in Alaska. If I am confirmed, I would make it clear to my 
FCC colleagues that we should take up and resolve those issues before 
the agency votes on unrelated proceedings that do not rise to the same 
level of importance. I would work to ensure that the FCC satisfies 
Congress's mandate to the FCC under Section 254 and, furthermore, 
Congress's mandate to take Alaska's unique circumstances and needs into 
account when considering matters before the FCC. I would vote 
accordingly, advocate to my fellow commissioners that they do the same, 
and ensure that we as a Commission are held to public account when we 
fail to fulfill our obligations.
    In recent years, USAC's processing of funding requests for the RHC 
program has slowed to a snail's pace. Many funding requests are tied up 
at USAC due to bureaucratic indecision, and USAC makes frequent 
administrative errors requiring applicants such as health care 
providers to appeal to the FCC. USAC's processes are entirely opaque, 
so applicants have no visibility into where their applications and 
appeals may stand, and USAC gives them no time-frame for decision. All 
of these problems impose great administrative costs, and leave service 
providers as well as rural health care providers in an impossible 
position. It undermines efforts to deliver effective tele-health 
services, which is especially important in a crisis such as we now are 
facing with COVID-19. Alaska has carriers with pending rate approvals 
from 2 and 3 years ago. Some have finally been approved (not 
disbursed), although at dramatically reduced rates, and some have still 
had no action. I have relentlessly pushed the Chairman and the FCC to 
expedite these processes. I have received pre-confirmation commitments 
from at least one Commissioner to address these issues, but to no 
avail.

    Question 10. Would you agree that RHC program participants should 
be fairly compensated in a timely manner?
    Answer. Yes. RHC program participants must be fairly compensated in 
a timely manner. Failure to do so will disincentivize participation in 
RHC to the great detriment of patients and communities reliant upon the 
program. In recent years, the FCC has not acted in a timely enough 
manner and its decisions may now be producing anomalous results.

    Question 11. Would you agree that withholding funding for multiple 
years after services have been rendered is an unacceptable way to run a 
program?
    Answer. Yes. Applicants are entitled to clear and timely 
determinations regarding their eligibility for funding. If an applicant 
is entitled to funding under the statute and the Commission's rules, 
there is no justification for withholding that funding--whether for one 
year or multiple years. It's critically important that applicants and 
providers understand the rules of the game up front, and that those 
rules not be changed midstream.

    Question 12. Would you agree that changing rates after services 
have been rendered resulting in retroactive funding cuts is not a fair 
or transparent way to run a program?
    Answer. Yes. Applicants are entitled to clear and timely 
determinations regarding their eligibility for funding. Once reached, 
such determinations should not be subject to retroactive revision. It 
is critically important that applicants and providers understand the 
rules of the road up front, and that those rules not be changed 
midstream.

    Question 13. Would you agree that allowing appeals to languish for 
years is an unacceptable way to run a program?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 14. Will you commit to working expeditiously on reforms to 
USAC's processes to improve transparency and to prevent delayed and 
vital support? Will you commit to advocating for this with your fellow 
commissioners?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 15. Will you commit to advocating for expeditious rate 
approvals and reviews? Will you commit to advocating for this with your 
fellow commissioners?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 16. What do you believe is a reasonable time period for a 
rate approval or review under this program?
    Answer. The public interest would be best served by providing 
carriers with certainty and predictability. The program should have 
clear processes and standards so that post-hoc reviews and approvals 
are rare, not routine; review causes uncertainty and delay. But when a 
review is needed, it should take weeks, not years. Lengthy reviews, in 
the absence of the need for extensive discovery, are unacceptable and 
do not further the public interest. When the Commission does approve a 
rate, that rate should be good not just for the backward-looking year 
but for the future as well. That would help mitigate some of the harms 
that flow from the FCC's recent, drawn out rate approval processes.
    Applicants are entitled to clear and timely determinations 
regarding their eligibility for funding. If confirmed, I commit to 
working with your office so that the FCC's processes provide certainty 
to applicants.

    Question 17. Will you commit to impose strict deadlines on USAC and 
the Bureaus, and insist that applications and appeals do not languish 
for years? Will you commit to advocating for this with your fellow 
commissioners?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 18. Will you commit to much greater FCC oversight of USAC? 
Will you commit to advocating for this with your fellow commissioners?
    Answer. Yes. Every FCC Commissioner has an obligation to ensure 
that USAC is a good steward of Americans' hard-earned dollars and that 
the FCC's universal service program is administered in a manner that is 
fair and efficient. That is the best way to ensure that Congress's 
mandate for universal service in Section 254 is met: ``There should be 
specific, predictable and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to 
preserve and advance universal service.'' Greater FCC oversight of USAC 
decisions will further this goal. Any uncertainty or instability is the 
Commission's problem and, if confirmed, I will commit to addressing 
this issue.
    The FCC revised its RHC Program rules in August 2019. I had 
requested an expedited rulemaking from Chairman Pai as a part of 
Commissioner Carr's confirmation process to address many of the 
problems our state had been experiencing with the program and to lay 
out clear rules for the future. These rules are anything but helpful to 
Alaska, and anything but clear.
    The rules group rural communities into rurality tiers and provide 
subsidy awards only for the difference between the median of rural 
rates and the urban rate for functionally similar services in the same 
tier. In Alaska, there are four tiers, but even in the most rural 
tiers, many communities with very different costs of service are in the 
same tier. For example, communities in the same tier may be served by 
different technologies (satellite vs. fiber or terrestrial wireless 
networks), be of different population sizes, be closer to or farther 
from the nearest fiber network, have access to fewer or more 
competitive networks, or have different topography, significantly 
affecting the cost to serve them. The rules short-change communities 
where rates are above the median (sometimes way above) due to the very 
high cost of service. These are the Alaskan communities that have the 
least broadband infrastructure and the most limited access to health 
care providers, and thus have the greatest need for support from the 
Rural Health Care program. The FCC also delegated the work to set 
median rates for each service to USAC, which does not have the 
authority, information, or experience to make these critical support 
decisions. Petitions for reconsideration of the rules have been pending 
for almost a year, and yet the FCC has so far refused to stay the 
effective date of these new rural and urban rate rules. Additionally, 
the Alaska delegation sent a letter to the Chairman back in April 
requesting that the FCC delay the implementation of these rules in 
light of the pandemic. Many health care providers are strained enough 
without trying to navigate an incomplete and new process. The Chairman 
did not address or act on this request.
    The bidding season for Funding Year 2021, which is governed by 
USAC's new median rate database and cost model waivers, has already 
begun. The database is a disaster and will not work--especially in 
Alaska. Our carriers will have to file cost model waivers for most 
services on a case-by-case basis, which will be stuck in the same 
impossibly slow review and appeals process at USAC and the Bureaus.

    Question 19. Would you agree that ignoring petitions for 
reconsideration with no acknowledgment or response while going ahead 
with a new program is unfair and poor governance?
    Answer. Yes. I believe that petitioners are entitled to a timely 
response to their petitions, and that timely disposing of such 
petitions--one way or the other--is simply good governance. Likewise, 
communicating timely with petitioners is also fundamental to good 
governance.

    Question 20. Will you commit to support delaying these new rate-
setting rules while the pending petitions for reconsideration are fully 
addressed? Will you commit to advocating for this with your fellow 
commissioners?
    Answer. The petitions for reconsideration and applications for 
review, presently before the full Commission, raise fundamental 
questions that should be resolved before the bidding for 2021 takes 
place. As noted above, there are credible claims that the current 
approach is producing arbitrary and anomalous results. If confirmed, I 
would support action that provides more certainty, more predictability 
and more reasonable rates, whether that action is a suspension, waiver, 
or delay of new rate-setting rules. Relief should be provided as soon 
as possible, and if confirmed, I would commit to working with my 
colleagues to accomplish this result.

    Question 21. Given that the that the database is clearly not ready 
and it will likely result in a disproportionate impact on Alaska, will 
you commit to support delaying these new rate-setting rules in light of 
the pandemic until at least bidding season 2022? Will you commit to 
advocating for this with your fellow commissioners?
    Answer. There are steps the FCC could take right now to address the 
arbitrary and anomalous outcomes that its 2019 RHC decision is credibly 
claimed to be producing. If confirmed, I would support taking the 
immediate actions necessary to ensure fair rates and a stable, 
predictable outcome for Alaska--whether that action involves delaying 
rates or taking other steps. I commit to advocating for those actions 
with my fellow commissioners if I am confirmed. COVID-19 has clearly 
produced a once-in-a-century challenge and clearly any rulemaking needs 
to take it into account.

