    [Senate Hearing 116-646]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                              S. Hrg. 116-646

                               NOMINATIONS TO THE
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
                      CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION,
                      AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 16, 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
    54-998 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           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 June 16, 2020....................................     1
    Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     2
        Letter dated May 12, 2020 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria
          Cantwell from Harold A. Schaitberger, General President,
          International Association of Fire Fighters.................     4
        Letter dated June 15, 2020 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from John Wiesman, DrPH, MPH, Secretary,
          Washington State Department of Health and Laura Watson,
          Director, Washington State Department of Ecology...........     6
        Letter dated Sep 11, 2019 to Cynthia Decker, NOAA Federal re:
          Scientific Integrity Filing................................     8
    Statement of Senator Moran.......................................   141
    Statement of Senator Udall.......................................   143
        Letter dated June 10, 2020 to Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
          Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
          from: Eve C. Gartner, Managing Attorney, Toxic Exposure &
          Health Program, Earthjustice; Stel Bailey, Brevard County,
          FL, Emily Donovan, Brunswick County, NC, National PFAS
          Contamination Coalition; Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns
          Director, Clean Water Action; Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy
          Director, Environmental Defense Fund; Melanie Benesh,
          Legislative Attorney, Environmental Working Group; Daniel
          Rosenberg, Senior Attorney & Director of Federal Toxics
          Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council..................   145
        Memorandum from Earthjustice entitled ``EPA's PFAS-related
          responsibilities under the National Defense Authorization
          Act for FY 2020''..........................................   148
        Opposition letter dated June 10, 2020 re: Nancy Beck to Hon.
          Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria Cantwell from Jennifer Sass,
          PhD, Senior Scientist, National Resources Defense Council,
          Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University and
          over 90 scientists.........................................   149
        Opposition letter dated June 11, 2020 re: Nancy Beck to Hon.
          Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria Cantwell from Linda Lipsen,
          Chief Executive Officer, American Association for Justice..   159
        Opposition letter dated June 12, 2020 re: Nancy Beck to Hon,
          Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria Cantwell from the Learning
          Disabilities Association of America........................   160
        Opposition letter dated June 15, 2020 re: Nancy Beck to Hon.
          Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria Cantwell from: AFL-CIO, Alaska
          Community Action on Toxics, American Association for
          Justice, AKPIRG (Alaska), Arizona PIRG, Asbestos Disease
          Awareness Organization, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense
          League, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (Rabun Gap
          Chapter), Breast Cancer Action, Breast Cancer Prevention
          Partners, CALPIRG, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund,
          Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Economic
          Justice, Center for Environmental Health, Center for
          Environmental Policy and Management, Center for Justice &
          Democracy, Center for Science in the Public Interest,
          Chapel Hill Organization for Clean Energy, Charlie's House,
          Chicago Consumer Coalition, Citizens' Environmental
          Coalition, Clean and Healthy New York, Clean Production
          Action, Clean Water Action, Collaborative on Health and the
          Environment, Columbia Consumer Education Council, Coming
          Clean, Consumer Action, Consumer Advocates Against Reverse
          Mortgage Abuse, Consumer Assistance Council, Inc., Consumer
          Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and
          Safety, CoPIRG (Colorado), ConnPIRG, Data for Justice,
          Earthjustice, Earthworks, Ecology Center, Endangered
          Species Coalition, Environmental Defense Fund,
          Environmental Health Strategy Center, Environmental Working
          Group, Fannworker Association of Florida, Florida PIRG,
          Florida Silver Haired Legislature Inc, Food & Water Action,
          Georgia PIRG, Green Inside and Out, Green Science Policy
          Institute, HarperSmiles, Healthy Babies Bright Futures,
          Illinois PIRG, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,
          International Center For Technology Assessment;
          International Union, UAW; Iowa PIRG, KidsAndCars.org, Kids
          In Danger, League of Conservation Voters, Maryland PIRG,
          Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, MASSPIRG, Meghan's
          Hope, Mid-Pinellas Coalition of Neighborhood Associations,
          Moms Clean Air Force, MoPIRG (Missouri), NC Child, NCPIRG,
          NHPIRG, NJPIRG, NMPIRG, National Consumers League, National
          Employment Law Project, National PFAS Contamination
          Coalition, National Women's Health Network, Natural
          Resources Defense Council, NC Conservation Network,
          Nontoxic Certified, Ohio PIRG, Oregon Environmental
          Council, OSPIRG (Oregon), Parents Against Tip-Overs,
          PennPIRG, PIRGIM (Michigan), Public Citizen, Protect All
          Children's Environment, RIPIRG, Safer Chemicals Healthy
          Families, Safer States, Shanes Foundation, TexPIRG, Toxic-
          Free Future, Toxic Free NC, Union of Concerned Scientists,
          Union Veterans Council, UPSTREAM, U.S. Public Interest
          Research Group, WashPIRG, WISPIRG (Wisconsin), Women's
          Voices for the Earth, Vermont Conservation Voters, Zero
          Waste Washington...........................................   163
        Oposition letter dated June 15, 2020 re: Nancy Beck to Hon.
          Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria Cantwel from Diana Zuckerman,
          Ph.D., President, National Center for Health Research......   167
        Opposition letter dated June 16, 2020 re: Nancy Beck to David
          Strickland from Jack Fletcher..............................   168
        Opposition letter dated June 16, 2020 re: Nancy Beck to Hon.
          Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria Cantwell from: Linda Shosie,
          Tucson, Arizona, Environmental Justice Task Force--Tucson;
          Anthony Spaniola, Oscada, Michigan, Need Our Water (NOW);
          Eric Weiner, Windsor, Connecticut, Clean Water Task Force @
          Windsor, Climate Action; Diane and Paul Cotter, Rindge, New
          Hampshire, Your Turnout Gear and PFOA; Stel Bailey, Cocoa,
          Florida, Fight For Zero; Laurene Allen, Merrimack, New
          Hampshire, Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water; Lindsey
          Duhe, Pensacola, Florida, Saufley Field Community; Andrea
          Amico, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Testing for Pease; Lynn
          Sprayberry, Summerville, Georgia, Chattooga County; Loreen
          Hackett, Hoosick Falls, New York, PfoaProjectNY; Susan
          Phelan, West Barnstable, Massachusett, GreenCAPE; Jack
          Caldwell, New Windsor, New York, Quassiack Creek Watershed
          Alliance; Ryan Riley, Salem, Massachusett, Your Turnout
          Gear and PFOA; Emily Donovan, Wilmington, North Carolina,
          Clean Cape Four; Arnie Leirche, Oscada, Michigan, Wurtsmith
          Restoration Advisory Board, Community Co-chair; Katie
          Bryant, Pittsboro, North Carolina, Clean Haw River; Hope
          Grosse, Joanne Stanton, Bucks and Montgomery Counties,
          Pennsylvania, Buxmont Coalition for Safer Water; Cheryl
          Cail, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, SC Idle No More; Kevin
          Ferrara, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, Retired USAF
          Firefighter; Shaina Kasper, Montpelier, Vermont, Toxics
          Action Center; John Cranmer, Gillette, Wyomihg, USAF
          Firefighter................................................   169
        Prepared Statement of Brian Wynne, Chairman, Drew Wynne
          Foundation.................................................   172
    Statement of Senator Blunt.......................................   172
    Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................   174
        Letter from Crystal Ellis....................................   174
        Letter from Janet McGee, Founding Member, Parents Against
          Tip-overs..................................................   175
    Statement of Senator Lee.........................................   177
    Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................   178
    Statement of Senator Thune.......................................   180
    Statement of Senator Tester......................................   182
    Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................   184
    Statement of Senator Capito......................................   187
    Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................   189

                                   Witnesses

    Hon. Joel Szabat, Nominee to be Under Secretary of Transportation
      for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation..................    80
        Prepared statement...........................................    82
        Biographical information.....................................    84
    Michael P. O'Rielly, Nominee to be a Member, Federal
      Communications Commission......................................    90
        Prepared statement...........................................    91
        Biographical information.....................................    93
    Dr. Nancy B. Beck, Nominee to be a Commissioner and Chairman,
      Consumer Product Safety Commission.............................   103
        Prepared statement...........................................   105
        Biographical information.....................................   106
    Michael J. Walsh, Jr., Nominee to be General Counsel, U.S.
      Department of Commerce.........................................   120
        Prepared statement...........................................   120
        Biographical information.....................................   121
    Mary A. Toman, Nominee to be Under Secretary of Commerce for
      Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce..................   128
        Prepared statement...........................................   130
        Biographical information.....................................   131

                                    Appendix

    Response to written question submitted to Hon. Joel Szabat by:
        Hon. Roy Blunt...............................................   201
        Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   201
        Hon. Ron Johnson.............................................   202
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   202
        Hon. Edward Markey...........................................   205
    Response to written question submitted to Dr. Nancy B. Beck by:
        Hon. Cory Gardner............................................   206
    Response to written questions submitted to Michael J. Walsh, Jr.
      by:
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................   207
    Response to written questions submitted to Mary A. Toman by:
        Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................   208

                               NOMINATIONS TO THE
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
                      CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION,
                      AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2020

                                           U.S. Senate,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
    SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Blunt, Cruz,
    Fischer, Moran, Sullivan, Blackburn, Capito, Lee, Young, Scott,
    Cantwell, Blumenthal, Udall, Peters, Baldwin, Duckworth,
    Tester, Sinema, and Rosen.

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

        The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
        Today the Committee will consider five nominations to
    important positions across the jurisdiction of the Committee.
    The nominees before us today are: Joel Szabat, to be Under
    Secretary of Transportation Policy; Michael O'Rielly, who has
    been nominated for a new term as Commissioner at the Federal
    Communications Commission; Nancy Beck, who has been nominated
    to be a Commissioner and Chairman of the Consumer Product
    Safety Commission; Michael Walsh, nominated to be General
    Counsel of the Department of Commerce; and Mary Toman, the
    nominee to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs.
        Mr. Szabat has been known and respected by the members of
    this committee for many years. He has held key positions in the
    transportation sector, including his service as Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Management and Budget, and Executive Director of
    the Maritime Administration.
        Mr. Szabat was previously considered by this committee and
    unanimously confirmed by the full Senate in January 2019 to the
    position of Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
    Affairs. In recent months, he has also served as the Acting
    Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy and has performed
    the duties of this position, giving him valuable experience for
    future continued service in this role for which he has been
    nominated.
        Commissioner Michael O'Rielly has served as a member of the
    FCC since 2013, having been unanimously confirmed twice by the
    full Senate. He has now been nominated to serve a new term at
    this agency. During his tenure, he has been a leader on
    spectrum and video policy issues and has made other important
    contributions to the work of the Commission. Prior to his
    service at the FCC, Commissioner O'Rielly held a number of
    staff positions in the U.S. Congress, including service with
    the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and on the staffs of
    a number of Senators, including former and current members of
    this committee.
        Dr. Nancy Beck has been nominated to serve as Commissioner
    and as Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She
    has an accomplished academic record, demonstrated by her
    Bachelor's Degree in Microbiology from Cornell University and
    her Master's and Doctorate degrees in Environmental Health from
    the University of Washington. Dr. Beck has gained broad career
    experience in the private sector with the Washington State
    Department of Health, the Office of Management and Budget, the
    American Chemistry Council, and her current position as
    Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of
    Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention with the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency. Recently she completed a
    detail as a policy advisor with the National Economic Council.
        Michael Walsh has built an impressive legal career,
    beginning with his law degree from Columbia Law School and
    continuing through associate, counsel, and partner positions at
    respected firms. Mr. Walsh began his service at the Department
    of Commerce as Deputy General Counsel before becoming Chief of
    Staff. Additionally, he has been performing the delegated
    duties of the General Counsel for almost a year, and he appears
    before this committee today as the nominee for this role.
        And then appearing remotely by video is Mary Toman. Her
    educational and career background are part of her strong record
    of achievement, which has resulted in her nomination to serve
    as Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs. She holds
    a degree in economics from Stanford University and an M.B.A.
    from Harvard Business School. Earlier in her career, she was a
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and she also was the
    Deputy Treasurer of the State of California. Her current
    private sector position focuses on the creation and management
    of a successful stock and real estate portfolio.
        I would like to thank all the nominees for testifying today
    and for your willingness to serve in these key roles in our
    government.
        And I will now turn to Ranking Member Cantwell for her
    opening remarks. Senator Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today we have five nominees for key positions at several
    agencies. Let me start first with the nominee for Chairman and
    Commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
        The Consumer Product Safety Commission has jurisdiction
    over thousands of consumer products, including toys and many
    other products used by infants and small children. The agency
    is literally the last line of defense against defects and toxic
    hazards in consumer products that can kill and cause serious
    injuries.
        Unfortunately, Dr. Beck's record is clear. She has
    repeatedly sided with an industry to represent the American
    Chemistry Council over the safety of American families. I
    believe that she has a glaring failure in the lack of
    meaningful address to the health risk posed by a class of
    highly persistent chemicals referred to, PFAS.
        PFAS are a class of toxic chemicals that have been linked
    to cancers, thyroid disease, decreased response to vaccines,
    birth defects, and immune system disorders. These chemicals are
    found in many consumer products like carpets, clothing, paint,
    nonstick cookware, as well as fire fighting foam that is used
    at military bases. In fact, they have contaminated over 300
    military installations across the country, including several in
    the State of Washington.
        Just last week, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, released PFAS exposure assessments for 333 people
    living near Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane. The assessment
    showed that almost all the people studied had PFAS levels
    higher than the national average.
        Washington has been a leader in the Nation in dealing with
    PFAS. It was the first state to ban the use of the fire
    fighting foam containing PFAS, as well as PFAS in food
    packaging, but it will cost billions of dollars to clean up the
    mess, much of that Federal dollars, and millions of people will
    continue to be harmed from the exposures for years to come.
        Dr. Beck has repeatedly stood in the way of progress on
    this issue. At EPA, Dr. Beck assisted in delaying the release
    of a government study which found that the EPA's current health
    advisory for PFAS in drinking water was too weak to protect the
    public. The propose health advisory would show that PFAS is
    dangerous at a much lower level than previously thought.
        And as a White House official in an e-mail to the Office of
    Management and Budget, deemed the report a public relations
    nightmare, impervious to the public health nightmare that was
    unfolding around the country with PFAS. In fact, the final
    report is still stuck at the White House where Dr. Beck was
    detailed to work on environmental regulations for the National
    Economic Council.
        This is one of the reasons why the Secretary of the
    Washington State Department of Health where Dr. Beck has worked
    sent me a letter yesterday strongly opposing her nomination.
    The International Association of Fire Fighters also strongly
    oppose her nomination, stating, quote, ``her record promoting
    the interests of the chemical industry at the expense of
    workers' health and safety makes her ill-suited for this
    position.'' I will put these two letters, Mr. Chairman, in the
    record.
        The Chairman. Without objection, they will be placed in at
    this point.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                          Washington State Department of Health
                                                          June 15, 2020

    Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman,
    Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

        We write to express our grave concerns regarding the nomination of
    Dr. Nancy Beck to chair the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
    due to her past actions to undermine the public's health. We urge you
    to vigorously oppose her confirmation.
        Over the past 40 years, CPSC has kept people safe across the United
    States by reducing the unreasonable risk of injuries and deaths from
    over approximately 10,000 types of products, including baby strollers,
    cribs, and bath seats, to cigarette lighters and lawn mowers.\1\ CPSC
    has broad authority under the law to ensure consumer product safety,
    including by restricting toxic chemicals like lead, formaldehyde,
    asbestos, and fire retardants in consumer products.\2\ Dr. Beck is
    grossly unfit to chair the CPSC after having worked inside and outside
    of government to roll back regulations aimed at protecting people from
    the serious risk of toxic chemicals.\3\ As someone with a clear record
    of implementing policies that benefit industry at the expense of
    consumer protection, Dr. Beck has no place leading an agency whose
    mission is to protect consumer health and safety from being harmed by
    the very products. they believe are safe to bring in their homes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See David Carpenter, The Consumer Product Safety Act: A Lego/
    Analysis, Congressional Research Service, available at https://fas.org/
    sgp/crs/misc/R45174.pdf
        \2\ See David Carpenter, The Consumer Product Safety Act: A legal
    Analysis, Congressional Research Service, available at https://fas.org/
    sgp/crs/misc/R45174.pdf
        \3\ See Eric Lipton, Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals?
    An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots, The New York Times, Oct 21,
    2017, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/trump-epa-
    chemicals-regulations.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dr. Beck has repeatedly attempted to roll back or water down
    Federal regulation on environmental health while working at the Office
    of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) during the Bush
    Administration, and more recently, at the Office of Chemical Safety and
    Pollution Prevention in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    during the Trump Administration. For example:

       Dr. Beck advocated for the revision of language in Federal
            lead paint regulations to diminish the link to cardiovascular
            disease in adults.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Id.

       She helped slow down efforts to protect drinking water from
            perchlorate, an ingredient in rocket fuel.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See Majority Staff of the Subcommittee on Investigations and
    Oversight for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science
    and Technology, Nipping IRIS in the Bud: Suppression of Environmental
    Science by the Bush Administration's Office of Management And Budget,
    June 11, 2009, available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/
    4113586-EPA-and-Toxic-Chemical-Rules.html#document/p94/a382944

       While at OIRA, she helped draft the 2006 Proposed Risk
            Assessment Bulletin that would limit how the Federal government
            assesses risks to human health.\6\ The Office of Management and
            Budget requested the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences'
            (NAS) National Research Council to review the guidance and NAS
            published a report finding the guidance was fundamentally
            flawed.\7\ Fortunately, OMB did not finalize the draft
            guidance.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See Office of Management and Budget, Proposed Risk Assessment
    Bulletin, available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/
    default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/proposed_
    risk_assessment_bulletin_010906.pdf
        \7\ See National Research Council. 2007. Scientific Review of the
    Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin from the Office of Management and
    Budget. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/
    10.17226/11811
        \8\ Office of Management and Budget, Updated Principles/or Risk
    Analysis, September 19, 2007, available at https://georgewbush-
    whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-24.pdf

       While at EPA, she attempted to implement flawed concepts of
            the 2006 Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin during
            implementation the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of
            2016. These proposed regulations were appealed to the Ninth
            Circuit and reversed, in part on grounds that the EPA's
            exclusion of legacy uses and associated disposals from the
            definition of ``conditions of use'' is unlawful.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Concerned Scientists Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. U.S.
    Envtl. Prot. Agency, 943 F.3d 397 (9th Cir. 2019)

       Dr. Beck scaled back several policies curbing Federal limits
            on chemicals, including two powerful solvents linked to
            neurological defects.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ See Todd Frankel and Juliet Eilperin, Trump may appoint former
    chemical industry executive to lead Consumer Product Safety Commission,
    The Washington Post, December 10, 2019, available at https://
    www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/10/white-house-considering-
    former-chemical-industry-executive-lead-consumer-product-safety-
    commission/

       She also pressured EPA to make changes to loosen a potential
            regulation of PFAS.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ See Senator Carper's letter to Administrator Andrew Wheeler,
    dated April 17, 2020, available at https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/
    cache/files/c/1/c15a8ced-03b1-4a46-bb05-aba15d1
    0e36e/DC527687B68D0EF6DDE2A93C26A6D6FC.04-17-20-tc-pfas-snur-letter-to-
    wheeler.pdf

        The Committee should be deeply concerned by Dr. Beck's significant
    connections to the very industry she is supposed to regulate. Dr. Beck
    worked as a senior policy director at the American Chemistry Council
    (ACC), a powerful chemical industry lobbying group.\12\ ACC has opposed
    protections against numerous toxic chemicals, including flame
    retardants.\13\ The CPSC granted a petition to initiate rulemaking on
    the use of certain flame retardants in four categories of consumer
    products, including children's products.\14\ A number of flame
    retardants are linked to thyroid disruption, cancer, and learning
    deficits.\15\ If Dr. Beck were appointed chair of CPSC, we firmly
    believe she would fail to put the health of the American public before
    industry interests.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ See Frankel and Eilperin, December 10, 2019
        \13\ See American Chemistry Council, NASEM Report Confirms
    Organohaolgen Flame Retardant Cannot Be Assessed for Hazards as a
    Single Class, May 15, 2019, available at https://
    www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-
    releases/NASEM-Report-Confirms-Organohalogen-Flame-Retardants-Cannot-
    Be-Assessed-for-Hazards-as-a-Single-Class.html
        \14\ See U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission webpage on flame
    retardants, available at https://www.cpsc.gov/Business-Manufacturing/
    Business-Education/Business-Guidance/flame-retardants
        \15\ Washington State Department of Ecology, Children's Safe
    Products Reporting Rule Rationale for Reporting List of Chemicals of
    High Concern to Children 2011-2017, Publication Number 18-04-025, dated
    November 2018, available at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/
    Summary
    Pages/1804025
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, Dr. Beck has a record of ignoring the advice of
    scientific advisors and interfering with the development of evidence-
    based policy. According to press reports, she was involved in the
    shelving of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    coronavirus guidance while on detail with NEC.\16\ Timely national
    guidance from scientific experts at CDC would have been instrumental in
    helping states, territories, and local health officials develop
    guidance on how to safely reopen communities. As state officials
    charged with protecting the public health, we were deeply troubled to
    learn Dr. Beck was involved in this matter. CPSC needs leadership that
    uses the advice of scientific experts to help guide policy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ See Jason Dearen and Michael Biesecker, E-mails: Trump nominee
    involved in shelving CDC virus guide, Associated Press, May 13, 2020,
    available at https://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2020/05/13/
    Emails-Trump-nominee-invotved-in-shelving-CDC-virus-guide/stories
    /202005130139
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally, we have serious concerns that Dr. Beck's appointment could
    lead to CPSC action to preempt our robust state laws.\17\ Washington
    State has a number of state laws that protect children from mercury,
    lead, flame retardants, PFAS, and other chemicals and that offer robust
    consumer and environmental protection.\18\ Because the chemicals in
    consumer products can be released into the environment during product
    use and disposal, safer consumer products are important for pollution
    prevention. Based on Dr. Beck's history of advocating for the national
    chemical industry, which frequently takes positions against state-based
    regulations, we have reason to believe she would support rolling back
    our important consumer protections through Federal preemption.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ See David Carpenter, The Consumer Product Safety Act: A Legal
    Analysis, Congressional Research Service, available at https://fas.org/
    sgp/crs/misc/R45174.pdf
        \18\ See chapters 70.95M, 70.280, 70.365 of the Revised Code of
    Washington available at https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the reasons stated above, we urge you to oppose Dr. Nancy
    Beck's confirmation as chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    Her record makes clear that she will fail to put the health and safety
    of Americans first. If you have any questions, please contact the
    Director of Governor Inslee's Washington, D.C. office, Casey Katims, at
    Casey.Katims@gov.wa.gov.
                Sincerely,
                                        John Wiesman, DrPH, MPH
                                                             Secretary,
                                     Washington State Department of Health.
                                                  Laura Watson,
                                                              Director,
                                    Washington State Department of Ecology.
                                     ______

                    International Association of Fire Fighters
                                           Washington, DC, May 12, 2020

    Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell,

        On behalf of the more than 320,000 professional fire fighters and
    emergency medical personnel of the International Association of Fire
    Fighters (IAFF), I am writing to express our opposition to the
    nomination of Nancy Beck to Chair the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
    Commission (CPSC). We believe her record promoting the interests of the
    chemical industry at the expense of workers' health and safety makes
    her ill-suited for this position.
        As a lobbyist and former executive for the chemical industry, Ms.
    Beck opposed efforts to ban toxic flame retardants from consumer
    products despite research demonstrating their negative health impacts
    on vulnerable populations and workers, including fire fighters.
    Additionally, in her current role as Principal Deputy Assistant
    Administrator in the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
    Prevention, Ms. Beck has actively weakened safety protections and
    undermined rules on emerging hazards such as PFAS. She also
    demonstrated her disinterest in protecting workers through her work to
    exclude exposure to legacy asbestos in the chemical's risk evaluation
    under TSCA.
        Ms. Beck's professional record, while working for the chemical
    industry, the EPA and in the White House, illustrates a consistent
    disregard for the risks that toxic chemicals pose to workers' health.
    Fire fighters are particularly concerned with the potential cancer risk
    posed by toxic flame retardants, and have worked in the states to ban
    their use. As CPSC Chair, Ms. Beck would be poised to undermine the
    significant progress states have made to ban flame retardants and could
    reverse the Commission's planned rulemaking on the use of organohalogen
    flame retardants in various consumer products.
        The IAFF believes if Ms. Beck is appointed as chair to the CPSC
    Commission she will continue to advance the agenda of the chemical
    industry and reverse health and safety protections for fire fighters
    and consumers across the country. We urge you to reject her nomination.
                Sincerely,
                                        Harold A. Schaitberger,
                                                     General President.

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We cannot afford to go backward on regulation of toxic
    chemicals like PFAS which are often found in consumer products.
    And PFAS is not the only safety issue that I am concerned
    about.
        Dr. Beck's efforts to implement overwhelming--efforts to
    implement the overwhelming bipartisan reform of the Toxic
    Substances Control Act led to the Ninth Circuit saying that the
    Trump administration was ignoring clear requirements of the
    law. And rather than addressing the science evidence showing
    that a toxic chemical, TCE, caused birth defects, Dr. Beck
    simply directed the Trump EPA to delete that evidence from the
    risk evaluation in the first place.
        The Associated Press reported that at OMB, Dr. Beck was
    involved in a push to block the release of COVID-19 safety
    guidance to states and localities from the Centers of Disease
    Control.
        Now, last December, we released a report about the serious
    recall process at the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
    including issues about strollers and serious injuries from
    infant sleepers. So I want to see someone at the leadership of
    the Consumer Product Safety Commission that will help us in
    protecting the public.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I know we will hear from the witness, and
    I look forward to hearing what comments and having a chance to
    ask questions about these very important issues.
        In addition, Michael Walsh is here to serve as the General
    Counsel at the Department of Commerce. He has previously served
    as the Department Deputy General Counsel and the Chief of Staff
    and has now moved to Acting General Counsel.
        Mr. Walsh appears to have been involved in efforts last
    summer to stifle career National Weather Service staff who
    attempted to correct President Trump's erroneous statements
    about Hurricane Dorian.
        Just yesterday, NOAA released the findings of an
    independent review of allegations of misconduct related to
    Dorian, and two officials were found to have knowingly and
    willfully or with reckless disregard violated NOAA's own
    scientific integrity policy, and unnamed officials at the
    Department of Commerce were also implicated.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the assessment and that NOAA's
    responses of the IG be listed in the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                                      September 9, 2019
    Cynthia Decker
    NOAA Scientific Integrity Officer
    cynthia.decker@noaa.gov

    Craig McLean
    NOAA Acting Chief Scientist
    Craig.mclean@noaa.gov

    Dear Dr. Decker and Mr. McLean:

        As former NOAA leaders, we are writing to request a comprehensive
    investigation into all potential violations of the NOAA Scientific
    Integrity Policy (cf. NOAA Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific
    Integrity, and associated Procedural Handbook) related to communication
    around Hurricane Dorian. Recent actions to censor NWS scientists put
    public safety at risk, are inconsistent with NOAA's scientific
    integrity principles, violate the public trust, and compromise the
    independence and reliability of the National Weather Service.
        We also request that you encourage NOAA and Department of Commerce
    political leadership to make positive, proactive statements that
    reaffirm the rights of NWS experts to share their expertise publicly
    regardless of the political inconvenience of that work. Public safety
    depends on unfettered access to accurate scientific information, and
    both NWS staff and the public are looking for affirmation that
    political interference in the communication of such information will
    not be tolerated.
        First, an inaccurate, non-attributable press release was issued on
    Friday, September 6 that repudiated correct information provided by the
    National Weather Service that happened to contradict an erroneous
    presidential tweet. More troublingly, according to multiple reports,
    experts were told during Hurricane Dorian not to speak publicly about
    risks to various states, and to route any media requests to public
    affairs. It is unconscionable that government experts would be
    prevented from communicating relative risk of hurricanes directly to
    the public, or to go through political filters to do so, particularly
    in times of emergency.
        The NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy explicitly gives experts the
    right to speak publicly about their scientific work without asking for
    permission. Section 4.05 states that:

            ``To be open and transparent about their work, and consistent
            with DAO 219-1 on (Public Communications) and their official
            duties, NOAA scientists may freely speak to the media and the
            public about scientific and technical matters based on their
            official work, including scientific and technical ideas,
            approaches, findings, and conclusions based on their official
            work. Additional guidance for employees is available in DAO
            219-1. Communication by e-mail or other electronic means in
            response to inquiries from the media, and concerning scientific
            or technical matters based on an employee's official work, are
            considered to be the same as oral communication and not subject
            to approval . . .''

        The policy also gives scientists the right to review official
    communications that rely on their work. Specifically, Section 7.01
    requires that NOAA ensures that:

            ``Appropriate rules and procedures are in place and implemented
            to preserve the integrity of the scientific process and the
            dissemination of its scientific products and information,
            including providing scientists the right to review and correct
            any official document (such as a press release or report) that
            cites or references their scientific work, to ensure that
            accuracy has been maintained after the clearance and editing
            process . . .''

        We are encouraged by Mr. McLean's pledge to investigate the
    circumstances around the September 6 NOAA press release. However, we
    believe that the investigation should be considerably more
    comprehensive to measure the full extent of losses of scientific
    integrity at NOAA in order to develop a plan that prevents future
    losses of scientific integrity.
        Specifically, we would ask you to consider the following:

       Did the White House or Department of Commerce put pressure
            on NOAA to publicly undermine the NWS Birmingham social media?

       Who within NOAA and NWS was involved in developing the NOAA
            September 6 statement?

       Who within NOAA, NWS, the Department of Commerce, and the
            White House was involved in restricting the ability of NWS
            staff to publicly communicate up-to-date information about
            Hurricane Dorian and when were those restrictions communicated?

       Why were these restrictions deemed necessary?

        Maintaining high scientific integrity standards is essential to the
    ability of NOAA and the National Weather Service to protect the public
    and maintain their trust. Thank you in advance for considering this
    request for a thorough investigation.
                Sincerely,
    Dr. Jane Lichen, Oregon State University
    NOAA Administrator, 2009-2013

    Dr. Richard Spinrad, Marine Technology Society
    NOAA Chief Scientist, 2014-2017
    NOAA Assistant Administrator, 2003-2010

    Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Union of Concerned Scientists
    NOAA Deputy Director, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998-2000
                                     ______

                        NOAA Scientific Integrity Office
                         Allegation 2019-009 Allegation
          Carl Childs, President, Emergency Response Division Chapter
    Email Message 09/11/19

    Dear Sir or Madam,

        I am writing in regard to the series of events that occurred last
    week surrounding warnings and advisories from the federal government
    about the approach of hurricane Dorian. Several of these events
    constitute scientific misconduct under NOAA's Scientific Integrity
    Policy (NAO 2O2-735D).
        On the morning of Sept 1, the President tweeted that Alabama, as
    well as Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia, would
    ``most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated.'' This did not
    agree with the National Hurricane Center (Miami FL) discussion 32,
    produced at 0500 EDT on Sept 1 by Forecaster Pasch, or any later
    discussions.
        It is unclear what led up to the President's mistaken remarks. He
    may have received an inadequate briefing by representatives of the
    agency or he may have disregarded what he was told. Regardless of the
    reason, the statements of the President regarding potential hazards
    from Dorian in the state of Alabama were incorrect.
        About 20 minutes after the President's tweets, the National Weather
    Service's (NWS) Weather Forecast Office (WFO) in Birmingham, Ala.,
    appeared to step in on Twitter to clear up the confusion about the
    storm's effects on the state,

            ``Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian. We repeat, no
            impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The
            system will remain too far east.''

        Misleading guidance from any part of the Federal government
    regarding threats to the public health and welfare are potentially
    dangerous in and of themselves. The quick response of the Birmingham
    WFO was entirely necessary and appropriate to counter a high profile
    incorrect message affecting public safety. Additionally, this statement
    as well as the forecasted hurricane impact maps constitute emergency
    official communications, covered by Department of Commerce Directive
    DAO-209-Section 10. As such, they may be made ``without first obtaining
    approval, so long as the procedures of the relevant operating unit (if
    any) are followed and applicable law is complied with.''
        The White House subsequently released an altered NWS forecast of
    the hurricane risk area (``the Sharpie map''). It is unclear who was
    responsible for this modification. If this alteration was done by a
    NOAA employee then this constitutes a clear violation of NAO 202-735D
    on the grounds of falsifying data. It is also possible that this
    alteration of the forecast trajectory could constitute a crime as a
    counterfeit forecast under 18 U.S. Code Sec. 2074.
        On September 6, with no attribution to a specific official, NOAA
    public relations released the following statement

            ``From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the
            information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center
            to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that
            tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact
            Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories
            #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link (not
            provided here).''

            ``The Birmingham National Weather Service's Sunday morning
            tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with
            probabilities from the best forecast products available at the
            time.''

        No attempt was apparently made to contact the NOAA staff who
    generated the original (unmodified) hurricane forecast before the
    statement release. The September 6 statement was an intentional
    misrepresentation of scientific findings that damages the scientific
    standing of the NWS and the entire agency. It casts unwarranted doubt
    on the performance of NWS forecasters and jeopardizes public faith in
    NOAA as an impartial communicator of vital public safety information.
    It is clear that the statement from NOAA management serves only to
    deflect criticism of the source of the misleading information at the
    expense of NWS employees who safeguarded the public in manner
    consistent with the best scientific information available.
        NAO 202-735D: (Scientific Integrity) Section 7.01 requires that
    appropriate rules and procedures are in place and implemented to
    preserve the integrity of the scientific process and the dissemination
    of its scientific products and information, including providing
    scientists the right to review and correct any official document (such
    as a press release or report) that cites or references their scientific
    work, to ensure that accuracy has been maintained after the clearance
    and editing process.
        This was not done in the September 6 release.
        Section 8.01 of the same directive says that Scientific and
    Research Misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or
    plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing scientific and
    research activities, or in the products or reporting of these
    activities. Scientific and Research Misconduct specifically includes:
    intentional circumvention of the integrity of the science and research
    process by violation of NOAA's Code of Ethics for Science Supervision
    and Management; and actions that compromise the scientific process by
    violating NOAA's Code of Scientific Conduct. At minimum, there is the
    appearance of violation of Section 8.01 by NOAA Public Affairs.
        I am the president of the bargaining unit representing the
    scientists in NOAA's Emergency Response Division (OR&R/NOS) and this
    matter is of immediate and direct concern to out members. We are
    charged with providing scientific assessments of the threat to the
    public welfare resulting from natural disasters, oil spills and
    hazardous materials releases. We cannot be expected to perform these
    critical responsibilities in an environment where our own leadership
    will second guess our judgementment based on trivial political
    concerns. I look forward to your rapid response and the results of your
    investigation into these clear violations of our Scientific Integrity
    Policy.
                Respectfully,
                                         Carl R. Childs, Ph.D.,
                                                President, BRD Chapter,
                                                             IFPTE Local 8A
                                     ______

                                  U.S. House of Representatives
                                        20th District, New York
                                                     September 10, 2019
    Dr. Cynthia J. Decker, Scientific Integrity Officer
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    Washington, DC

    Dear Dr. Decker,

        I am writing to request a formal investigation by the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into actions allegedly
    taken by Administration appointees following President Trump's
    unsupported public statements about Hurricane Dorian path projections,
    in order to determine precisely whether these actions violated the NOAA
    Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity.
        Recent reporting in The New York Times, conducted by three veteran
    political reporters who cite multiple sources with knowledge of the
    acts in question, indicates that political leadership responsible for
    overseeing NOAA may have communicated threats and applied political
    pressure in an effort to suppress the release of vital, current
    forecasting information critical to emergency preparedness. I have also
    received evidence of an agency-wide directive sent on September 1, 2019
    restricting National Weather Service (NWS) from releasing information
    that could be seen as contradicting President Trump's false claim that
    Alabama would ``most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,''
    even as forecast guidance indicated that the state was not at risk.
    This was reportedly followed by an unsigned statement on September 6,
    2019 attributed only to NOAA generally that supported the president's
    scientifically groundless assertions.
        When the National Weather Service office in Birmingham, Alabama
    identified the presence of inaccurate information about the storm, it
    clarified to the public that Alabama would not see any impacts from
    Hurricane Dorian. Following this correction, the office was rebuked by
    NOAA in a September 6, 2019 statement attributable to an unnamed NOAA
    spokesperson, who asserted that the Birmingham office ``spoke in
    absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best
    forecast products available at the time.'' Since its release, numerous
    former NOAA leaders as well as meteorologists around the country have
    criticized NOAA's statement for its rebuke of the Birmingham office,
    and voiced concerns about political interference in science. The
    Washington Post reported that NOAA's acting Chief Scientist Craig
    McLean found that this ``intervention to contradict the forecaster was
    not based on science but on external factors including reputation and
    appearance, or simply put, political,'' and that he will be pursuing
    potential violations of the NOAA Administrative Order on Scientific
    Integrity.
        Countless state and local leaders, first responders, emergency
    managers and American households depend on the communication of clear
    scientifically sound information by the National Weather Service to
    make critical and sometimes life-saving decisions. The NOAA
    Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity has instituted measures to
    ensure that such science conducted by the agency is safeguarded from
    interference. The order states clearly that NOAA employees, whether
    political appointees or civil servants, must not ``intimidate or coerce
    employees, contractors . . . into altering or censoring scientific
    findings'' or ``suppress, alter, or otherwise impede the timely release
    of scientific or technological findings or conclusions unless
    explicitly required by a Department or government-wide statute,
    regulation, Executive Order, Presidential Memorandum, or other legal
    authority.
        As one of America's foremost scientific agencies responsible for
    supporting public safety, NOAA's policy of upholding scientific
    integrity standards is one of the most important in our Federal
    government. The reported abuses by high-ranking political appointees,
    in contravention of agency convention and best practices, appear to
    violate the NOAA Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity. This
    policy exists for the very purpose of preventing political interests
    from interfering with the agency's protection of the safety and welfare
    of the American people.
        Accordingly, I ask NOAA to follow the guidance of your own
    Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity, which says it is intended
    to strengthen widespread confidence in the quality, validity, and
    reliability of NOAA science, and uphold your agency's commitment to
    support for science, the safety of the American people and the official
    duties of your employees. I respectfully request you open an
    investigation into this matter immediately.
        Should any employee or contractor of NOAA experience retaliation in
    relation to this matter, Congress will exercise its oversight authority
    and will expect NOAA to fully investigate such subsequent violations of
    your agency's scientific integrity policy.
        Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matter.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Paul D. Tonko,
                                                    Member of Congress.
                                     ______

           Table E-1. Rationale for Selection of Reviewed Allegations
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Policies Allegedly
          Violated           Complainants                Response
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  NAO 202-735 D
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 4.05: NOAA   Lubchenco,           Allegation was accepted and
     scientists may       Rosenberg,           subsumed as part of
     freely speak to      Spinrad.             Allegation 1.
     the media and        Allegation 2019-
     public about         008
     scientific and
     technical matters
     based on their
     official work.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 5.02(d):     McLean. Allegation   Allegation was accepted and
     Ensure NOAA and      2019-007             subsumed as part of
     Department of                             Allegation 1.
     Commerce public
     communication
     guidance's provide
     procedures by
     which scientist
     may speak to the
     media and public
     about scientific
     and technical
     matters based on
     their official
     work and areas of
     expertise.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sections 5.02(k):    McLean. Allegation   Allegation was accepted and
     Ensure the sharing   2019-007             subsumed as part of
     of best                                   Allegation 1.
     administrative and
     management
     practices that
     promote the
     integrity of
     NOAA's scientific
     activities.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 6.01: Code   McLean. Allegation   Allegation was dismissed, did
     of Scientific        2019-007             not rise to the level of this
     Conduct.                                  inquiry. Section 6.01 focuses
                                               on the agency's research and
                                               scientific efforts.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 7.01: NOAA   McLean. Allegation   Allegation was accepted and
     science managers     2019-007             discussed herein as
     and supervisors     Lubchenco,            Allegation 2.
     will adhere to the   Rosenberg,
     guidelines for       Spinrad.
     Scientific           Allegation 2019-
     Integrity            008
     established in the  Childs. Allegation
     March 9, 2009,       2019-009
     Presidential Memo
     to Heads of the
     Executive
     Department and
     Agencies and
     NOAA's Scientific
     Integrity Policy.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 7.02: NOAA   McLean. Allegation   Allegation was accepted and
     science managers     2019-007 Tonka.      discussed herein as
     and supervisors     Allegation 2019-      Allegation 3.
     must adhere to       0010
     NOAA's Code for
     Ethics for Science
     Supervision and
     Management.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 7.03:        McLean. Allegation   Allegation was dismissed; the
     Decisions to         2019-007             September 6 Statement is not
     approve or not                            an FRC.
     approve a
     Fundamental
     Research
     Communications
     (FRCs) must be
     based ONLY on
     where the work is
     scientifically
     meritorious NOT on
     policy, budget, or
     management
     implications.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 8.01:        McLean. Allegation   Allegation was accepted but
     Scientific and       2019-007             subsumed as part of the
     Research            Childs. Allegation    Panel's adjudication
     Misconduct is        2019-009             standards (6.2 Adjudication
     defined as                                Standards).
     fabrication,
     falsification, or
     plagiarism in
     proposing,
     performing, or
     reviewing
     scientific and
     research
     activities, or in
     the products or
     reporting of these
     activities.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Procedural Handbook accompanying NAO 202-735D
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 2.03:        McLean. Allegation   Allegation was accepted but
     Coercive             2019-007             subsumed as part of the
     manipulation,                             Panel's adjudication
     intimidation,                             standards (6.2 Adjudication
     misrepresentation,                        Standards.)
     censorship, or
     other misconduct
     that affects the
     quality,
     reliability of
     scientific
     information may
     involve the loss
     of scientific
     integrity.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Department of Commerce DAO 219-1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 4.01:        McLean. Allegation   Allegation was accepted and
     Guidelines for the   2019-007             subsumed as part of
     release and                               Allegation 1.
     development of
     Department of
     Commerce Public
     Communications
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 5.03: All    McLean. Allegation   Allegation was accepted and
     Commerce public      2019-007             subsumed as part of
     affairs employees                         Allegation 1, 2, and 3.
     shall follow best
     practices.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    18 U.S. CodeSec.     McLean. Allegation   Allegation dismissed, out of
     2074 False weather   2019-007             the scope of this
     reports                                   investigation.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

       Appendix F: September 1 Birmingham Tweet and September 6 Statement
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Appendix G: Weather Forecast Office Tweets Using Absolute Terms
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Appendix H: List of Records Reviewed
    The following is a record of documents received from NOAA that the
    Academy Team reviewed.
    Allegations Submitted to the NOAA Scientific Integrity Officer
    Childs, Carl R. 2019. ``Allegation 2019-009.'' September 11.