    Question 22. Will you commit to work with Alaska's stakeholders and 
me to fix the program? Will you commit to advocating for this with your 
fellow commissioners?
    Answer. Yes.
    Alaska's health care and telecom providers are struggling to keep 
up with increased demand, financial strain, and diminished workforce 
because of COVID-19. In early April, the Alaska delegation wrote to 
Chairman Pai asking that he take certain steps in response to COVID-19 
to facilitate the delivery of tele-health services in rural Alaska. We 
requested suspending the new RHC rural rate setting rules from August 
2019, which I have already mentioned. We also recommended waiving the 
funding cap on Rural Health Care support for Funding Year 2021 to meet 
increased telehealth demands. The FCC has imposed a cap on annual RHC 
support of $581 million (adjusted for inflation), which makes it the 
smallest of the Universal Service programs. This cap limits the 
program's ability to provide adequate support in response to rapidly 
increasing demand due to COVID. We also recommended suspending audits 
and investigations, and extending response deadlines for responding to 
USAC and FCC inquiries so tele-health providers can focus on providing 
essential services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Question 23. Will you commit to support waiving the funding cap on 
RHC support due to the pandemic for Funding Year 2021 to the extent 
that demand exceeds the cap imposed by the FCC? Will you commit to 
advocating for this with your fellow commissioners?
    Answer. As noted above, the FCC's August 2019 decision is credibly 
claimed to be producing certain arbitrary and unjustified results. This 
is clearly not in the public interest. If I am confirmed, I will 
investigate the complaints about the August 2019 decision and advocate 
for the FCC to take immediate, corrective action where warranted. The 
urgency of this is only sharpened by the acute additional need caused 
by the COVID-19 pandemic. If my findings suggest it is advisable to 
suspend certain audits and investigations, I will recommend and 
advocate doing so. As a commissioner, I would take seriously my 
obligation to act against unfair results that are not in the public 
interest.

    Question 24. Will you commit to support suspending audits and 
investigations, and extending deadlines for responding to FCC and USAC 
inquiries? Will you commit to advocating for this with your fellow 
commissioners?
    Answer. The FCC has waived a number of rules due to impacts 
associated with COVID-19. If confirmed, I would support continuing or 
providing additional regulatory relief where compliance is not in the 
public interest due to the demands of addressing COVID-19. If 
confirmed, I would also advocate that my fellow commissioners do the 
same. In addition, I commit to working with your office to obtain the 
information necessary to acquire an informed judgment about the need to 
suspend audits and investigations, and to extend deadlines for other 
responses to FCC and USAC inquiries.

    Question 25. Will you commit to support further waiving of the gift 
rule for the RHC and E-Rate due to COVID-19? Will you commit to 
advocating for this with your fellow commissioners?
    Answer. In my opinion, waiving the gift rule during the COVID-19 
pandemic has produced significant public interest benefits. Unless 
there is evidence that I am currently unaware of, I do not see how the 
public interest is supported by not further waiving the gift rule. If 
confirmed, and based on the information currently available to me, I 
would support further waiving of the gift rule.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                            Nathan Simington
    POLITICO Report. On November 23, POLITICO published a story by 
reporter John Hendel titled ``Trump's FCC nominee sought to enlist 
Fox's Laura Ingraham in anti-tech fight'' (https://www.politico.com/
news/2020/11/23/fcc-nathan-siming
ton-laura-ingraham-anti-tech-439806). The story stated the following:

        Federal Communications Commission nominee Nathan Simington 
        reached out to Fox News this summer in an attempt at 
        ``engaging'' host Laura Ingraham to support President Donald 
        Trump's quest to make it easier to sue social media companies 
        like Facebook and Twitter, according to e-mails obtained by 
        POLITICO.

        Simington, a senior adviser in a key Commerce Department tech 
        agency, wrote that the popular Fox News host could help sway 
        the FCC to act on Trump's proposal before Election Day. He also 
        suggested that democracy hinged on the ability of the 
        commission--which has not traditionally regulated social 
        media--to target Silicon Valley companies.

        ``Any additional support we might be able to obtain could help 
        to get the FCC on board more quickly and thereby ensure a 
        freer, fairer social media landscape going into the elections 
        this fall,'' Simington wrote in a June 22 e-mail to a Fox News 
        staffer. ``This is of concern both to the presidency and also 
        down-ballot, and given the emerging role of social media as a 
        replacement for mass media, our democracy will be weakened if 
        we cannot respond to this issue quickly and effectively.''

        Simington, who works for the Commerce Department's National 
        Telecommunications and Information Administration, wrote the e-
        mail months before Trump nominated him for a five-year term on 
        the FCC.

        Trump has spent the final months of his reelection campaign and 
        presidency feuding with the dominant social media platforms 
        after they started fact-checking his posts on topics such as 
        the pandemic and alleged election fraud. In a May executive 
        order, Trump asked the FCC to reexamine a congressionally 
        created liability shield that protects online companies from 
        suits over how they handle user-posted content.

        Ingraham, whom Trump frequently has cited favorably, has echoed 
        the GOP's attacks on the tech industry and years earlier had 
        eyed joining the administration. Fellow Fox News host Tucker 
        Carlson publicly backed Simington's FCC nomination in an 
        October segment where he pressured Senate Republicans to speed 
        up.

    During your testimony to the Committee at your confirmation 
hearing, you indicated that you had a minimal role in developing and 
advocating in support of the petition. This story suggests, Mr. 
Simington, that you were less than truthful with the Committee about 
your involvement with--and actions related to--NTIA's section 230 
petition.

    Question 1. Did you send e-mails to Fox News staff or staff for 
other media organizations seeking support for the Section 230 petition?
    Answer. Yes. I sent one e-mail to a Fox News staffer seeking to 
raise awareness of the NTIA Section 230 petition. Other than that, I 
did not communicate with any other media organization about the Section 
230 petition. This e-mail was routine advocacy for earned media support 
and as such was part and parcel of the role I serve at NTIA.

    Question 2. With whom within NTIA, at the White House, or in the 
Trump campaign did you consult in advance of sending the foregoing e-
mails?
    Answer. I consulted with Adam Candeub, then Deputy Assistant 
Secretary at NTIA. If there had been sufficient interest from Fox News, 
I would then have spoken with NTIA's media communications personnel to 
ensure proper content and presentation oversight and to receive overall 
agency clearance. I did not consult with anyone at the White House or 
President Trump's campaign regarding communication with Fox News either 
in advance of sending the e-mail or subsequently.

    Question 3. Please produce to the Committee copies of all e-mails 
sent from your personal or professional e-mail accounts related to 
NTIA's Section 230 petition. Please also produce records of any phone 
calls, text messages, or other contacts you made with personal or 
professional devices related to the petition.
    Answer. Records generated in the course of my official duties are 
agency records, not in my personal custody. I commit to working with 
the NTIA's legislative affairs and general counsel's office to provide 
the committee with responsive records, subject to Executive Branch 
confidentiality interests.

    Question 4. In what other activities did you engage to develop 
support for the Section 230 petition? Please provide complete records 
of all such activity.
    Answer. Records generated in the course of my official duties are 
agency records, not in my personal custody. I commit to working with 
the NTIA's legislative affairs and general counsel's office to provide 
the committee with responsive records, subject to Executive Branch 
confidentiality interests.
    To summarize in the interim, I communicated directly with a member 
of the Fox News staff via one e-mail and one immediately subsequent 
phone call. I communicated internally within NTIA about the text of an 
op-ed to be proposed to the Wall Street Journal, but I had no 
communications with the Wall Street Journal itself. I spoke briefly in 
a regularly scheduled meeting of Digital Liberty's ``Friends of 
Technology,'' as discussed in more detail in my letter of November 13, 
2020, addressed to you, Chairman Wicker, and Senator Blumenthal. Other 
than these listed activities, I engaged in no other activities to 
develop support for the Section 230 petition.

    Question 5. Did you have any conversations with staff of Fox News 
or any other media organization seeking support for your nomination to 
the FCC?
    Answer. I had no such conversations.

    Question 6. Please explain what you meant by your comment that the 
Section 230 petition would ``ensure a freer, fairer social media 
landscape going into the elections this fall. . . . This is of concern 
both to the presidency and also down-ballot. . . .''
    Answer. The petition describes NTIA's view that granting the 
petition will ensure a freer and fairer social media landscape, which 
in turn will enhance democratic dialogue. I was presenting the views in 
that e-mail within the scope of my official duties.

    Question 7. You were aware in advance of your nomination hearing 
that various news organizations had filed FOIA requests for your 
communications related to the Section 230 petition. The e-mail was sent 
from your official account, and you knew that it would be disclosed as 
part of any response to these FOIA requests. In light of those facts, 
please explain why you refused to disclose this information to the 
Committee either in advance of your hearing or in response to questions 
from Committee members.
    Answer. In the course of my official duties, I comply with all 
Federal recordkeeping laws. That includes ensuring that all agency 
records are maintained and accessible under the Freedom of Information 
Act, subject to the statute's exemptions. I have disclosed to the 
Committee all the information that was requested of me prior to, 
during, and after the hearing. I did not refuse to disclose this 
information, or any other information, to the Committee.
    The video record of the hearing will show that, during the course 
of Senator Blumenthal's questions about activities in support of the 
petition, I answered completely, to the best of my ability, consistent 
with the thrust of the Senator's questions and with respect for the 
constraints on each member's allotted time. I have reviewed my 
testimony before the Committee, and I confirm that my responses were 
truthful and accurate.

    Question 8. In light of this story, do you still maintain that you 
had a minimal role in relation to the petition? If you answer in the 
negative, please explain why you maintained in front of the Committee 
that you had such a minimal role.
    Answer. I had a minimal role in the petition. I believe my role in 
the petition to be fully reflected in the documentary record, including 
the e-mails you cite. In the context of the roles others played, my 
role was indeed minor.

    Question 9. In light of the questions that this report raises 
concerning your candor with this Committee, would you agree to a 
request that the majority hold your nomination in abeyance until such 
time as you have produced the requested materials and made yourself 
available for additional conversations with the Committee?
    Answer. I believe that my answers to the Committee--during my 
confirmation hearing and as set forth in my responses to questions for 
the record--are sufficient for the Committee to determine whether to 
advance my nomination.

    Political Independence & FCC Section 230 Rulemaking. In response to 
a decision by Twitter to mark two of his erroneous tweets with fact-
checking labels, President Trump issued an Executive Order ordering 
your agency--the Department of Commerce--to file a petition with the 
Federal Communications Commission to undercut Section 230 and punish 
tech platforms for engaging in moderation activities.
    According to your own testimony in front of the Committee (and 
subsequent clarification), you had a role in preparing that petition 
for filing, as well as promoting and defending that petition after 
filing. And it has been widely reported that FCC Commissioner Mike 
O'Rielly's re-nomination was pulled by the White House because he had 
expressed concerns about the legality and propriety of the executive 
order and the resulting NTIA petition.
    Consumers deserve an independent FCC free from political 
machinations. And it is equally important for Americans to have 
confidence that appointees to these commissions act based on the law 
and the record before them, not at the direction of the president or 
with a presupposed determination on the outcome of a regulatory 
proceeding.

    Question 10. Do you acknowledge that it would be inappropriate for 
the FCC to help the White House retaliate against those who express 
their right to free speech in a manner that angers the President?
    Answer. I acknowledge and fully agree that it would be 
inappropriate for the FCC to help any party (whether the White House or 
otherwise) to retaliate against any other party for any reason 
whatsoever. I am not privy to President Trump's decision-making process 
that led him to issue the Executive Order on Preventing Online 
Censorship. I do know that I wholly embrace the opening paragraph of 
that EO: ``Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our 
Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment 
to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the 
foundation for all of our rights as a free people.'' If I am fortunate 
enough to be confirmed, I will be an impartial and independent voice on 
the Commission and follow the law regardless of the political context.

    Question 11. Did you make any commitments to the White House about 
your ultimate decision in the Section 230 proceeding or any other 
proceeding before the agency?
    Answer. I have made no commitments to the White House or anyone as 
to my ultimate decisions on any matter if confirmed.

    Question 12. How can this Committee be assured that you will act in 
a fully impartial and independent manner as an FCC commissioner?
    Answer. I believe my experience and past record demonstrate my 
impartiality and independence. I commit to act in a fully impartial and 
independent manner as an FCC commissioner, if confirmed.

    Question 13. How would you respond to those that claim that your 
role in developing and defending the petition shows that you have a 
closed mind on this issue, or would approach it predisposed to reject 
arguments against the FCC acting on the petition?
    Answer. First, I refer you to my answer in question 12. Second, I 
must note that my job as a senior advisor at NTIA was to advocate on 
behalf of that agency. My job as a commissioner, should I be confirmed, 
will be to exercise independent judgment--regardless of whether my 
judgment conforms to that of the Executive Branch and regardless of the 
party in power. In short, I commit to act in a fully impartial and 
independent manner as an FCC commissioner.

    Recusal. It is standard practice for FCC commissioners--especially 
newly-confirmed commissioners--to recuse themselves from any proceeding 
in which they have personally engaged in a substantive manner in their 
previous role. Previous reports indicated that you played a central 
role in developing the petition NTIA filed at the FCC proposing changes 
to section 230 sought by the administration, while more recent reports 
indicate that you had a key role in developing public and political 
support for the petition, including by tying the petition to the 2020 
presidential election.
    Your personal role in advocating changes to the FCC's rules raises 
serious concerns about your ability to weigh the record in this matter 
on an impartial basis. Already, a wide cross-section of stakeholders 
have raised questions about the legal authority of the FCC to adopt 
rules under Section 230, as well as the appropriateness of the FCC's 
actions in this matter. But many have doubts whether you will credit 
these arguments, given that refuting them was central to the petition 
that you helped craft and promote.

    Question 14. Will you commit to this Committee that you will recuse 
yourself in the pending Section 230 rulemaking, especially in light of 
the evidence of your efforts to build public and political support for 
that petition?
    Answer. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to defer 
to the advice I will receive from appropriate counsel at the FCC on 
whether I should recuse myself from further participation in the 
Section 230 proceeding.

    Question 15. Mr. Simington, you indicated that you would consult 
with relevant ethics officials about recusal on this issue. Have you 
had any such discussions with any relevant ethics officials, including 
at the White House and the FCC? Would you agree that Congress and the 
public deserves clarity on this matter prior to this Committee acting 
on your nomination? Would you request that the majority delay 
consideration of your nomination until the ethical questions 
surrounding your role in the section 230 petition are resolved?
    Answer. I have not yet discussed recusal with the relevant ethics 
officials, as such discussions would be premature. I trust that my 
answers to the Committee--during my confirmation hearing and as set 
forth in my responses to questions for the record--are sufficient for 
the Committee to determine whether to advance my nomination.

    General Spectrum Policy. The FCC's spectrum decision-making process 
may be irreparably broken. Time and time again, the agency has run 
roughshod over other Federal agencies and key stakeholder communities 
in its quest to hand more spectrum over to commercial wireless 
companies.
    We all understand the importance of making spectrum available for 
mobile services, including 5G. But the public interest in spectrum 
cannot always bend toward the wireless companies and away from public 
safety, national security, science, space, and other essential spectrum 
uses.
    As I said a few months ago when the current members of the FCC 
appeared before us, the Federal government needs a better process for 
making these spectrum decisions.
    And if the FCC cannot be a cooperative part of that process, then 
Congress may have to think about changes to how spectrum policy is 
developed.

    Question 16. Mr. Simington, given that you claim to have 
significant experience with Federal spectrum issues at NTIA and that 
agency has questioned several of this FCC's spectrum moves, do you 
agree that the consultation process between the FCC and the Federal 
government is broken?
    Answer. The relationship between the FCC and the Executive Branch 
should certainly be improved. I pledge to work with your office and 
this Committee to improve this process going forward. For example, the 
memorandum of understanding (``MOU'') between the NTIA and FCC in 
regard to spectrum management decisions could be updated and clarified. 
A more robust MOU to address this point could be helpful in assisting 
the FCC and the Executive Branch agencies in resolving conflicts.

    Question 17. You indicated during your confirmation hearing that 
you believed that the spectrum coordination process could be improved. 
How would you propose that we fix this process to make sure that public 
safety, national security, science, and other essential stakeholders 
have a real voice at the table in these decisions?
    Answer. The FCC faces conflicting imperatives, as Congress has 
directed it to continue commercializing spectrum even as much of the 
most viable spectrum for commercialization remains committed to public 
safety, national security, science and other vitally important 
applications. It should be incumbent upon the FCC to develop a complete 
record before it makes a decision. I will fully support all efforts by 
the Commission to make sure that public safety, national security, 
science, and other essential stakeholders have a real voice at the 
table in these decisions and that decisions are made that balance these 
interests in a prompt but thoughtful manner.

    Ligado. This is a unique and unprecedented moment for spectrum 
policy. NTIA--the agency for which you work--along with the entirety of 
the Executive Branch believe that the FCC's approval in April 2020 of 
Ligado's terrestrial wireless plans threatens the Nation's GPS system.
    I joined a bipartisan letter with 31 of my fellow senators urging 
the FCC to reconsider and stay its decision given the threat to GPS. 
NTIA has formally asked the FCC to pause, rethink, and reconsider its 
decision in light of the significant threat it poses to our Nation's 
safety and security. And I have received a commitment from two of your 
potential colleagues at the Commission--Commissioners Rosenworcel and 
Starks--that they would support a pause on Ligado, as well as the 
Commissioner that you would replace.

    Question 18. Given the unprecedented pushback and the high stakes 
involved for public safety and the larger economy, would you agree the 
right course of action is for the FCC to halt Ligado's plans to deploy 
its network until these serious concerns about harmful interference to 
GPS are satisfactorily resolved?
    Answer. This is a perfect example of the coordination problems 
between the FCC and the NTIA. On my review of the Ligado decision, I 
believe that I have identified process and communication errors that 
led to the present state of uncertainty. I note that a number of 
Executive Branch agencies are subject to statutory constraints 
requiring them, based on their understanding of the Ligado decision, to 
oppose its outcome. For example, the Defense Department is subject to a 
statutory prohibition on allowing the GPS network to come to harm. As 
such, if confirmed, I would immediately undertake such research, 
outreach, and actions, subject to FCC legal obligations and 
restrictions, as I would determine to be necessary to address Executive 
Branch agency concerns.