    Lubchenco, Jane, Richard Spinrad, and Andrew Rosenberg. 2019.
                ``Allegation 2019-008.'' September 9.

    McLean, Craig N. 2019. ``Allegation 2019-007.'' September 10.

    Tonko, Paul D. 2019. ``Allegation 2019-0010.'' September 10.
    Interview Transcripts and their Associated Exhibits and Documents

    Darden, Chris, interview by Academy Team. 2020. ``Interview of Chris
                Darden.'' Calera, AL, (January 21).

    Darden, Chris, interview by NOAA General Counsel. 2019. ``Interview of
                Chris Darden.'' Calera, AL, (October 21).

    Friedman, Benjamin, interview by NOAA General Counsel. 2019.
                ``Interview of Benjamin Friedman.'' Silver Spring, MD,
                (October 24).

    Jacobs, Neil, interview by Academy Team. 2020. ``Interview of Neil
                Jacobs.'' Washington, DC, (February 3).

    Jacobs, Neil, interview by NOAA General Counsel. 2019. ``Interview of
                Neil Jacobs.'' Washington, DC, (November 6).

    Levenbach, Stuart, interview by NOAA General Counsel. 2019. ``Interview
                of Stuart Levenbach.'' Washington, DC, (October 29).

    McLean, Craig, interview by Academy Team. 2020. ``Interview of Craig
                McLean.'' Washington, DC, (January 23).

    NWS Birmingham WFO Meteorologist. 2020. ``Written Statement from
                Decision Support Services Staff Member on September 1,
                2019.'' Calera, AL, (January 22).

    Roberts, Julie Kay, interview by Academy Team. 2020. ``Interview of
                Julie Roberts.'' Washington, DC, (January 23).

    Roberts, Julie Kay, interview by NOAA General Counsel. 2019.
                ``Interview of Julie Roberts.'' Washington, DC, (October
                11).

    Uccellini, Louis, interview by NOAA General Counsel. 2019. ``Interview
                of Louis Uccellini'' Silver Spring, MD, (November 26).

    Vaccaro, Chris, interview by Academy Team. 2020. ``Interview of Chris
                Vaccaro.'' Washington, DC, (January 20).
    Social Media Related to This Investigation
    National Weather Service Birmingham Weather Forecast Office. 2019.
                Twitter post. September 1, 10:11 a.m. Eastern Time Zone.

    NOAA Communications. 2019. ``Statement attributable to a NOAA
                Spokesperson.'' September 6, 4:45 p.m. Eastern Time Zone.

    President Donald Trump. 2019. Twitter post. September 1, 9:51 a.m.
                Eastern Time Zone.
    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Documents
    Documents released from FOIA requests.
    Memoranda, Letters, and Transmittals Regarding this Investigation
    Decker, Cynthia J. 2019. ``Memorandum from Cynthia J. Decker for The
                Record, Subject: Scientific Integrity Allegations 2019-007/
                8/9/10 Inquiry and Investigation Process.''

    --. 2019. ``Memorandum to Zach Goldstein and Douglas Perry, Subject:
                Request to Search E-mail Accounts in Connection with
                Scientific Integrity Complaints.'' October 2.

    --. 2019. ``Transmittal for the Inquiry/Investigation Team.''

    Friedman, Benjamin. 2019. ``Recusal of DUS-O Benjamin Friedman,
                appointing Stephen Volz the Determining Officer.''
    Congressional Documents
    Memoranda and Letters Regarding Other Ongoing Investigations
    Gustafson, Peggy E. 2019. ``Memorandum for Dr. Neil Jacobs, Subject:
                Request for Information Pursuant to the Inspector General,
                Act of 1978, as Amended.'' September 7.

    Johnson, Eddie Bernice. 2019. ``Letter to Peggy E. Gustafson.''
                September 10.

    --. 2019. ``Letter to President Donald J. Trump.'' September 5.

    --. 2019. ``Letter to Secretary Wilbur Ross.'' October 10.

    Johnson, Eddie Bernice, and Mike Sherrill. 2019. ``Letter to Secretary
                Wilbur Ross.'' September 11.

    Johnson, Eddie Bernice, Lizzie Fletcher, and Mikie Sherrill. 2019.
                ``Letter to Acting Under Secretary Dr. Neil Jacobs.''
                September 12.
    Testimony
    Clement, Joel. 2019. ``Testimony of Joel Clement from the Joint Hearing
                on Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies.'' July 17.

    Halpern, Michael. 2019. ``Testimony for Michael Halpern from the Joint
                Subcommittee Hearing on Scientific Integrity in Federal
                Agencies.'' July 17.

    Johnson, Eddie Bernice. 2019. ``Opening Statement from the Joint
                Subcommittee Hearing: Scientific Integrity in Federal
                Agencies.'' July 17.

    Pielke Jr., Roger. 2019. ``Statement of Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. to the
                Subcomittee on Research and Technology & Subcommittee on
                Investigations and Oversight.'' July 17.

    Sherrill, Mikie. 2019. ``Opening Statement from the Joint Subcomittee
                Hearing: Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies.'' July
                19.

    Stevens, Haley. 2019. ``Opening Statement from the Joint Subcommittee
                Hearing: Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies.'' July
                17.

    Tonko, Paul. 2019. ``Opening Statement from the Joint Subcommittee
                Hearing: Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies.'' July
                17.
    Federal Agencies' Policies, Procedures, Reports, and Other Sources
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2911. ``NOAA
                Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity.''
                December 7.

    --. 2015. ``Approval of Scientific Integrity Committee Terms of
                Reference.'' June.

    --. 2018. National Weather Service. ``2019-2022 Strategic Plan.''

    --. 2017. National Weather Service Office of the Chief Learning
                Officer. ``Radar & Applications Course, Storm-Based Warning
                Fundamentals, Lesson 12: Impact Based Warnings: Overview.''

    --. 2016. ``NOAA Framework for Internal Review and Approval of
                Fundamental Research Communications''. November 8.

    --. ``Our mission and vision.''

    --. 2011. ``Procedural Handbook for NAO 202-735 D: Scientific
                Integrity.'' December.
    U.S. Department of Commerce
    U.S. Department of Commerce. 2008. ``Department Administrative Order
                219-1 Public Communications.'' April 30.

    --. 2008. ``National Weather Service Central Region Service
                Assessment.''

    --. 2013. ``Social Media Guidebook.'' January 30.
    Other Federal Agencies
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Inspector
                General. 2008. ``Investigation Summary Regarding
                Allegations that NASA Suppressed Climate Change Science and
                Denied Media Access to Dr. James E. Hansen, a NASA
                Scientist'' June 2.

    National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director. 2012. ``NIH
                Policies and Procedures for Promoting Scientific
                Integrity.'' November.

    Office of Science and Technology Policy. ``Federal Policy on Research
                Misconduct; Preamble for Research Misconduct Policy.''
                Federal Register 65, no. 235 (December 6, 2000.) 76260-
                76264. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2000-12-06/
                pdf/00-30852.pdf.

    U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. ``Scientific Integrity.''
                Departmental Regulation DR 1074-001. November 18.

    --. 2016. ``Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Compromised
                Scientific Integrity.'' Departmental Manual OM 1074-001,
                November 18.

    U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Inspector General. 2019. ``FWS
                Alleged Scientific Integrity Violation and Retaliation.''
                August 28.

    --. 2016. ``Inspection of Scientific Integrity Incident at USGS Energy
                Geochemistry Laboratory.'' June 15.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. ``Scientific Integrity
                Policy.''

    --. ``Basic Information about Scientific Integrity.'' https://
                www.epa.gov/osa/basic-information-about-scientific-
                integrity.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General.
                2011. ``Office of Research and Development Should Increase
                Awareness of Scientific Integrity Policies.'' July 22.

    --. 2013. ``Quick Reaction Report: EPA Must Take Steps to Implement
                Requirements of Its Scientific Integrity Policy.'' August
                28.

    U.S. Government Accountability Office. Scientific Integrity Policies.
                Additional Actions Could Strengthen Integrity of Federal
                Research (GAO-19-265). April 2019.
    Other Memoranda Regarding Scientific Integrity and Research Misconduct
    General Counsel of the United States Department of Commerce. 2011.
                ``Memorandum for All Chief Counsels and General Counsels--
                Implementation of Administration Policy on Scientific
                Integrity.'' December 16.

    Holden, John P. 2010. ``Memorandum to the Heads of Executive
                Departments and Agencies, Subject: Scientific Integrity.''
                December 17.

    Kerry, Cameron F. 2011. ``Memorandum to all Chief Counsels and General
                Counsels, Subject: Implementation of Administration Policy
                on Scientific Integrity.'' December 16.

    McLean, Craig N. 2017. ``Memorandum for the Record, Subject: FY 2016
                Scientific and Research Misconduct Annual Report.'' March
                1.

    --. 2017. ``Memorandum for the Record, Subject: FY 2017 Scientific and
                Research Misconduct Annual Report.'' October 3.

    --. 2019. ``Memorandum for the Record, Subject: FY 2018 Scientific and
                Research Misconduct Annual Report.'' April 23.

    --. 2015. ``Memorandum for Vice Admiral Michael S. Devany and Dr. W.
                Richard Spinrad, Subject: Approval of Scientific Integrity
                Committee Terms of Reference.'' July 15.

    Spinrad, Richard. 2015. ``Memorandum for the Record, Subject: FY 2013-
                FY 2014 Scientific and Research Misconduct Annual Report.''
                April 15.

    --. 2016. ``Memorandum for the Record, Subject: FY 2015 Scientific and
                Research Misconduct Annual Report.'' February 1.

    Sullivan, Kathryn. 2012. ``Memorandum for the Record, Subject: FY 2012
                Scientific and Research Misconduct Annual Report.''
                December 27.

    White House, Office of the Press Secretary. 2009. ``Memorandum for the
                Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Subject
                of Scientific Integrity.'' March 9.
    Reports from Academic and Scientific Organizations
    American Meteorological Society. 2014. Professional Guidance Statement.
                ``Strengthening Social Sciences in Weather--Climate
                Enterprise.'' February 2.

    Demuth, Julie L., Morss, Rebecca E., Morrow, Betty and Jeffrey Lazo.
                2012. ``Creation and Communication of Hurricane Risk
                Information.'' American Meteorological Society. August.

    Morss, Rebecca E, et al., 2016. ``Understanding Public Hurricane
                Evacuation Decisions and Responses to Forecast and Warning
                Messages.'' Weather and Forecasting 395-417.

    Morss, Rebecca E., et al., 2017; ``Hazardous Weather Prediction and
                Communication in the Modern Information Environment.''
                American Meteorological Society 2652-2674.

    National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine, Integrating Social
                and Behavioral Sciences Within the Weather Enterprise.
                2018.

    Nek, Rashida and Anita R. Eisenstadt; 2016. ``Review of Federal Agency
                Policies on Scientific Integrity''. Institute for Defense
                Analyses. December.

    Neumann, John. 2019. ``Federal Research: Agency Actions Could
                Strengthen Scientific Integrity Policies.'' July 17.

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. 2013. ``Scientific
                Integrity Report Card.''

    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. 2019. ``Ethical
                Conduct Procedures''. July.

    --. 2019. ``Researc Misconduct.'' January.

    Union of Concerned Scientists. 2008. ``Press Releases Controlled for
                Political, Not Scientific, Importance.'' July 13.

    --. 2018. ``Surveying the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                Administration.'' August.

    --. 2018. ``Voices of Scientists Across 16 Federal Agencies.'' August.

    World Meteorological Organization. 2008. ``Guidelines on Communicating
                Forecast Uncertainty.'' WMO/TD No. 1422. https://
                library.wmo.int/doc_ntun.php?explnum_id=4687
    Other Social Media
    National Weather Service Birmingham Weather Forecast Office. 2017.
                Twitter post. November 6, 9:37 p.m. Eastern Time Zone.

    National Weather Service Glasgow Weather Forecast Office. 2016. Twitter
                post. June 9, 6:58 p.m. Eastern Time Zone.

    National Weather Service Hanford Weather Forecast Office. 2019. Twitter
                post. March 5, 7:55 p.m. Eastern Time Zone.

    National Weather Service Mobile Weather Forecast Office. 2019. Twitter
                post. May 19, 1:41 p.m. Eastern Time Zone.