    5.9 GHz and Auto Safety. As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's action 
to open up the 5.9 gigahertz band to unlicensed uses has generated 
significant controversy. While I recognize that demand for wireless 
spectrum is only growing, the FCC must ensure that we protect critical 
transportation safety use of this band. It is a key band supporting 
technologies reducing vehicle-related crashes and potentially saving 
thousands of lives each year. In fact, the Department of Transportation 
strongly opposes the FCC action to allow unlicensed use of this band, 
and had asked the agency to pull the item from its November agenda.

    Question 19. Mr. Simington, would you agree that Federal spectrum 
policy is stronger when it is the result of cooperative decision-making 
between the FCC and impacted Federal agencies.
    Answer. Yes, I agree. The FCC is subject to the Communications Act 
in ways that other agencies are not, which may lead to conflicting 
imperatives between the FCC and such agencies as the Department of 
Transportation. However, the FCC cannot operate effectively without 
cooperating to the maximum extent possible with other Federal 
agencies--particularly those impacted by FCC decisions. Federal 
spectrum policy is greatly harmed when agency conflicts cannot be 
resolved via interagency process and coordination.

    Question 20. Given the controversy surrounding this proposal, would 
you favor taking a step back on this proceeding and reconsidering the 
FCC's recent decision until such time as the Department of 
Transportation's concerns can be adequately addressed?
    Answer. I do not have access to the FCC's internal deliberations. 
However, if confirmed, I would consult with the staff and the other 
Commissioners in order to formulate a definitive view of the question. 
I would, of course, be willing to consider any petition for 
reconsideration that is appropriately before the Commission. I believe 
that petitioners are entitled to a timely response to their petitions, 
and that disposing of such petitions--one way or the other--is simply 
good governance. Once I have an opportunity to examine the record, I 
would support staying these rules pending action on the petitions for 
reconsideration where good cause has been shown.

    Question 21. The FCC's recent decision in the 5.9 GHz proceeding 
represents yet another example of the FCC moving forward over the 
objections of another agency. In this case, it was the Department of 
Transportation. If confirmed, what would you do to improve the Federal 
spectrum management process and ensure that the FCC conducts spectrum 
policymaking in a cooperative and collaborative manner?
    Answer. This question is important because it speaks to the 
different statutory standards of accountability between the FCC and the 
Executive Branch agencies. Ultimately, the FCC is accountable to its 
statutory standards under the Communications Act. These statutory 
standards may be incompatible with those of other agencies; as such, 
the FCC may be legally required to act in a way that is unacceptable to 
other Executive Branch agencies. This issue highlights the importance 
of improving legal and technical communication between the FCC and the 
NTIA and of having the NTIA serve as a greater clearinghouse for 
Executive Branch concerns. In immediate furtherance of this goal, I 
would support taking a fresh look at the FCC-NTIA Memorandum of 
Understanding and of building out institutional and personal 
communications between the two agencies.

    Weather Spectrum. Last year, FCC Chairman Pai chose to move forward 
on a plan to put spectrum in the 24 gigahertz band to market that 
failed to adequately protect weather spectrum immediately adjacent to 
that band. He moved ahead over the objections of the Department of 
Commerce, NASA, NOAA, and the American Meteorological Society.
    This very public, intra-government squabble demonstrated how little 
Chairman Pai respects the role of other agencies, and specifically the 
expert science agencies, in the broader Federal spectrum management 
process and how broken that process is. More importantly for this 
particular slice of spectrum, Chairman Pai's move put critical 
operations that are key to vital weather forecasting operations at 
risk.
    At the International Telecommunications Union's World Radio 
Conference in 2019, the international community disagreed with Pai's 
move and adopted more stringent protections based on sound science and 
analysis.
    But even those more stringent standards may cause damage to 
important weather forecasting data--as NOAA concluded in a study it 
recently submitted to congressional appropriators.

    Question 22. If confirmed, would you support the FCC immediately 
adopting the more stringent interference standards agreed to by the 
international community?
    Answer. I do not have access to FCC internal deliberations on this 
matter. As such, I am not yet in a position to provide an informed 
judgment on what constitutes a reasonable set of interference standards 
in this area. I do commit to seeking to obtain that information and 
taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the adoption of reasonable 
interference standards.

    Question 23. Will you also commit to working collaboratively with 
NASA and NOAA to find ways to deploy 5G that will minimize the damage 
to critical weather safety data?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 24. Will you also commit to encourage industry to work 
collaboratively with NOAA and NASA on these issues?
    Answer. Yes.

    Serving the Public Interest. Mr. Simington, a significant amount of 
the FCC's work concerns weighing how the proposed action serves the 
public interest. For example, the FCC uses a public interest standard 
to determine whether to approve mergers--small and large. The previous 
FCC based the Open Internet rules--in part--on a public interest 
analysis. This public interest standard, in my view, is critical to the 
FCC's work. The current FCC has contorted this standard to allow for 
corporate interests--and mega mergers--to prevail.

    Question 25. Mr. Simington, what does the public interest standard 
mean to you and how will it guide you in your decision-making processes 
as an FCC commissioner, if confirmed?
    Answer. If I am confirmed, I will be a strong advocate for the 
FCC's public interest mandate. As I discussed during my confirmation 
hearing, the public interest is where telecom's rubber meets the road. 
For example, I will ensure that the FCC continues to fulfill its 
obligation to prevent illegal marketing, keep 9-1-1 up to date, improve 
spectrum management, and restrain unwanted robocalls. Applications to 
transfer control of licenses and authorizations, like all actions of 
the FCC, should be reviewed with our public interest mandate at the 
center of our inquiry.

    Question 26. If confirmed as an FCC commissioner, will you pledge 
to protect the interests of American consumers instead of corporate 
interests?
    Answer. Yes. I pledge to act in the public interest, including 
protecting consumers, promoting economic growth, and connecting all 
Americans.

    Local News. I released a report a few weeks ago about the decline 
in local news in the United States, and possible actions policymakers 
can take to bolster local journalism.

    Question 27. The FCC has a role in ensuring the health of the 
broadcast industry and making sure broadcasters operate in the public 
interest. In my mind, that public interest obligation should include 
making investments in truly local journalism. Should you be confirmed, 
how would you propose to help ensure the health of local broadcast news 
operations?
    Answer. Local broadcasting is a critical component in our media 
landscape. Promoting competition, diversity and localism are 
fundamental commission mandates. I am deeply committed to ensuring our 
policies are consistent with these goals and will do my best to ensure 
that they are, if confirmed.

    Broadcast Consolidation and Deregulation. The current FCC has 
systematically eliminated a number of longstanding rules designed to 
preserve the ``local'' in local broadcasting. For example, it threw out 
the rule requiring broadcasters to have a studio in their local 
community, allowing for the nationalization of local news. And it 
abandoned decades-old limits on broadcast consolidation based on legal 
analysis so thin that a court called it effectively non-existent.

    Question 28. Mr. Simington, localism and diversity have been core 
tenants of broadcast policy at the FCC. Do you believe that these 
decisions by the FCC actually further those goals? Are rampant media 
consolidation and nationalization of broadcast operations truly 
consistent with the public interest?
    Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the record in those 
proceedings, but I share your goals of promoting a vibrant local 
broadcasting marketplace in all parts of the country.

    Tribal Issues. Mr. Simington, our Nation's Tribal communities lag 
far behind everyone else in access to communications services, 
especially broadband. According to a report issued by the FCC in May 
2019, less than half of households in Indian Country have access to 
high-speed broadband service. This represents a nearly 27-point gap 
compared to non-Tribal rural areas. According to the same report, this 
gap only widens when compared to the country-wide average; 31 percent 
of households on Tribal lands lack access to high-speed broadband 
service compared to seven percent of Americans in non-Tribal areas. 
Indian Country has waited long enough for broadband. The FCC needs to 
do better.

    Question 29. Mr. Simington, how would you propose the FCC improve 
its coordination and consultation with Tribal nations on issues under 
its jurisdiction?
    Answer. I commit to fully engage with the FCC's Office of Native 
Affairs and Policy and the Native Nations Communications Task Force, 
and such other assets as are appropriate and necessary, to improve the 
agency's coordination and consultation with Tribal nations on issues 
under its jurisdiction.

    Question 30. Mr. Simington, Tribal stakeholders have complained for 
years that the FCC's universal service programs consistently 
underinvest in improving communications networks on Tribal lands. 
Legislation that I crafted with Senator Udall, which just advanced 
through the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, would help rectify this 
underinvestment by dedicating at least five percent of universal 
service funds to Tribal lands. Do you support this legislation? What 
steps should the FCC take to make sure that move universal service 
money is dedicated to the needs of our Tribal communities?
    Answer. The FCC has provided increased support on tribal lands, 
through increased Lifeline subsidies and through the Rural Tribal 
Priority Window in the 2.5 GHz band, but clearly more support is needed 
considering the persistence of a severe digital divide in Indian 
Country. I fully support further efforts--whether through legislation 
or action at the FCC under existing authority--to ensure that Tribal 
communities bridge the digital divide.

    Question 31. Mr. Simington, the Government Accountability Office 
issued a report a few years ago noting that one of the reasons the FCC 
has underinvested in Tribal lands is the poor data it collects on 
broadband availability and the maps it generates as a result. As you 
know, Congress just passed legislation to reform the FCC's broadband 
data collection and mapping. Would you agree that the FCC should pause 
distribution of a significant portion of its universal service Connect 
America Fund money until its maps are reformed and we better understand 
the broadband gap in this country?
    Answer. I believe that closing the digital divide is one of the 
most pressing issues facing our Nation today. I further believe that 
the current Commission has struck an appropriate balance between the 
need to move quickly and the need to gather more accurate data. I will, 
if confirmed, support all efforts the Commission may make to gather 
complete and accurate data to support efforts to close the broadband 
gap. The situation on Tribal lands illustrates the tension between 
speed and accuracy. It is almost certainly the case that fewer people 
on Tribal lands will gain connectivity if Connect America Fund monies 
are distributed on the basis of current mapping than they would be on 
the basis of improved mapping. However, improved mapping will delay 
buildouts, meaning that no one will gain connectivity during the 
interval in which improved maps are prepared.

    E-Rate and Rural Health Care Programs. Mr. Simington, as I hope you 
are aware, the FCC's E-Rate and Rural Health Care programs have been 
very successful in connecting the Nation's schools, libraries, and 
rural healthcare facilities to broadband. In fact, I and my colleagues 
have argued that the FCC needs to leverage the success of these two 
programs to further expand broadband connectivity during the ongoing 
COVID-19 crisis for remote learning, telehealth, and to help close the 
digital divide in many of our communities.

    Question 32. Mr. Simington, in the information you provided to the 
Committee, you have suggested that one of the major contributions you 
think you can make to the FCC is to help better manage universal 
service. Many of us in Congress believe, however, that the E-Rate and 
Rural Health Care programs are highly successful now. Would you commit 
to taking no steps as a Commissioner that would undermine, undercut or 
underfund these two programs?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                            Nathan Simington
    Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act. A recent study found 
that 17 million K-12 students do not have access to high-speed Internet 
and 7 million do not have computers at home. My bill--the Accessible, 
Affordable Internet for All Act--includes dedicated funding to enable 
schools and libraries to make use of Wi-Fi hotspots and devices (such 
as laptops and tablets) to help students learn from home.

    Question 1. Do you believe the FCC is doing enough to ensure that 
students are connected to high-speed Internet during the pandemic?
    Answer. I believe there is always room for improvement in 
government programs, E-Rate included. The pandemic has only underscored 
the importance of keeping students connected. If confirmed, I look 
forward to working with this Committee and my fellow commissions to 
looking at ways to modernize the program.

    Question 2. If confirmed, what would you do to ensure we connect 
every student to high-speed internet, and will you commit to supporting 
efforts to improve the E-Rate program?
    Answer. I commit to supporting efforts to improve the E-Rate 
program. I will support such actions as are authorized under the 
Communications Act to ensure that that students are connected to high-
speed internet, during the pandemic and beyond.

    T-Mobile/Sprint Merger. Last October, the FCC voted along party 
lines to approve the proposed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint. As Ranking 
Member of the Antitrust Subcommittee and a member of this Committee, I 
repeatedly raised concerns about the harmful effects of eliminating one 
of the only four nationwide wireless network operators. The Trump 
Administration's settlement with T-Mobile recognized that the 
transaction posed a threat to mobile competition and required the sale 
of certain assets to Dish Network, a satellite television provider with 
no existing mobile network.

    Question 3. In your view, what impact will having only three 
nationwide wireless carriers have on our country's ability to deploy 
5G?
    Answer. I believe the FCC and the DOJ correctly assessed that Dish 
has every incentive, and the ability, to enter the U.S. wireless market 
as a fourth nationwide facilities-based network competitor. I strongly 
believe in facilities-based competition and fully intend to support 
policies that drive investment, innovation, and competition in the 
wireless market.

    Question 4. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that 
T-Mobile and Dish honor their commitments to the FCC and that Dish 
actually emerges as a viable mobile network operator?
    Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure, to the extent of my ability as 
an individual Commissioner, that T-Mobile and Dish honor their 
commitments to the FCC. The public interest would be well served by the 
emergence of Dish as a full-fledged facilities-based network 
competitor.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                            Nathan Simington
    Section 230. During your November 10 nominations hearing, I asked 
you whether you had presented at Americans for Tax Reform in defense of 
the NTIA's petition on Section 230. Your response at the time was: 
``No, I've never presented, I've never given any kind of formal 
presentation or address to the Americans for Tax Reform.'' 
Additionally, you stated that you had ``played a minor role in drafting 
the petition.''
    In a November 13 letter, you acknowledged that you had spoken at an 
event put on by Digital Liberty on August 7 (after the petition was 
sent to the FCC), indicating that you spoke ``for five minutes on the 
topic `NTIA's CDA 230 Petition'. . .to outline the rulemaking requested 
under the NTIA petition.'' You wrote that you were ``unaware that 
Digital Liberty is affiliated with ATR.'' The first sentence of the 
``About Us'' page of Digital Liberty is ``Digital Liberty is a project 
of Americans for Tax Reform that advocates for free market technology, 
telecommunications, and media policy.''
    Additionally, according to e-mails obtained by Politico through a 
Freedom of Information Act request, you also coordinated outreach to 
Fox News, attempting to encourage host Laura Ingraham to support the 
order, writing ``this is of concern both to the presidency and also 
down-ballot'' and to push the FCC. Finally, in another e-mail, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary Adam Candeub described your role as ``instrumental 
in drafting these regs.''

    Question 1. Please describe in full your role with respect to the 
NTIA's petition and subsequent engagements on Section 230, including in 
drafting, outreach, media, agency coordination, and other 
participation, before and after submission of the petition.
    Answer. Beginning in June 2020, the Deputy Acting Secretary of the 
NTIA informed me that I would be working on the petition. He furnished 
me with his initial draft about two weeks after I joined the NTIA. My 
assignments consisted of sourcing and identifying items in the news 
regarding relevant complaints about the restriction of speech on social 
media; researching the cost structures, information content, and 
moderation policies of proprietary online services of the 1990s; 
reviewing drafts for completeness, consistency, and correctness; and 
reviewing sources cited in order to ensure that they were characterized 
fully and correctly.

    Question 2. During your nomination hearing, in response to a 
question from Chairman Wicker, you stated that you would ``estimate 
that the number of words actually written by me in the petition would 
be on the order of 5 percent to 7 percent.'' What is the 5-7 percent of 
the petition that you wrote?
    Answer. The material in the petition originally drafted by me is 
found primarily on pages 6-7 (current controversies over content 
moderation on social media,) 9-13 (characterization of proprietary 
online services and contemporary social media company business models,) 
and 43-44 (examples of inconsistent and unpredictable standards for 
content moderation on contemporary social media.)

    Question 3. Given that you told Chairman Wicker, ``I didn't draft 
any of the original versions of the petition,'' when Mr. Candeub wrote 
that you were ``instrumental in drafting these regs,'' was he wrong?
    Answer. I would like to think that I was a valued contributor to 
the team that produced and managed that petition, but I did not draft 
the original version either of the petition or of the regulations. My 
job at NTIA was to advance the policy views of the Administration. That 
is what I did on Section 230, just as with all other matters that I 
worked on.

    Question 4. What was the purpose behind participating in the 
Digital Liberty roundtable, given that the NTIA's petition had already 
been submitted to the FCC?
    Answer. I engaged in limited advocacy in the ordinary course for 
general support of the petition. Such advocacy is part and parcel of 
the role I serve in at NTIA.

    Question 5. Please list all meetings, whether public or private, 
that you have solicited or held with non-Federal government entities 
regarding the NTIA petition on Section 230.
    Answer. The only such meeting I have to report is the Digital 
Liberty roundtable previously discussed.

    Question 6. Why did you seek to promote the NTIA petition on 
Section 230 on the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, and did you 
approach any other media outlets in this effort?
    Answer. I engaged in limited advocacy in the ordinary course for 
general support of the petition. Such advocacy is part and parcel of 
the role I serve in at NTIA. I did not approach the Wall Street Journal 
myself, and other than these two media outlets, I did not approach or 
discuss approaching any others.

    Question 7. Based on FOIA requests, Politico has portrayed you as 
having been actively involved in the drafting of the Op-Ed that was 
written for the Wall Street Journal. Please provide the draft Op-Ed, 
describe your involvement, and explain why the Op-Ed wasn't placed.
    Answer. Records generated in the course of my official duties are 
agency records, not in my personal custody. I commit to working with 
our agency's legislative affairs and general counsel's office to 
provide the committee with responsive records, subject to Executive 
Branch confidentiality interests. I have no information as to why the 
Op-Ed was not placed.