    --. 2016. Twitter post. May 28, 11:04 p.m. Eastern Time Zone.

    National Weather Service New Orleans Weather Forecast Office. 2013.
                Twitter post. September 4, 10:37 p.m. Eastern Time Zone.

    National Weather Service Salt Lake City Weather Forecast Office. 2019.
                Twitter post. June 12, 6:16 p.m. Eastern Time Zone.

    National Weather Service Sioux Fa11s Weather Forecast Office. 2019.
                Twitter post. February 14, 12:25 p.m. Eastern. Time Zone.
    Relevant News Articles Related to this Investigation
    Aschwanden, Christie. 2019. ``Severe weather alerts are intended to
                protect people. So why do some ignore them?'' The
                Washington Post. November 24.

    Baker, Peter, Frie4man, Lisa, and Christopher Flavelle. 2019. ``Trump
                Pressed Top Aide to Have Weather Service `Clarify' Forecast
                That Contradicted Trump.'' The New York Times. September
                11.

    --. 2019. Commerce Chief Threatened Firings at NOAA after Trump's
                Dorian Tweets, Sources Say. The New York Times. September
                9.
    Other
    Garner, Bryan A and Henry Campbell Black. 1999. ``Black's Law
                Dictionary.'' St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
                                     ______

                 NOT FOR RELEASE PREDECISIONAL AND DELIBERATIVE

            Review of NAPA's Findings Regarding Scientific Integrity

                             Neil A. Jacobs, Ph.D.

        NAPA's analysis is based on the premise that either the President's
    tweet or WFO tweet was right and the statement was choosing between the
    two. It did not. The statement, if read objectively, approaches it from
    the perspective that both are accurate and reconciles the two
    approaches--risk and probability--to conveying information. The NAPA
    interview summary provides: ``Dr. Jacobs also offered his perspective
    on the correctness of the September 1 tweet from the Birmingham WFO by
    explaining that in a technical sense while relatively small, the
    probability of Hurricane Dorian impacting a portion of southeast
    Alabama existed. However, in terms of communicating the risk to the
    people of Alabama, the Birmingham WFO was correct, according to Dr.
    Jacobs.'' NAPA never questions or refutes the scientific veracity of
    the actual statement.
    Applicability of the policy to the tweet and statement
        NAPA did not apply the definitions of scientific assessment and
    scientific activity to include the tweet and statement within the
    scientific integrity policy. NAPA never explains how the tweet or the
    statement meet these definitions. Instead, they simply recite the
    relevant definitions and summarily conclude that ``individuals engaged
    in activities that can be considered scientific activities'' and
    ``deduced that the [tweet] and [statement] are examples of scientific
    product.'' The summary conclusions quoted contain the full content.
    NAPA conducted no analysis of the tweet or statement nor an explanation
    of how the statements meet, these definitions. In fact, the only
    supporting explanation is based on interviews of NOAA and GAO personnel
    and creates a new standard for a scientific product to be a
    communication: (i) based on scientific analysis and (ii) related to the
    core mission of the agency. Rather than evaluate and apply the actual
    definitions in the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy (NAO 202-735D),
    NAPA created their own definition based on ``[i]nterviews with NOAA and
    GAO personnel'' to analyze and apply to determine that the tweet and
    statement are scientific products subject to the NOAA Scientific
    Integrity Policy.
        As I explained in the interview, they are not the types of science
    and research to which the policy applies. It is clear that the
    development of a forecast is a scientific assessment and scientific
    activity. While the tweet is intended to convey the risks to Alabama
    residents based on the scientific assessments used to produce the storm
    forecast, it is far removed from the research and underlying science
    for which the definitions, policy on integrity of scientific activity,
    and codes of scientific conduct and ethics for scientific supervision
    and management are predicated. The September 6 statement is even
    further removed from science and research. It is a brief comment
    collecting past factual information and a reconciliation of two
    concepts contained in tweets in a short statement. NAPA later
    contradicts their finding, based on their own definition of a
    scientific product, by concluding that ``the development of the
    statement was not based on science, but appears to be largely driven by
    external influences from senior Commerce officials who drafted the
    September 6 Statement.''
        The NAPA interview summary provides: ``In regard to the September 6
    Statement complying with the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy, Dr.
    Jacobs expressed that the September 6 Statement did not necessarily
    meet the standards of the Scientific Integrity Policy. Additionally,
    Dr. Jacobs explained that his understanding is that the Scientific
    Integrity Policy was written for science and research and not
    necessarily press releases. Dr. Jacobs often reviews communications
    originally written by non-scientists, including people from Commerce
    and other parts of NOAA, when the science is incorrect. The correction
    process typically requires scientists to check the validity of the
    communication and ensure that in a technical sense, the communication
    is accurate before it is published.'' With a Ph.D. in numerical weather
    prediction, I am eminently qualified, as a scientist, to review
    scientific research in this field.
    Scope of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy and NAPA findings
        The NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy sets out the elements for what
    constitutes scientific and research misconduct. The standard for a
    finding of misconduct is:

      1)  Scientific and Research Misconduct is defined as fabrication,
            falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or
            reviewing scientific and research activities, or in the
            products or reporting of these activities. Scientific and
            Research Misconduct specifically includes: (i) intentional
            circumvention of the integrity of the science and research
            process by violation of NOAA's Code of Ethics for Science
            Supervision and Management; and (ii) actions that compromise
            the scientific process by violating NOAA's Code of Scientific
            Conduct. Scientific and Research Misconduct does not include
            honest error or differences of opinion.

      2)  Procedures for lodging and responding to allegations of
            misconduct are provided in the Procedural Handbook to this
            Order.

        This is not the standard that NAPA applied. NAPA substituted
    Criteria for Determining Scientific Misconduct in the procedural
    handbook combined with five criteria that NAPA developed and identified
    to guide their assessment of the allegations. After creating their own
    five criteria, NAPA acknowledges the standard for Scientific and
    Research Misconduct, but then substitutes different and in critical
    areas conflicting adjudication standards contained in the Procedural
    Handbook. Under the Scientific Integrity Policy, the elements of
    Scientific Research Misconduct are clear: A violation of NOAA's Code of
    Ethics for Science Supervision and Management must involve the
    intentional circumvention of the integrity of the science and research
    process. A violation of NOAA's Code of Scientific Conduct must involve
    actions that compromise the scientific process (emphasis added).
        Allegation II is based on a violation of the Code of Ethics for
    Science Supervision and Management. The Scientific Integrity Policy
    standard for a violation related to the Code of Ethics for Science
    Supervision and Management requires an intentional circumvention of the
    integrity of the science and research process. The adjudication
    standards in the handbook completely disregard the mens rea standard
    and substitute a new, lower standard of intentionally, knowingly or
    reckless disregard of the Code of Ethics.
        In addition, it eliminates the element that any violation of the
    Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and Management must circumvent
    the integrity of the science and research process. That critical
    element is not contained in the adjudication standard nor in the NAPA
    analysis or their findings. Instead of applying the standard in the
    policy, NAPA used the criteria they established, applied the lesser
    standard from the handbook, and completely ignored the requirement that
    the violation circumvent the integrity of the science and research
    process.
        NAPA ostensibly found a violation of the Code Ethics for Science
    Supervision and Management by not engaging the Birmingham WFO in the
    development of the September 6 statement and that the failure was done
    intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the Code of
    Ethics for Science Supervision and Management. There is no finding--as
    required by the NOAA Policy that there was an ``intentional
    circumvention of the integrity of the science and research process.''
    Therefore, there was no scientific and research misconduct.
        Allegation III, while styled as external political pressure, is
    also based on an alleged violation of the Code of Ethics for Science
    Supervision and Management. The NAPA report focuses primarily on the
    view that the second paragraph of the statement is a criticism of the
    Birmingham WFO tweet. While that is a commonly held view, the statement
    was not intended to imply Birmingham did anything wrong. As stated
    above, the intent was to reconcile the forecaster's duty to convey
    information to the public with probabilistic numerical model guidance
    that was still showing a small, but non-zero, chance of impacts.
        NAPA analyzed the statement as a violation of Section 7.02. Here,
    NAPA fails to apply the appropriate criteria. NAPA sets out the
    standard as ``suppressing or altering scientific findings.'' That is
    not the standard. Under the Scientific Integrity Policy, the standard
    is: ``Suppress, alter or otherwise impede the timely release of
    scientific or technological findings or conclusions.'' Even assuming
    the September 6 statement is viewed as improper criticism, it in no way
    could have ``suppressed, altered, or otherwise impede the timely
    release of scientific or technological findings or conclusion'' that
    were contained in a tweet on September 1.
        NAPA recognizes this fundamental flaw and in fact concludes that
    ``there was no direct suppression or alteration of scientific
    findings.'' Instead, NAPA attempts to pivot to speculate that ``the
    September 6 statement might suppress the willingness and ability of
    NOAA scientific staff to express their scientific opinions without
    reservation in the future.'' The policy does not in any way address a
    speculative, future possibility \1\ nor is there any finding that any
    NOAA scientific staff was suppressed or unable to express scientific
    opinions or findings. While it is fair to criticize whether issuing
    such a statement was a wise decision, there was no violation of the
    Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and Management.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The policy does provide that individuals covered by the policy
    must not ``intimidate or coerce employees, contractors, recipients of
    financial assistance awards, or others to alter or coerce scientific
    findings'' and no one suggests that this was intended nor does NAPA
    evaluate the actions as such.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Furthermore, even if there was, the findings in allegation III also
    fall short. NAPA again applied the wrong standard and there is no
    finding--as required by the NOAA Policy--that there was an
    ``intentional circumvention of the integrity of the science and
    research process.'' Therefore, there was no scientific and research
    misconduct.
        NAPA found that there was no ``direct suppression or alteration of
    scientific findings.'' That alone should have ended the analysis for a
    violation based on ``Suppress, alter or otherwise impede the timely
    release of scientific or technological findings or conclusions.''
    Instead, NAPA based a finding of misconduct by intentionally,
    knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the Code of Ethics for Science
    Supervision and Management issue a statement that ``is viewed by many
    NOAA/NWS scientists as an inappropriate criticism of the Birmingham
    office.'' However, the report also finds that I objected, but was
    overridden. It cannot be both. NAPA attempts to reconcile this by
    characterizing it as ``contextual.'' It is more than context; the
    factual determination of objecting and being overridden is not
    consistent with a finding of acting with intent, knowing, or reckless
    disregard of the Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and Management.
    Practical limitations using NAPA's interpretation
        For reference, the full text of relevant portion of the policy
    about affording scientists the opportunity to review is: ``Appropriate
    rules and procedures are in place and implemented to preserve the
    integrity of the scientific process and the dissemination of its
    scientific products and information, including providing scientists the
    right to review and correct any official document (such as a press
    release or report) that cites or references their scientific work, to
    ensure that accuracy has been maintained after the clearance and
    editing process.''
        NAPA takes an overbroad approach to the policy provisions that
    provides scientists the right to review and correct any official
    document that cites or references their report. Such a broad
    interpretation is not practical or workable. For example, if we accept
    the NAPA interpretation, any scientific work created by NOAA scientists
    that cites work performed by another NOAA scientist (for example, a
    biological opinion referencing other. NOAA science) would have to have
    that work reviewed for accuracy by the scientist who completed the
    study referenced.
        Using NAPA's interpretation, all social media posts, including
    tweets, that referenced any NOAA employee's work would have to be
    reviewed by the scientist who completed the initial or previous work.
    Using NAPA's own interpretation, forecasters at the Birmingham WFO
    would have had to clear the tweet with the NHC before issuing their own
    interpretation of the official NHC guidance. That certainly cannot be
    what was intended under the Scientific Integrity Policy, as this would
    create an untenable policy where thousands of NOAA employees would be
    forced to sign off on each use or reference to their work. The
    Scientific Integrity Policy was put in place to ensure that scientific
    research was conducted objectively using the scientific method and
    peer-review process. Perhaps the Scientific Integrity Policy should be
    updated to include these cases, but applying an overly-broad
    interpretation, as NAPA did, is neither logical or practical.
        Such a broad reading also ignores the stated purpose of this
    provision, which is ``to ensure the accuracy has been maintained after
    the clearance and editing process.'' This implies that it is the
    editing and review of the specific report and any accompanying press
    release or specific characterization of that report. This purpose makes
    clear that the requirement is for the release of the work itself and
    accompanying materials, not a subsequent citation to the work or later
    comment on it.
        If we consider the peer-review process, NAPA's interpretation would
    prohibit a NOAA scientist from writing a later scientific analysis
    critical of the prior work without getting the approval of the original
    authors to publish. This is fundamentally at odds with the scientific
    process because no one could ever publish a critique or dissent of any
    existing science if the scientists of the original work objected.
    Conclusion
        As a scientist, I appreciate the importance of scientific integrity
    and fully support the NOAA policy. I do believe it needs to be updated
    to address issues surrounding handling of social media and non-
    research-related and publication-bound work. I fully complied with and
    cooperated with the scientific integrity investigation. I encourage a
    thorough and thoughtful review and can accept the critique and
    criticism contained in the report. It is part of the scientific process
    and how we improve both our policies and the processes. Any findings of
    misconduct, however, must be based on an objective application of the
    standards contained in the actual policy.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    About the Academy
        The National Academy of Public Administration is a non-profit, non-
    partisan, and independent organization of top public management and
    organizational leaders who tackle the Nation's most critical and
    complex public management challenges. With a network of more than 900
    distinguished Fellows and an experienced professional staff, the
    Academy is uniquely qualified and trusted across government to provide
    objective advice and practical solutions based on systematic research
    and expert analysis.
        Established in 1967 and chartered by Congress in 1984, the Academy
    continues to make a positive impact by helping federal, state and local
    governments respond effectively to current circumstances and changing
    conditions. Learn more about the Academy and its work at
    www.napawash.org.
                                     ______