    Question 8. You stated that you had ``not discussed plans, [or] any 
contemplated future action of the FCC on the part of 230 with the White 
House'' but acknowledged discussing Section 230 with members of the 
Presidential Personnel Office while you were under consideration for 
the FCC nomination. Please describe the conversations regarding Section 
230 you had with the White House or these members of the Presidential 
Personnel Office specifically.
    Answer. I had a conversation about a variety of topics with members 
of the Presidential Personnel Office, including about my work at NTIA. 
Section 230 was part of that discussion. I told the Presidential 
Personnel Office that Section 230 was an important part of America's 
online freedom regime and that any legislative and regulatory reforms 
must be thoughtful and careful so as not to undermine the positive 
aspects of Section 230 as a law. However, this conversation was limited 
to my general views on Section 230. It did not include any discussion 
of plans or contemplated future action of the FCC relating to Section 
230.

    Question 9. According to the e-mail you sent to Fox News, you 
believe that the Section 230 petition was important for the electoral 
prospects of the President and Republican candidates. Please explain 
why the NTIA, a Federal agency responsible for telecommunication 
policy, acted to specifically benefit Republican electoral prospects.
    Answer. The petition describes NTIA's view that granting the 
petition will ensure a freer and fairer social media landscape, which 
in turn will enhance democratic dialogue. I was presenting the views in 
that e-mail within the scope of my official duties.

    Question 10. During the hearing, you declined to commit to recusing 
yourself from any matters involving the NTIA Petition on Section 230. 
Do you maintain the position that you will not commit to recusal?
    Answer. If fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to defer to 
the advice I will receive from appropriate counsel at the FCC on 
whether I should recuse myself from further participation in the 
Section 230 proceeding.

    Question 11. One of the most important duties of a commissioner on 
an independent regulatory body is to approach issues with an open mind, 
and to make decisions based upon the record before the agency (not 
one's predisposed position). Given your role at NTIA--and now 
acknowledged commentary and potentially advocacy on behalf of the 
petition and its partisan political implications--how can the public be 
assured that you can approach the FCC rulemaking on this matter in an 
open and neutral manner consistent with the duties of a Commissioner? 
Doesn't that fact alone suggest that you should recuse yourself from 
this matter?
    Answer. My answers to this Committee, verbally and in writing, have 
been complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and ability. I 
must note that my job as a senior advisor at NTIA was to advocate on 
behalf of that agency. My job as a commissioner, should I be confirmed, 
will be to exercise independent judgment--regardless of whether my 
judgment conforms to that of the Executive Branch and regardless of the 
party in power. In short, I commit to act in a fully impartial and 
independent manner as an FCC commissioner.

    Question 12. In the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the FCC twice 
stated ``we also are not persuaded that section 230 of the 
Communications Act is a grant of regulatory authority that could 
provide the basis for conduct rules here.'' Given the legal argument 
you have represented in the NTIA petition, why would the FCC not have 
the authority to write rules for net neutrality and other matters 
involving Title I services under Section 230?
    Answer. The General Counsel of the FCC has outlined the FCC's view 
as to why it is proper to accept jurisdiction. If confirmed, I would 
examine the record and reach my own conclusions about the proper role 
of Section 230 as to the petition and any other FCC proceedings.

    Rivada Networks. On September 18, the Department of Defense 
released a request for information (RFI) on ``innovative solutions and 
technologies for dynamic sharing of the department's current spectrum 
allocation to accelerate spectrum sharing and 5G deployment.'' This RFI 
has raised concerns that the DOD is considering a proposal by the 
company Rivada Networks to create a wholesale 5G network using DOD 
spectrum holdings.

    Question 13. What discussions have you had within the NTIA or with 
other government agencies, including the Office of the President, 
regarding the Rivada Networks' proposal to use, wholesale, or share DOD 
spectrum holdings for commercial wireless purposes?
    Answer. None.

    Question 14. Do you support Rivada Networks' calls for the creation 
a wholesale 5G network based on DOD spectrum holdings? Do you support 
DOD issuing a Request for Proposals that would facilitate DOD utilizing 
Rivada's approach to spectrum sharing?
    Answer. I support the auction regime that has been legislated by 
Congress. Some sort of grant regime to establish a nationalized network 
would contradict the manner in which the U.S. won the race to 4G. It is 
also unclear how a DOD 5G network could be commercialized, legally 
speaking. Spectrum is not a network; I am not sure the prospects of 
nationalizing 5G is a real threat, but we should not create uncertainty 
in the marketplace by leaving the idea out there.

    Question 15. Do you believe that it is appropriate for DOD spectrum 
assets to be leased or reused for a commercial wholesale network by a 
private sector company? Do you believe that DOD has the legal authority 
to engage in such activity without NTIA or FCC authorization?
    Answer. I think the idea of some sort of nationalized commercial 
network using DOD spectrum is a distraction from the important work 
that the FCC and the rest of government needs to do to give American 
industry the tools they need to lead the world in 5G.

    Question 16. Please describe any work you have done on this matter 
at the NTIA.
    Answer. None.

    C-Band. On February 28, the FCC voted on a 3-2 basis to reallocate 
and auction 280 Megahertz of the 3.7-4.2 GHz Band for the purpose of 
commercial wireless services. This C-Band spectrum is currently used 
for satellite transmissions, and satellite companies have opposed plans 
to move or repack their operations.
    As a part of this transition, the FCC proposed to offer incumbent 
satellite operators the option to accelerate their move in exchange for 
payment of their relocation costs--as much as $5.2 billion--plus a $9.7 
billion accelerated relocation payment. Critics of this arrangement 
have questioned the legal basis for and appropriateness of such 
transactions. I would appreciate your view and expertise given your 
background in telecommunication regulations and procurement law.

    Question 17. Do you believe that the FCC has the authority to 
require in auction rules that winning bidders financially remunerate 
incumbent satellite operators over and above their relocation costs, as 
required under the February Order?
    Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the record on this 
complex matter, nor have I had the benefit of briefings from 
stakeholders on these issues. If confirmed, I would educate myself on 
all of these matters and render an independent and impartial judgment 
if this issue is placed before me.

    Question 18. Do you believe that the decision to pay incumbent 
satellite operators nearly $10 billion dollars is an appropriate use of 
revenue that would otherwise go to rural broadband deployment or to the 
U.S. Treasury?
    Answer. I have not had an opportunity to review the record on this 
complex matter, nor have I had the benefit of briefings from 
stakeholders on these issues. If confirmed, I would educate myself on 
all of these matters and render an independent and impartial judgment 
if this issue is placed before me.

    Question 19. Please describe any work you have done on this matter 
at the NTIA.
    Answer. I have not worked directly on the C-Band auction. Most of 
the NTIA's policy work on this matter was complete prior to my joining 
the NTIA. I have not worked on the very recently-arising matters 
involving concerns about altimeters relating to C-Band interference.

    Ligado Networks. On April 20, the FCC unanimously approved an 
application by Ligado Networks to deploy a low-power terrestrial 
nationwide network in the band used by GPS operators. The Department of 
Defense and other Federal agencies opposed this decision, citing 
concerns about interference with existing GPS receivers. In response to 
a question from Senator Lee, you stated that the FCC followed its 
statute and obeyed its legal standard. I appreciate your background 
knowledge on this matter, and willingness to discuss it with the 
Committee.
    Question 20. Do you support the FCC's unanimous approval of the 
Ligado Networks petition or would you act to stay the Ligado decision?
    Answer. Serious potential real-world harms have been credibly 
alleged regarding implementation of the systems permitted by the 
license revisions granted under the petition. I have not had the 
opportunity to review FCC internal deliberations and engage with FCC 
technical experts. Considering the seriousness of the alleged harms, if 
confirmed, I would make review of the full Ligado record a top 
priority.

    Question 21. Do you believe that the standard of ``harmful 
interference'' used in the FCC decision was the correct standard for 
evaluation of the petition?
    Answer. The ``harmful interference'' standard used by the FCC is 
found in 47 CFR Sec. 2.1(c). This definition is identical to that found 
in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations. 
It is possible that the FCC's standard could be further refined in the 
future.

    Question 22. Do you believe the mitigation measures required by the 
FCC are adequate toward addressing concerns related to interference 
with GPS receivers?
    Answer. I do not have a settled view of the technical questions 
raised--and indeed, there appears to be a split among U.S. Government 
technical experts on this question. If confirmed, I will make it a 
priority to require U.S. Government technical experts to further 
develop the record so that Congress and the FCC do not have to pick 
sides in a politicized conflict.

    Question 23. How would you propose to resolve the disagreement 
between the DOD and the FCC?
    Answer. I have spoken to senior DOD figures at some length about 
both revisions to their testing regime and potential legal strategies 
to employ. I believe that ultimately, there must be a meeting of the 
minds among technical experts, which must be reflected by legal and 
policy decisions informed by both technical information and respect for 
the mandates given to the respective agencies by Congress.

    Question 24. Please describe any work you have done on this matter 
at the NTIA.
    Answer. Ligado was the first item that I reviewed and briefed upon 
joining the NTIA. I read the report and order, the publicly available 
technical materials, and relevant procedural materials in order to 
explain the ruling and its significance to the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary. Subsequently, I did a further technical and legal review in 
order to develop recommendations for the Department of Defense on legal 
and evidentiary strategies for the currently pending petitions for stay 
and reconsideration.

    Lifeline. The Coronavirus pandemic and social distancing are a 
resounding demonstration of the importance of Lifeline. In normal 
times, Lifeline is underutilized--and those that depend on the program 
say that the benefits are not as robust as they should be given the 
pressing need for broadband in our daily lives. During a pandemic--when 
schools are shut down, businesses are limited, and thousands of 
families face new economic challenges--a robust Lifeline program is 
more essential than ever so that people have the ability to communicate 
and stay connected.
    As a result of a Wireline Competition Bureau order released on 
November 18, Lifeline's Minimum Service Standards will now increase by 
1.5 Gigabytes per month. Chairman Pai has supported such an increase in 
the standard, but other Commissioners have supported a pause-and-study 
approach out of concern about the impact of such an increase. There is 
a real possibility of Lifeline becoming unsustainable or less 
competitive if assumptions, possibly made based on poor data, prove to 
be inaccurate.

    Question 25. Do you support increasing the minimum service 
standards as the Wireline Competition Bureau did on November 16?
    Answer. I do not have sufficient information to provide an informed 
judgment on the appropriate minimum service standards. I do understand, 
however, that absent WCB action on November 16, the minimum service 
standards would have been significantly more difficult for non-
facilities-based providers to meet. I fully support any effort to 
improve the Lifeline program as a means of closing the digital divide.

    Question 26. The FCC established the National Verifier to cut down 
on waste, fraud, and abuse--and to make it easier for those who do need 
Lifeline to access it. This is a goal I think we all share. However, 
the Verifier still lacks access to key eligibility databases and needs 
urgent support. How would you fix the Verifier system?
    Answer. I fully support the National Verifier system, and look 
forward to reviewing and, to the extent necessary, developing the 
record to improve its functionality. I will support any effort to 
reduce waste, fraud and abuse in this critical program.

    Question 27. Unfortunately, many eligible subscribers who could 
benefit from the Lifeline program are unaware that it exists. Only 7 
million subscribers are enrolled in Lifeline while approximately 38 
million are eligible. Please list three steps you would take to improve 
Lifeline to meet the needs of those families who need it.
    Answer. I am deeply committed to closing the digital divide. I will 
support and actively advocate for any Commission efforts to improve 
Lifeline to meet the needs of those families who need it.

  1.  I support efforts by the FCC and other parts of government to 
        publicize the availability of Lifeline-supported services.

  2.  I support ensuring that Lifeline providers meet their obligations 
        to advertise their Lifeline services.

  3.  I support efforts the Commission may take to close the digital 
        divide and improve awareness of the Lifeline program.

    E-Rate. On March 16, Senator Markey, myself, and sixteen Senate 
colleagues wrote to the FCC asking the Commission to help provide 
connectivity under the agency's E-Rate program for students engaged in 
remote learning during the pandemic. We asked the FCC to temporarily 
allow E-Rate funding to be used to provide home wireless devices and 
hotspots to students. Chairman Pai, however, has refused to interpret 
the Communications Act to allow schools to support their students in 
these challenging times--taking an unnecessarily limited view on the 
agency's authority that is not shared by all Commissioners.

    Question 28. What is your position on whether the FCC can re-
interpret the definition of ``classroom'' under the statute, or 
otherwise waive rules under emergency authorities, in order to allow 
schools to use E-Rate funding to provide devices and broadband Internet 
access services to students learning from home?
    Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the record and 
the law on the question of whether Section 254 precludes using E-Rate 
funding for that purpose. Learning in the home is more important than 
ever. I commit to engaging with my colleagues and the staff at the FCC 
to determine what our statutory authority is in this area.

    Question 29. Please list three steps that the FCC should take right 
now to address the Homework Gap--to support Connecticut families who do 
not have broadband due to its high cost.
    Answer. I have clearly stated my commitment to closing the digital 
divide. I will support and actively advocate for any Commission efforts 
to improve E-Rate--and Lifeline--to meet the needs of those families 
who need it.

  1.  Applicants are entitled to clear and timely determinations 
        regarding their eligibility for funding. It's critically 
        important that applicants and providers understand the rules of 
        the game up front, and that those rules not be changed 
        midstream.
  2.  I support improving the administration of the E-Rate program 
        through improved oversight of USAC.
  3.  I support efforts by the Commission to close the digital divide, 
        including efforts to raise awareness and the effectiveness of 
        Lifeline and E-Rate.

    5.9 GHz. In September 2020, the NTIA filed a letter with the FCC 
supporting the FCC's concept of reallocating parts of the 5.9 GHz band 
for use in Wi-Fi networks. The Department of Transportation opposed 
this proposal, arguing that the 5.9 GHz Band should be reserved for 
existing automotive safety purposes. On November 18, the FCC decided to 
move forward with plans to reallocate more than half of the 5.9 GHz 
band over the concerns of the DOT.

    Question 30. Do you agree with the FCC's decision to open up the 
5.9 GHz band for Wi-Fi use based on its proposed arrangement?
    Answer. As discussed above, I would, of course, be willing to 
consider any petition for reconsideration that is appropriately before 
the Commission. I believe that petitioners are entitled to a timely 
response to their petitions, and that disposing of such petitions--one 
way or the other--is simply good governance. Once I have an opportunity 
to examine the record, I would support staying these rules pending 
action on the pending petitions for reconsideration where good cause 
has been shown.

    Question 31. Please describe any work you have done on this matter 
at the NTIA.
    Answer. I have not worked on this matter. The affected spectrum is 
not allocated to the Federal government, so it is not regulated by the 
NTIA.

    24 GHz. The FCC auctioned licenses to the 24 GHz band during its 
``Spectrum Frontiers'' proceeding in early 2019, describing the 
auctions as important for the race to 5G. Since then, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA have complained 
that the FCC's plan could severely interfere with weather satellite 
transmissions. The dispute between NASA, NOAA, the Department of 
Commerce, and the FCC brought in the NTIA to mediate between different 
positions.

    Question 32. Do you believe the 24 GHz auction will cause harmful 
interference to weather satellites?
    Answer. I do not have sufficient information to provide an informed 
judgment on what constitutes a reasonable set of interference standards 
in this area, but commit to seeking to obtain that information and 
taking such steps as are necessary to ensure the adoption of 
appropriate standards.

    Question 33. What steps do you think the FCC should have taken to 
avoid conflict between weather forecasters, Federal agencies, and 
commercial spectrum needs?
    Answer. I am not familiar enough with the record in this proceeding 
to identify specific steps the FCC might have taken, but I pledge to 
work with your office and this Committee to improve this process going 
forward. For example, the MOU between the NTIA and FCC in regard to 
spectrum management decisions could be updated and clarified. A more 
robust MOU to address this point could be helpful in assisting the 
agencies in resolving these types of conflicts.

    Question 34. Please describe any work you have done on this matter 
at the NTIA.
    Answer. None.

    USF Reform. You state in your questionnaire that ``My expertise in 
telecommunications finance will help the FCC in its mission to make the 
most of the [Universal Service Fund] in order to benefit all Americans, 
including those whose communities are currently underserved or for whom 
access is prohibitively expensive.''
    USF reform is likely to come up soon. The USF Contribution Factor 
is now 27 percent (and is projected to exceed 30 percent in the first 
quarter of next year), a dramatic increase in the past four years. At 
the same time, demand for these programs is increasing--especially 
during this national crisis.

    Question 35. What specific steps would you propose to reform the 
USF contribution mechanism and make sure programs like E-Rate and rural 
healthcare have the funds they need to meet demand?
    Answer. The USF Contribution Factor is not sustainable over the 
long term. If confirmed,I look forward to working with Congress and my 
potential colleagues at the FCC and on the Joint Board to determine 
what specific steps we need to take to ensure the FCC fulfils its 
obligations under section 254 of the Communications Act.

    Question 36. Do you support expanding the Rural Healthcare Fund 
and, if so, how do you plan to fund such expansions?
    Answer. I support the Rural Healthcare Fund and commit to determine 
what specific steps we need to take to ensure the FCC fulfils its 
obligations under section 254 of the Communications Act.