    Table of Contents
    Foreword

    List of Figures

    List of Tables

    Acronyms and Abbreviations

    Key Terms and Definitions

    Executive Summary

    Chapter 1: Background

            1.1 Project Scope and Deliverables

            1.2 Limitations to the Panel's Assessment

            1.3 Organization of Report

    Chapter 2: Summary of Methodology and Process

            2.1 Consideration of Alleged Activities, Allegations, and
            Respondents under the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy

            2.2 Methodological Approach to Review and Assess the
            Allegations

    Chapter 3: Summary of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and
    Adjudication Procedures

            3.1 Criteria for Determining Scientific Misconduct

            3.2 Core Procedures for Adjudicating Alleged Violations of
            Scientific Integrity

    Chapter 4: Description of the Allegations

    Chapter 5: Chronology of Key Events

    Chapter 6: Findings and Recommendations

            6.1 Criteria to Assess Allegations of Scientific Misconduct

            6.2 Adjudication Standards

            6.3 Findings and Recommendations

    Appendices

            Appendix A: Panel Biographies and Study Team Members

            Appendix B: Chronology of Key Events

            Appendix C: Policies

            Appendix D: Summaries of Interviews Conducted and Interview
            Questions

            Appendix E: Allegations of Scientific Misconduct

            Appendix F: September 1 Birmingham Tweet and September 6
            Statement

            Appendix G: Weather Forecast Office Tweets Using Absolute Terms

            Appendix H: List of Records Reviewed
    Foreword
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a
    scientific agency that focuses on the study of climate, weather,
    oceans, coasts, and the conservation and management of coastal and
    marine ecosystems and resources. The work of NOAA not only supports the
    safety and well being of the public, but also has great importance to
    the U.S. economy. To maintain public trust in the agency's work, NOAA
    must keep scientific integrity at the forefront of all aspects of its
    scientific activities.
        In September 2019, NOAA's Scientific Integrity Officer received
    four complaints of alleged violations of scientific integrity related
    to a specific NOAA public statement issued on September 6, 2019. To
    ensure that the investigation into these complaints would be conducted
    with the highest degree of objectivity and neutrality, NOAA engaged the
    National Academy of Public Administration to conduct an independent
    assessment of those allegations. The goal of the assessment was to
    determine by a preponderance of evidence if the NOAA personnel involved
    with the development and issuance of the September 6 Statement violated
    NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy.
        As a congressionally chattered, non-partisan, and non-profit
    organization with over 900 distinguished Fellows, the Academy is
    uniquely qualified to assist NOAA with this complex assignment. The
    Academy convened a Panel of four Academy Fellows with deep experience
    in the field of public administration, knowledge of scientific
    research, and execution of agency policy and procedure. The Panel's
    determinations and recommendations have been provided to the NOAA
    Determining Official for final adjudication of the allegations.
        This report presents the Panel's findings and makes nine
    recommendations to enhance NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy. I expect
    that the Academy Panel's report will guide the Determining Official's
    deliberation on the allegations and strengthen NOAA's overall framework
    of scientific integrity.
        The Academy is thankful to have the opportunity to serve as an
    independent integrity review panel on behalf of NOAA.
                                              Teresa W. Gerton,
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer,
                             National Academy of Public Administration.
                                     ______

    List of Figures
    Figure 1. NOAA Organizational Chart
    List of Tables
    Table 4-1. Allegation 2019-007

    Table 4-2. Allegation 2019-008

    Table 4-3. Allegation 2019-009

    Table 4-4. Allegation 2019-0010

    Table 6-1. Media Guidance (September 1, 2019-September 6, 2019)

    Table E-1. Rationale for Selection of Reviewed Allegations

                           Acronyms and Abbreviations

     Acronym or  Abbreviation                    Definition

    Academy                    National Academy of Public Administration
    Academy Team               The Panel members and study team
    AMS                        American Meteorological Society
    ARS                        Agriculture Research Service
    Commerce                   Department of Commerce
    DAO                        Department Administrative Order
    DOI                        Department of the Interior
    DSS                        Decision Support Service
    DUS/O                      Deputy Under Secretary of Operations
    EPA                        Environmental Protection Agency
    FAA                        Federal Aviation Administration
    FEMA                       Federal Emergency Management Agency
    FOIA                       Freedom of Information Act
    FRC                        Fundamental Research Communication
    FY                         Fiscal year
    GAO                        Government Accountability Office
    IRP                        Integrity Review Panel
    NAO                        NOAA Administrative Order
    NHC                        National Hurricane Center
    NOAA                       National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                Administration
    NWS                        National Weather Service
    OIG                        Office of Inspector General
    OMB                        Office of Management and Budget
    OSTP                       Office of Science and Technology Policy
    ROC                        Regional Operation Center
    SI0                        Scientific Integrity Officer
    USDA                       United States Food Department of Agriculture
    WFO                        Weather Forecasting Office

    Key Terms and Definitions\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Key terms and definitions denoted with an asterisk(*) can be
    found in the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy (NOAA Administrative
    Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity) and the accompanying Procedural
    Handbook.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Key Term                            Definition
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Allegation*                  Any written or oral statement or other
                                  indication of possible scientific
                                  misconduct made to a NOAA employee or
                                  contractor, or to an employee of a NOAA
                                  research partner.
    Complainant*                 The person, group, or company that makes an
                                  allegation of scientific misconduct or
                                  loss of scientific integrity.
    Determining Official (DO)*   NOAA official who makes a final
                                  determination on an allegation of
                                  scientific misconduct or loss of
                                  scientific integrity and proposes
                                  corrective administrative action, as
                                  appropriate.
    Integrity Review Panel       Group responsible for conducting an
     (IRP)*                       investigation of alleged scientific
                                  misconduct or loss of scientific integrity
                                  when a determination has been made by the
                                  SIO that an investigation is warranted.
    Integrity Review Panel       The agency official responsible for
     Chair (IRPC)*                overseeing an investigation, chairing the
                                  Integrity Review Panel, and carrying out
                                  other responsibilities specified in NOAA's
                                  Procedural Handbook. The IRPC is a subject
                                  matter expert and is designated for a
                                  specific investigation.
    Official Communication\2\    Any Public Communication by an employee
                                  that relates to the Department's programs;
                                  policies, or operations and takes place or
                                  is prepared: 1. At the direction of a
                                  superior of the employee; 2. Substantially
                                  during the official working hours of the
                                  employee; 3. With the substantial use of
                                  U.S. Government resource(s); or 4. With
                                  substantial assistance of U.S. Government
                                  employee(s) on official duty. All news
                                  releases and similar documents are
                                  Official Communications.
    \2\ U.S. Department of
     Commerce. 2008.
     ``Department
     Administrative Order 219-1
     Public Communications.''
     April 30.
    Preponderance of Evidence    The standard of proof in making a finding
                                  of misconduct under NOAA's Scientific
                                  Integrity Policy and accompanying
                                  Procedural Handbook. Black's Law
                                  Dictionary (11th Ed., 2019) defines this
                                  term as ``superior evidentiary weight
                                  that, though not sufficient to free the
                                  mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is
                                  still sufficient to incline a fair and
                                  impartial mind to one side of the issue
                                  rather than the other.'' \3\
    \3\ Bryan A. Garner and
     Henry Campbell Black,
     Black's Law Dictionary,
     11th ed. (West Group,
     2019).
    Respondent*                  The person, group, or NOAA entity who
                                  responds or makes a reply to an allegation
                                  of scientific misconduct or loss of
                                  scientific integrity.
    Scientific Activities*       Activities that involve inventorying,
                                  monitoring, observations, experimentation,
                                  study, research, integration, modeling,
                                  and scientific. assessment. Scientific
                                  activities are conducted in a manner
                                  specified by standard protocols and
                                  procedures and include any of the
                                  physical, biological, or social sciences,
                                  as well as engineering and mathematics, or
                                  any combination of these.
    Scientific Assessment*       Evaluation of a body of scientific or
                                  technical knowledge that typically
                                  synthesizes multiple factual inputs, data,
                                  models, and assumptions, and implies the
                                  use of best professional judgment to
                                  bridge uncertainties in the available
                                  information.
    Scientific Integrity*        The condition resulting from adherence to
                                  professional values and practices when
                                  conducting and applying the results of
                                  science that ensures objectivity, clarity,
                                  and reproducibility, and that provides
                                  insulation from bias, fabrication,
                                  falsification, plagiarism, interference,
                                  censorship, and inadequate procedural and
                                  information security.
    Scientific Product*          Presentation of the results of scientific
                                  activities including the analysis,
                                  synthesis, compilation, or translation of
                                  scientific information and data into
                                  formats for the use of NOAA, the
                                  Department of Commerce, or the Nation.
    September 6 Statement        Unattributed Public Statement from the
                                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                  Administration, issued on September 6,
                                  2019 (See Appendix F).
    September 1 Birmingham       Tweet from the National Weather Service
     Tweet                        Birmingham Weather Forecast Office, posted
                                  on September 1, 2019 (See Appendix F).
    Tweet                        A brief communication made through the
                                  internet-based, for-profit social media
                                  platform, Twitter.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Summary
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a
    scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce that
    focuses on the study of climate, weather, oceans, coasts, and the
    conservation and management of coastal and marine ecosystems and
    resources.
        In September 2019, NOAA's Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO)
    received four complaints of alleged violations of scientific integrity
    filed under the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy (NOAA Administrative
    Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity). The allegations relate to a
    specific NOAA public statement issued on September 6, 2019 (the
    September 6 Statement) regarding a tweet previously issued by the
    National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Forecast Office (WFO) in
    Birmingham, Alabama, on September 1, 2019 (the September 1 Birmingham
    Tweet).
        NOAA's SIO engaged the National Academy of Public Administration
    (the Academy) to conduct an independent assessment of those
    allegations. The goal of the assessment was to determine by a
    preponderance of evidence, meaning the standard of proof of making a
    finding of misconduct under NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and
    accompanying Procedural Handbook, if the NOAA personnel involved with
    the development and issuance of the September 6 Statement violated
    NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and engaged in the misconduct
    intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the Scientific
    Integrity Policy. Pursuant to the Scope of Work, the Academy was tasked
    to:

       Determine if scientific misconduct or loss of scientific
            integrity has not occurred and the allegation be dismissed; or

       Determine if scientific misconduct or loss of scientific
            integrity has occurred and recommend any specific action by
            NOAA to restore scientific integrity.

        Conducted from December 2019 through March 2020, the assessment
    employed primarily qualitative research methods. The Academy Team,
    comprised of a Panel of Academy Fellows and the study team, gathered
    and analyzed primary and secondary data through a review of prior
    testimonies and official documents related to the allegations of
    scientific misconduct. The Academy Team conducted semi-structured
    interviews with subject matter experts and NOAA staff including
    personnel from NWS, the Office of Communications, and other senior
    leaders. The Academy Team also had conversations with representatives
    from NOAA's Office of General Counsel and the SIO which provided
    background on the Scientific Integrity Policy. Appendix H contains a
    list of all records and documents reviewed by the Academy Team.
        The inquiry into the alleged scientific misconduct and loss of
    scientific integrity associated with the September 6 Statement and the
    September 1 Birmingham Tweet presented a challenge for the Integrity
    Review Panel. The facts and circumstances surrounding these allegations
    of misconduct are not a perfect fit with the existing NOAA policies
    regarding scientific integrity and scientific communication and the
    Department of Commerce guidance on public communications. The Academy
    Team, therefore, created a process to assess the facts developed
    against existing policy and to determine whether personnel and actions
    were covered under NOAA and Commerce policies. Those rationales .are
    provided later in the report. This process also allowed the development
    of recommendations as to how policies might be improved.
        In considering the allegations, the Panel recognizes that the
    September 6 Statement and the September 1 Birmingham Tweet discussed
    herein are inextricably linked. The September 6 Statement directly
    addressed the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and the underlying science.
    Second, the Panel considered both the content and process by which the
    September 6 Statement was developed and released. Finally, it is the
    considered opinion of the Panel, that in the aggregate, the evidence
    gathered in this inquiry is appropriate and sufficient to provide a
    reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions contained herein.
    Additionally, the report includes a series of Panel recommendations to
    safeguard against future violations of scientific integrity for the
    Determining Official (DO) to consider. The following is a summary of
    the Panel's major findings and recommendations:
        Allegation One: Media guidance issued by NOAA leadership between
    September 1 and 6, 2019, limited the ability of scientists to
    communicate with the media and the public about their research
    findings; Policies allegedly violated include Section 4.05; Section
    4.06; and Section 5.02 (a), (d), and (k) of NOM's Scientific integrity
    Policy.
        Finding One: The Panel determined by a preponderance of the
    evidence on the record that the allegation that the media guidance
    issued by NOAA leadership between September 1 and 6, 2019, did not
    constitute scientific misconduct or a loss of scientific integrity.
    Recommendations:

       Develop formal policy guidelines for the issuance of media
            guidance to NOAA staff. Specifically, these guidelines should
            clarify roles and responsibilities, institutionalize the
            process, and identify the circumstances under which the agency
            should issue media guidance.

       Develop an interagency framework (that includes other
            Federal agencies and the White House) for the sharing of
            scientific data and materials concerning severe weather related
            events. The framework would include protocols for the timely
            update of information to reflect changing weather conditions
            and the release of the information to the general public.

        Allegation Two: The Birmingham WFO forecasters were not provided
    the opportunity to review and opine on the September 6 Statement that
    referenced the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and underlying scientific
    activity. Policies allegedly violated include Section 7.01. of NOAA's
    Scientific Integrity Policy.
        Finding Two: The Panel determined by a preponderance of the
    evidence on the record that Dr. Neil Jacobs (Acting Administrator of
    NOAA) and Julie Roberts (Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of
    Communications for NOAA) \4\ violated the Code of Ethics for Science
    Supervision and Management set forth in Section 7.01 of NOAA's
    Scientific Integrity Policy when they failed to engage the Birmingham
    WFO in the development of the September 6 Statement. Further, the Panel
    finds that they engaged in the misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or
    in reckless disregard of the Code of Scientific Conduct or Code of
    Ethics for Science Supervision and Management in NOAA's Scientific
    Integrity Policy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Julie Roberts left NOAA in December 2019 to join the Economic
    Development Administration, which is in the Department of Commerce.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recommendations:

       Develop a written policy statement on the right of NOAA
            scientists to review, comment, and amend any Official
            Communication that relies on their scientific analysis. This
            policy statement will complement NOAA's Scientific Integrity
            Policy.