    Question 37. Do you believe the FCC has appropriately overseen and 
taken proper enforcement actions within the Rural Healthcare Fund to 
protect against waste, fraud, and abuse by carriers?
    Answer. I support the Rural Healthcare Fund and commit to determine 
what specific steps we need to take to ensure the FCC fulfils its 
obligations under section 254 of the Communications Act, including 
prevention of waste, fraud, and abuse. I support greater transparency, 
responsiveness and expeditiousness in adjudicating such cases so that 
enforcement actions are more effective in cases of waste, fraud, and 
abuse and so that carriers are not disincentivized from participation 
out of fear of becoming embroiled in a lengthy and uncertain dispute 
process.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                            Nathan Simington
    Question 1. If confirmed, you will serve in the minority at the 
FCC, a position that demands collaboration and compromise. Describe a 
policy achievement from your time at NTIA that faced initial opposition 
from your leadership.
    Answer. The NTIA is one of many peer organizations worldwide 
involved in the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet 
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Recently, the GAC 
found itself confronted with a proposed governance change at ICANN that 
would make the process of determining website ownership much slower, 
much more burdensome, and much less certain. However, there was 
significant concern within NTIA leadership about the difficulties of 
building international consensus against these changes, because they 
were motivated by compliance concerns with the European Union's General 
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Therefore, in order to resist the 
proposed ICANN changes, I had to build consensus within the NTIA and 
within the U.S. government that vital national interests were at stake 
and that non-American members of GAC would support our proposed 
approach in defending them.
    I took the lead role in analyzing the changes and their likely 
implications for a long list of concerned American parties, including 
individual plaintiffs, national security, law enforcement, child 
welfare organizations, intellectual property owners, technology-sector 
companies, and pharmacy boards. After drawing together the excellent 
work in identifying and publicizing these concerns that had already 
been done by members of Congress and representatives of Federal 
agencies, the NTIA decided that national and international consensus 
was a strategy that could win and needed to be attempted. NTIA 
succeeded first in building internal consensus within the U.S. 
Government, then international consensus among non-American members of 
GAC, to obtain a forceful and detailed denunciation of the proposed 
changes. These criticisms now have the imprimatur of the international 
community as a whole and are part of the permanent decision record. 
They will be the basis for further American resistance and have 
preserved our non-consent as a basis for future American policy.

    Question 2. I am pleased to see the FCC is waiting for updated 
Broadband Data Maps before distributing $9 billion with the 5G Fund. 
What does the FCC need from Congress to ensure that the Fund proceeds 
as accurately and expeditiously as possible?
    Answer. Consistent with FCC requests, Congress must provide the FCC 
funding sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the Broadband DATA 
Act.

    Question 3. I am concerned that it will be far easier to upgrade 4G 
infrastructure than to build 5G from scratch in places without service. 
When carrying out the 5G Fund, what will you do to ensure that carriers 
prioritize unserved areas over places that already have decent 4G 
coverage?
    Answer. In my view, the 5G Fund appears to be structured to address 
exactly this question because of its prioritization of areas lacking 
coverage. Between the 5G Fund, the merger conditions set forth in the 
T-Mobile/Sprint order, and Dish Network's obligations, we expect that 
5G coverage will be nationwide in reasonably short order.

    Question 4. Indian Country is far behind the rest of the Nation 
when it comes to connectivity: according to a 2019 FCC study, just 47 
percent of households in rural Tribal areas have access to a home 
broadband Internet connection, compared to 94 percent of Americans 
overall. The FCC's Tribal broadband factors and set-asides in the 
universal service programs have made little meaningful progress toward 
closing the Tribal digital divide. What new ideas will you bring to 
this challenging problem?
    Answer. I commit to fully engage with the FCC's Office of Native 
Affairs and Policy and the Native Nations Communications Task Force, 
and such other assets as are appropriate and necessary, to improve the 
agency's coordination and consultation with Tribal nations on issues 
under its jurisdiction.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                            Nathan Simington
    Broadband Mapping. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Broadband 
DATA Act to address issues with broadband data collection and mapping 
efforts. According to a GAO report published on October 1, FCC 
officiates noted the FCC could not begin collecting new data until 
Congress appropriates funding for this work. Recently, the FCC 
established rules for its 5G Fund for Rural America, which will 
distribute up to $9 billion over the next decade and the FCC has moved 
ahead in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction to award up to $16 
billion.
    Question 1. What will you do to ensure mapping data used by the FCC 
adequately reflects broadband availability prior to distribution of 
this funding?
    Answer. The difficulty with mapping has come from the fact that 
responsibility for mapping efforts has resided in different agencies. 
There has not been a uniform clearinghouse or even a uniform set of 
standards for defining what service levels constitute broadband. I hope 
that, with its new mandate under the Broadband DATA Act, the FCC can 
serve as the clearinghouse for precise and accurate broadband 
deployment data to inform the appropriate priority distribution of USF 
funding.

    Question 2. Have you previously worked on issues concerning 
broadband mapping? If so, please explain.
    Answer. The OTIA office at NTIA coordinates and manages the ABI 
relationship and the National Broadband Availability Map (NBAM). I have 
worked on analysis and evaluation of mapping policy to explore ways of 
using NBAM, which is a unique Federal resource. My work on this 
includes looking at mapping best practices to coordinate mapping 
through the Federal Funding Workstream's Mapping Subgroup to assess and 
integrate Federal information from a variety of sources, including the 
DOI Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service, and to 
provide NBAM data to such recipients as the USDA Rural Utilities 
Service, the DOC Economic Development Administration, and the 
Appalachian Regional Commission.

    Tribal Broadband. 18 percent of tribal reservation residents have 
no Internet access at home, wireless or land-based. Further, 33 percent 
rely on Internet service from a smartphone at home. I worked with the 
FCC to ensure the tribal priority filing window for the 2.5GHz band. 
This was an opportunity never before offered to Tribes and was a great 
step in the direction to address the broadband gap that has existed in 
Indian Country for far too long. Ultimately, 12 of the 22 Tribes in 
Arizona received licenses.

    Question 3. Will you utilize priority filing windows for Tribes in 
future spectrum auctions? If so, how will you determine which spectrum 
auctions will have a priority filing window for Tribes?
    Answer. I would be delighted to explore ways to utilize a Tribal 
priority window going forward. There has also been controversy over the 
length of the priority window. The tradeoff is between shorter windows 
to allow quicker building and longer windows to allow more 
participants. We should do better outreach to Tribes earlier in the 
process to maximize the impact of this program and allow shorter 
windows to be more effectively used.

    Question 4. How will you and the Office of Native Affairs and 
Policy (ONAP) work with tribal communities eligible for spectrum band 
auctions to provide robust consultation with Tribes and ensure Tribes 
have all needed resources to apply to these licenses?
    Answer. I commit to fully engage with the FCC's Office of Native 
Affairs and Policy and the Native Nations Communications Task Force, 
and such other assets as are appropriate and necessary, to improve the 
agency's coordination and consultation with Tribal nations on issues 
under its jurisdiction.

    Question 5. Have you previously worked to help close the digital 
divide in Indian country? If so, can you discuss specifically how you 
worked with tribal governments and tribal communities to ensure robust 
consultation?
    Answer. In my current position, I have advised on facilitating 
Tribal collaborations with middle mile broadband service providers and 
improving the application process for the FCC's 2.5 GHz spectrum 
license auctions.

    Homework Gap. In Arizona, as many as 350,000 households--13 percent 
of all households in the state--don't have an Internet subscription. 
The Internet is a necessity for Arizona students to access online 
learning, especially during the COVID-19 crisis. The E-rate program 
works to ensure students have equal access to education and 
communication networks throughout this national emergency.
    Question 6. Do you believe E-Rate can help tackle the Homework Gap 
for students that lack reliable Internet access?
    Answer. I have clearly stated my commitment to closing the digital 
divide. I will support and actively advocate for any Commission efforts 
to improve E-Rate--and Lifeline--to meet the needs of those families 
who need it.

    Question 7. What, if any, changes would you make to the E-Rate 
program to help the program advance its mission?
    Answer. I am deeply committed to closing the digital divide. I will 
support and actively advocate for any Commission efforts to improve E-
Rate--and Lifeline--to meet the needs of those families who need it.

    Section 230. As you know, in May, the Administration ordered NTIA 
to file a petition with the FCC, requesting the FCC to moderate online 
content through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. On July 
27, 2020, NTIA filed a petition requesting the FCC initiate rulemaking 
to clarify provisions of Section 230.

    Question 8. You started as a Senior Advisor for NTIA in June 2020. 
What was your involvement with this petition and with other NTIA 
activities related to Section 230?
    Answer. As stated during my confirmation hearing, I played a minor 
role in drafting the petition. The substantial legal arguments had been 
outlined before I joined NTIA, but I helped finalize the petition. I 
also engaged in routine advocacy for earned media support of the 
petition, including the e-mails cited by other senators. Such advocacy 
is part and parcel of the role I serve in at NTIA, and in the context 
of the roles others played, my role was minor. Once it became clear I 
would be considered for this nomination, I ceased any active work on 
the petition.

    Question 9. In your view, what is the extent of the FCC's authority 
to enforce or interpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act?
    Answer. If confirmed, I would examine the record and reach my own 
independent and impartial conclusions about the proper role of Section 
230 in any proceedings that come before me. In particular, I would want 
to be certain that there are no compelling objections to the FCC's 
rulemaking authority. I note that the FCC's General Counsel has 
determined that rulemaking is permissible, but considering the 
complexity and contentiousness of the question, and continued 
opposition to rulemaking, I would want to have absolute certainty on 
the matter myself prior to considering the substance of any such items 
as might arise on the FCC's agenda.

                                  [all]