       Revise NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy's accompanying
            Procedural Handbook to include criteria and supporting examples
            to assist with the determination of scientific misconduct and a
            loss of scientific integrity. For example, NOAA could cite this
            case as an example of a violation of NOAA's Scientific
            Integrity Policy and scientific misconduct with regards to
            several criteria.

        Allegation Three: The drafting of the September 6 Statement was
    driven by external political pressure from Department of Commerce
    (Commerce) senior leaders and inappropriately criticized the September
    1 Birmingham Tweet and underlying scientific activity. Further, the
    September 6 Statement compromised NOAA's integrity and reputation as an
    independent scientific agency and violated Section 7.02 of NOAA's
    Scientific Integrity Policy.
        Finding Three: The Panel determined by a preponderance of the
    evidence on the record that the actions of Dr. Neil Jacobs and Julie
    Roberts involving the development and issuance of the September 6
    Statement violated the Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and
    Management set forth in Section 7 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity
    Policy. Further, the Panel determined that they engaged in the
    misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the
    Code of Scientific Conduct or Code of Ethics for Science Supervision
    and Management in NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy.
    Recommendations:

       Establish a formal intra-agency agreement to guide the
            interactions between Commerce and NOAA officials in the
            drafting of NOAA communications.

       Establish an intra-agency policy to articulate the role of
            Commerce political appointees in the communication of
            scientific findings. Develop supporting procedures and identify
            examples of political interference.

       Incorporate key principles of scientific integrity,
            including NOAA's Codes of Ethics for Science Supervision and
            Management, into NOAA's annual ethics training.

       Require NOAA staff and NOAA political officials to take
            scientific integrity training that includes the Code of Ethics
            for Science Supervision and Management. Once a staff member has
            completed the training, he/she will sign a statement confirming
            they will abide by these principles.

       Establish protocols with the Commerce Office of Inspector
            General (OIG) and/or other agencies to investigate alleged
            violations of scientific integrity involving senior NOAA and
            Commerce political leadership.
                             Chapter 1: Background
    Background on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), created
    in 1970, is a scientific agency within the Department of Commerce
    (Commerce) that focuses on the study of climate, weather, oceans, and
    coasts. NOAA's mission of science, service, and stewardship consists of
    the following components:

       To understand and predict changes in climate, weather,
            oceans and coasts;

       To share that knowledge and information with others; and

       To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and
            resources.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``Our mission and values,'' National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, http://www.noaa.gov/our-mission-and-vision.

        NOAA's wide-ranging services include, but are not limited to,
    communicating forecasts and weather advisories, managing the fisheries
    industry, handling operational environmental satellites, and providing
    the data and products needed to support the economy as it relates to
    climate, weather, oceans, and coasts. Figure 1 on the next page
    provides the organizational chart of the various NOAA operations and
    senior leadership that was effective on September 6, 2019.
        Following a 2009 presidential memorandum calling for Executive
    Branch departments and agencies to develop scientific integrity
    policies,\6\ the Department of Commerce instructed NOAA to develop a
    bureau-specific scientific integrity policy.\7\ NOAA adopted its
    Scientific Integrity Policy (NOAA Administrative Order 202-735D:
    Scientific Integrity) on December 7, 2011, and created the position of
    Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ White House, Office of the Press Secretary, ``Memorandum for
    the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the Subject of
    Scientific Integrity,'' March 9, 2009.
        \7\ Cameron F. Kerry, ``Memorandum for all Chief Counsels and
    General Counsels, Subject: Implementation of Administration Policy on
    Scientific Integrity,'' December 16, 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The SIO responds to allegations of scientific misconduct or the
    loss of scientific integrity. The NOAA Scientific Integrity Committee,
    comprised of NOAA Line Office Silos and Staff Office Points of Contact,
    supports the NOAA SIO in this role.\8\ The SIO must ensure that the
    entirety of the allegation review process is independent and has a
    thorough and complete methodology.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Craig N. McLean, ``Memorandum for Vice Admiral Michael S.
    Devany and Dr. W. Richard Spinrad, Subject: Approval of Scientific
    Integrity Committee Terms of Reference,'' July 15, 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figure 1. NOAA Organizational Chart\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ This NOAA organizational chart was the version effective on
    September 6, 2019. An updated chart that reflect changes in NOAA
    leadership is available on NOAA's website.

        For the SIO and/or Determining Official (DO) to find that an
    instance of scientific misconduct or misconduct resulting in the loss
    of scientific integrity occurred, the SIO must determine by a
    preponderance of the evidence that a person or entity departed
    significantly from the Scientific Integrity Policy and engaged in the
    misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of that
    policy. A loss of scientific integrity can also occur without a finding
    of misconduct. For example, a loss of scientific integrity could arise
    from an insufficiently rigorous scientific process with no intentional
    wrongdoing on the part of the individual and/or entity conducting the
    research.\10\ NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy's Procedural Handbook
    does not clearly define a loss of scientific integrity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ This example was provided to the Academy Team by NOAA's SIO
    and representatives from the Office of General Counsel during
    background conversations on the Scientific Integrity Policy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Background on the alleged violations of NOAA's Scientific Integrity
            Policy
        On Sunday, September 1, 2019, at 10:51 a.m. Eastern Time Zone (ET),
    President Trump tweeted,

            In addition to Florida--South Carolina, North Carolina,
            Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder
            than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes
            ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

        Approximately 20 minutes later, in response to a number of ph ne
    calls from individuals worried about Hurricane Dorian's impact to
    Alabama and unaware of the President's earlier tweet, the National
    Weather Service's (NWS) Birmingham Weather Forecast Office (WFO)
    tweeted,

            Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no
            impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The
            system will remain too far east. #alwx''

        A copy of this tweet (referred to as ``September 1 Birmingham
    Tweet'') can be found in Appendix F.
        On September 6, 2019, NOAA released an unattributed public
    statement (referred to as ``September 6 Statement'') that stated,

            From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the
            information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center
            to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that
            tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact
            Alabama. This is dearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories
            #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

            The Birmingham National Weather Service's Sunday morning tweet
            spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with
            probabilities from the best forecast products available at the
            time.

        A copy of the September 6 Statement can be found in Appendix F.
        NOAA subsequently received four complaints of alleged violations of
    scientific integrity related to the September 6 Statement. Copies of
    the four complaints can be found in Appendix E. NOAA's SIO determined
    that further investigation of those allegations was required.
        In considering the posture of the Complainants and Respondents to
    allegations 2019-007, -008, -009, and -0010, the SIO and NOAA General
    Counsel determined that NOAA required an external independent expert to
    investigate and make findings and recommendations. In order to ensure
    that this investigation maintained the highest degree of independence
    and neutrality, NOAA's SIO, in consultation with NOAA's General
    Counsel, engaged the National Academy of Public Administration (the
    Academy) to conduct an independent assessment of the four allegations
    of scientific misconduct.
        As the Panel undertook its assessment, two additional
    investigations were underway:

       Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General (OIG)
            began its investigation on September 7, 2019 \11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Peggy E. Gustafson, ``Memorandum for Dr. Neil Jacobs, Subject:
    Request for Information Pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978,
    as Amended,'' September 7, 2019.

       House Committee on Science, Space and Technology began its
            inquiry on September 11, 2019 \12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Eddie Bernice Johnson and Mikie Sherrill, ``Letter to
    Secretary Wilbur Ross,'' September 11, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the Panel's review is focused on NOAA personnel and alleged
    violations of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy, the House Committee
    and OIG investigations are broader. The Panel conducted this inquiry
    independently of the other two inquiries.
    Background on the National Academy of Public Administration
        As an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, congressionally
    chartered organization, the Academy is uniquely situated to provide the
    expertise and skills required of the external investigation requested
    by NOAA. Driven by the Academy's core value interdependence, the Panel
    of Fellows and professional staff (the ``Academy Team'') conducted this
    investigation in an evidence-based, unbiased, and non-partisan manner.
    The Panel of Fellows was appointed by the Chair of the Academy Board of
    Directors, based on their collective experience in the field of public
    administration, knowledge of scientific research, and execution of
    agency policy and procedure. Please see Appendix A for Panel member
    biographical sketches.
    1.1 Project Scope and Deliverables
        NOAA's SIO engaged the Academy to conduct an independent assessment
    of allegations of scientific misconduct filed under the NOAA Scientific
    Integrity Policy. The allegations relate to a specific NOAA public
    statement issued on September 6, 2019, regarding a tweet previously
    issued by the NWS Birmingham WFO on September 1, 2019. The September 6
    Statement and the September 1 Birmingham Tweet are included in Appendix
    F.
        Pursuant to the Scope of Work, NOAA tasked the Panel with
    determining whether the NOAA personnel involved with the development
    and issuance of the September 6 Statement violated NOAA's Scientific
    Integrity Policy and engaged in the misconduct intentionally,
    knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the Scientific Integrity Policy.
    The Scope of Work tasks the Panel to:

       Determine if scientific misconduct or loss of scientific
            integrity has not occurred and the allegation dismissed; or

       Determine if scientific misconduct or loss of scientific
            integrity has occurred and recommend any specific action by
            NOAA to restore scientific integrity.

        Further, the final report will include the following components:

       Description of allegation(s)

       Summary of process

       List of records reviewed

       Summaries of interviews

       Recommendations
    1.2 Limitations to the Panel's Assessment
        In completing its assessment, the Panel did not attempt to validate
    the scientific accuracy of the September 6 Statement and the September
    1 Birmingham Tweet. This matter lies outside the charge to the Panel.
    Further, the Panel's due diligence was subject to the following
    limitations that may, in the aggregate, have limited the Panel's
    ability to assess certain aspects of the allegations:

       The Academy Team had no access to Department of Commerce
            employees involved with the drafting and release of the NOAA
            September 6 Statement.

        The Academy Team inquired with NOAA about interviewing two Commerce
            employees involved with the drafting and release of the NOAA
            September 6 Statement. NOAA did not provide the Academy Team
            access to those employees. NOAA's rationale behind the decision
            to not allow the Academy Team to conduct the interviews was
            that NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and Procedural Handbook
            pertains to NOAA employees only and that a review of Commerce
            staffs actions was outside the scope of the assessment.

       The Academy Team had no access to infonnation gathered by
            the Commerce OIG and the House Committee on Science, Space and
            Technology investigations.

        At the time that the Panel conducted its assessment, two additional
            investigations were underway The Academy Team had neither
            access to the individuals conducting those investigations nor
            to the evidence gathered by those teams.

       NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and Procedural Handbook
            lack clear and explicit criteria to determine a loss of
            scientific integrity and only provide limited guidance.

        While NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy defines scientific
            integrity the policy does not provide explicit criteria for
            determining a potential loss of scientific integrity.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``NOAA
    Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity,'' December 7,
    2011: Section 3.

       The Academy Team had limited access to underlying
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            documentary evidence.

        The Academy Team received an abundance of documentation from NOAA
            including transcribed statements from key NOAA employees,
            related e-mail correspondence, and a copy of relevant NOAA and
            Department of Commerce policies, However, certain evidence
            related to the events leading up to the drafting and release of
            the September 6 Statement was not provided to the Academy Team
            Specifically, the text messages from the two key Respondents--
            Dr. Neil Jacobs and Julie Roberts--were not provided to the
            Panel.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ The Panel was informed that the text messages from Dr. Jacobs
    contained outside equities and would need to be submitted to the
    holders of the privilege for a determination concerning assertion of
    the privilege. Such a determination had not been made in time for the
    Panel to be provided access to the text messages. Further, Julie
    Roberts testified that--prior to the Panel's investigation--she had
    deleted text messages sent to her. Julie Kay Roberts, ``Interview of
    Julie Roberts,'' interview by NOAA General Counsel, October 11, 2019:
    Page 81-82.

        In addition, certain e-mails provided to the Academy Team had also
            been released to requesters pursuant to the Freedom of
            Information Act (FOIA) and were redacted in accordance with
            FOIA's exemptions.
    1.3 Organization of Report
        The report is organized as follows:

       Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the report, which
            includes background information, project scope and
            deliverables.

       Chapter 2 summarizes the inquiry methodology and process.

       Chapter 3 provides a summary of the NOAA's Scientific
            Integrity Policy and adjudication procedures.

       Chapter 4 provides a description of the allegations.

       Chapter 5 provides a chronology of key events.

       Chapter 6 provides the Panel's findings and recommendations.
                 Chapter 2: Summary of Methodology and Process
        For this assessment, the Academy appointed four Fellows to serve on
    the Panel. The Panel provided ongoing guidance to the study team
    throughout the project, including approving the project work plan;
    participating in the interview process; reviewing the study team's
    progress; developing, reviewing, and approving the study findings,
    conclusions, and recommendations; and approving the draft and final
    report. Their biographical information can be found in Appendix A.
        The Panel for this study included the following Academy Fellows:

       Admiral (Ret.) Thad Allen (Chair)

       Dr. Shantanu Agrawal

       Dr. Kaye Husbands Fealing

       Dr. Elizabeth Robinson

        Conducted from December 2019 through March 2020, the assessment
    employed primarily qualitative research methods. This review was
    conducted in accordance with generally accepted research standards
    which required that the Academy Team plan and perform the study to
    obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis
    for the findings and conclusions based on the study objectives. The
    Panel believes the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
    the findings and conclusions based on the study objectives.
        To identify the appropriate criteria for the assessment, the
    Academy Team reviewed a broad array of publicly available literature
    and official documentation including NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy
    (NOAA Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity), the
    Department of Commerce's Public Communication Policy (Department
    Administrative Order 219-1: Public Communication), Federal guidance on
    scientific integrity policies as promulgated by the Office of Science
    and Technology Policy (OSTP) guidance, Congressional hearings on
    scientific integrity, reports authored by the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO), and other publicly available related literature from
    several Offices of Inspector General. The review provided a baseline
    for the Panel's findings and additional context for the Academy Team
    interviews. See Appendix H for a full list of records reviewed by the
    Academy team.
        Reflecting the requirements of the Scope of Work, the Academy Team
    focused on several overarching issues to inform the scope of research
    and selection of assessment questions:

       Applicable Jurisdiction: Are the alleged activities;
            allegations related to the development and release of the
            September 6, 2019, NOAA unattributed public statement (the
            September 6 Statement); and Respondents covered under the NOAA
            Scientific Integrity Policy?

       Applicable Policies: What are the applicable NOAA and
            Department of Commerce policies and procedures that relate to
            Scientific Integrity and Communication activities?

       Applicable Assessment Criteria: What are the applicable
            assessment criteria to be used to assess a possible breach of
            NOAA Scientific Integrity and Communication policies?

        The Academy Team gathered and analyzed primary and secondary data
    through a review of prior testimonies and official documents related to
    the allegations of scientific misconduct. The Academy Team conducted
    semi-structured in-person interviews with NOAA staff including
    personnel from NWS and the Office of Communications, and other senior
    leaders. Academy Team submitted interview topics and procedures to the
    interviewees prior to the interviews. .See Appendix D for a list of
    interviews and interview questions. The Academy Team also had
    conversations with representatives from NOAA's Office of General
    Counsel and SIO which provided background on the Scientific integrity
    Policy.
        To provide greater context to the study and to better understand
    how social science research can inform the effective communication of
    severe weather event risk, including emergency preparedness, the
    Academy Team interviewed subject matter experts from the University of
    Colorado at Boulder and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
        The Academy Team interviewed representatives from GAO to discuss
    leading practices to safeguard scientific integrity at Federal
    agencies.
        Subject matter experts spoke to the Academy Team under the
    condition that their comments would not be for attribution. Copies of
    the questions asked during the Academy Team's interviews are included
    in Appendix D.
    2.1 Consideration of Alleged Activities, Allegations, and Respondents
            under the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy
        As the first step of its assessment, the Academy Team determined
    that the September 1 Birmingham Tweet ,and the September 6 Statement,
    the activities underlying the alleged violations, the allegations
    related to the development and release of September 6 Statement, and
    certain Respondents named in the allegations were all covered under the
    NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy. Further, the Academy Team determined
    that the above NOAA communications were covered under the Department of
    Commerce's Public Communication Policy, as NOAA does not possess its
    own communication policy. Separately, NOAA's S10, Dr. Cynthia Decker,
    confirmed that the four complaints met the basic criteria to be
    adjudicated pursuant to the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy's
    accompanying Procedural Handbook.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Cynthia J. Decker, ``Memorandum from Cynthia J. Decker for The
    Record, Subject: Scientific Integrity Allegations 2019-007/8/9/10
    Inquiry and Investigation Process,'' 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Academy Team's analysis was informed by a review of supporting
    documentation as well as interviews with NOAA staff. The following
    decision points provide the underlying analysis used to determine the
    status of individuals and applicability of policy.
    Decision Point: Applicability of Policy to Respondents
    The allegations list several Respondents. Are those Respondents subject
            to the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy and Commerce Public
            Communication Policy?
        Analysis: Although the list of Respondents presented in the
    allegations includes both NOAA and non-NOAA employees, only NOAA staff
    (career and political) and certain NOAA contractors are covered under
    NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy. The Department of Commerce Public
    Communication policies extends to all employees of the Commerce
    Department including NOAA staff.
        Pursuant to Section 2.02 of NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy, the
    policy applies to:

            All NOAA employees, political and career, who are engaged in,
            supervise, or manage scientific activities, analyze and/or
            publicly communicate information resulting from scientific
            activities, or use scientific information or analyses in making
            bureau or office policy, management, or regulatory decisions;
            and contractors who engage in or assist with activities
            identified above.

        Pursuant to Section 1.01 of Commerce's Public Communications
    Policy, the policy applies to ``Department of Commerce employees
    engaging in public communications.'' This policy is also applicable to
    the Respondents, as they publicly communicated information resulting
    from scientific activities.
    Decision Point: Applicability of NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy to
            the Communications
    The allegations refer to the September 6 Statement and the September 1
            Birmingham Tweet. Are the September 6 Statement and September l
            Birmingham Tweet covered under the NOAA Scientific Integrity
            Policy?
        Analysis: In considering this question, the Academy Team reviewed
    NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and concluded that the September 6
    Statement and September 1 Birmingham Tweet are covered under NOAA's
    Scientific Integrity Policy for the following reasons:
        Section 3 of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy defines a
    scientific assessment as the:

            Evaluation of a body of scientific or technical knowledge that
            typically synthesizes multiple factual inputs, data, models,
            and assumptions, and implies the use of best professional
            judgment to bridge uncertainties in the available information.

        The persons involved in developing the September 1 Birmingham Tweet
    and September 6 Statement conducted a scientific assessment by
    evaluating and synthesizing the scientific and technical knowledge
    available to them. To develop the September 1 Birmingham Tweet,
    Birmingham WFO forecasters evaluated models, forecasts, and other
    information. In the case of the September 6 Statement, individuals
    involved in developing the statement evaluated National Hurricane
    Center (NHC) advisories.
        A scientific assessment is included in the list of activities that
    define a scientific activity per the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy.
    Section 3 of the policy defines a scientific activity as:

            Activities that involve inventorying, monitoring, observations,
            experimentation, study, research, modeling, and scientific
            assessment. Scientific activities are conducted in a manner
            specified by standard protocols and procedures and include any
            of the physical, biological, or social sciences, as well as
            engineering and mathematics, or any combination of these.

        In developing the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and September 6
    Statement, individuals engaged in activities that can be considered
    scientific activities.
        As defined in Section 3 of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy, a
    scientific product is the:

            Presentation of the results of scientific activities including
            the analysis, synthesis, compilation, or translation of
            scientific information and data into formats for the use of
            NOAA, the Department of Commerce, or the Nation.

        Therefore, it can be reasonably deduced that the September 1
    Birmingham Tweet and September 6 Statement are examples of a scientific
    product. The Academy Team's interviews with NOAA and NWS staff and
    conversations with representatives from NOAA's Office of General
    Counsel and SIO about the Scientific Integrity Policy, supported the
    Academy Team's interpretation.
        As scientific products based on scientific activities and
    assessments, the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and September 6 Statement
    are subject to the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy.
        Interviews with NOAA and GAO personnel provided guidance that a
    communication can be considered a scientific product if:

       The communication is based on scientific analysis and

       The communication is related to the core mission of the
            agency.

        In the case of the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and September 6
    Statement, both communications involve scientific assessments and
    activities and relate to the core mission of the agency. Informed by
    this guidance, the Academy Team determined that both criteria were met
    and that both the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and September 6
    Statement should be considered scientific products because they are
    based on scientific activities and scientific assessments. The Academy
    Team determined that the drafting and public release of both
    communications were consistent with these covered activities.
    Decision Point: Applicability of Department of Commerce Public
            Communication Policy to the Communications
    Are the September 6 Statement and September 1 Birmingham Tweet covered
            under the Department of Commerce Public Communication Policy?
        Analysis: The Academy Team determined that the September 6
    Statement and September 1 Birmingham Tweet can be considered Official
    Communications and are covered under the Department of Commerce Public
    Communication Policy for the following reasons:
        The Department of Commerce Public Communication Policy defines
    Official Communications as:

            Any Public Communication by an employee that relates to the
            Department's programs, policies, oroperations and takes place
            or is prepared: (i) At the direction of a superior of the
            employee; (ii) Substantially during the official working hours
            of the employee; (iii) With the substantial use of U.S.
            Government resource(s); or with substantial assistance of U.S.
            Government employee(s) on official duty.

        Section 8 of Commerce's Public Communications Policy provides that:

            Any Official Communication intended for the media (e.g., news
            releases, interviews/news conferences), all written and
            audiovisual materials that are, or are prepared or received in
            connection with, the Official Communication must be submitted
            in a timely manner before the communication occurs to the head
            of the operating unit or Secretarial office, or their
            designee(s), and to the Appropriate Public Affairs Office (as
            defined in Section 8.05) for approval in a timely manner.

        Based on the definition of an Official Communication, the Commerce
    Public Communication Policy is applicable to both the September 1
    Birmingham Tweet and September 6 Statement.
        Analysis: As the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and September 6
    Statement are defined as ``Official Communications'' per the Commerce
    Public Communication Policy, they are also subject to the provisions of
    Section 7 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy which states:

            Appropriate rules and procedures are in place and implemented
            to preserve the integrity of the scientific process and the
            dissemination of its scientific products and information,
            including providing scientists the right to review and correct
            any official document (such as a press release or report) that
            cites or references their scientific work, to ensure that
            accuracy has been maintained after the clearance and editing
            process.

        Section 7 of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy mandates a review
    from the scientists whose scientific work was referenced in the
    Official Communication. As Official Communications per the Department
    of Commerce Public Communication Policy, the September 1 Birmingham
    Tweet and September 6 Statement are subject to Section 7 of the NOAA
    Scientific Integrity Policy.
    Decision Point: Applicability of Policy to Alleged Violations
    The allegations cite violations of numerous provisions of NOAA's
            Scientific Integrity Policy. Are the alleged violations covered
            under the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy and Commerce Public
            Communication Policy?
        Analysis: In considering this question, the Academy Team reviewed
    NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy, Commerce's Public Communication
    Policy, OSTP policies, GAO guidance, guidelines followed by other
    Federal agencies, and conversations with NOAA's S10 and representatives
    from the Office of General Counsel on the Scientific Integrity Policy.
    The Academy Team concluded that the alleged violations are covered
    under the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy and Commerce Public
    Communication Policy.
    Decision Point: Filing of Allegations in Accordance with Policy
    Were the allegations filed in accordance with the provisions in the
            NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy's accompanying Procedural
            Handbook?
        Analysis: In considering this question, the Academy Team reviewed
    NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and the accompanying Procedural
    Handbook, GAO guidance and guidelines followed by other Federal
    agencies, and conversations with NOAA's SIO and representatives from
    the Office of General Counsel on the Scientific Integrity Policy. The
    Academy Team concluded that the allegations were filed in accordance
    with the provisions in the NOAA Procedural Handbook. The allegations
    provided sufficient information for adjudication and were filed within
    the stipulated time frame. See Sections 3.02 and 3.04 of the Procedural
    Handbook for additional guidance.
    2.2 Methodological Approach to Review and Assess the Allegations
        The Academy Team's methodological approach to review and assess the
    allegations comprised seven key tasks:
        Task One: Review allegations of scientific misconduct or loss of
    scientific integrity related to the development and release of
    September 6 Statement.
        For the purposes of this evaluation, NOAA requested the Panel to
    consider the following four allegations:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Complainant and Filing Date               Allegation Number
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Craig McLean; September 10, 2019     Allegation 2019-007
    Jane Lubchenco, Andrew Rosenberg,    Allegation 2019-008
     and Richard Spinrad; September 9,
     2019
    Carl Childs; September 11, 2019      Allegation 2019-009
    Rep. Paul Tonko; September 10, 2019  Allegation 2019-0010
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Task Two: Review the applicable NOAA and Commerce policies that
    relate to scientific integrity and communication activities.
        For the purposes of this evaluation, the Panel considered the
    following applicable NOAA and Commerce policies and procedures: \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ NOAA's SIO and representatives from the Office of General
    Counsel confirmed that these documents encompass all scientific
    integrity and communication policies applicable to NOAA.

       NOM's Scientific Integrity Policy and related Procedural
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Handbook

       NOAA Framework for Internal Review and Approval of
            Fundamental Research Communications (FRC)

       Department of Commerce's Public Communication Policy

       Department of Commerce's Social Media Guidebook January 2013

       Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
            Agencies: March 9, 2009

       Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
            Agencies: December 17, 2010 (from the Director of the OSTP)

       Memorandum for all Chief Counsels and General Counsels, on
            the implementation of administration policy of scientific
            integrity: December 16, 2011 (from the General Counsel of the
            Department of Commerce)

       Federal Register, Volume 65, Number 235, Notice from the
            Science and Technology Policy Office on the Federal Policy on
            Research Misconduct: Wednesday, December 6, 2000 \17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ The Federal definition of research misconduct is defined as
    fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or
    reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

        Task Three: Select and define criteria to be used to assess a
    possible violation of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and Commerce's
    Public Communication Policy. For the purposes of this evaluation, the
    Panel considered assessment criteria drawn from the applicable
    documents listed above in Task Two. Criteria include broad standards
    and specific procedural guidance.
        Task Four: Develop a fact-based chronology of activities and
    individuals involved in the events leading up to and the development
    and release of the September 6 Statement and determine in what context
    the September 6 Statement was produced.
        To develop the chronology, the Panel conducted semi-structured
    interviews and reviewed prior testimonial evidence and related
    documents.
        Task Five: Develop a concise understanding of the adjudication
    standards, criteria, and process.
        Task Six: Determine whether the NOAA personnel involved in events
    leading up to, and in the issuance of, the September 6 Statement
    violated the Scientific Integrity Policy.
        For the purpose of this evaluation, the Panel took the following
    steps:

       Map the prescribed procedures and activities related to the
            September 6 Statement according to NOAA's policies. This
            creates a baseline as to what procedures and steps should have
            been followed to comply with NOAA and Commerce policies.

       Compare the fact-based chronology of the events, activities,
            and individuals determined in Task Four with NOAA policies and
            procedures. Identify departures from the baseline policies and
            procedures.

       Determine whether the departures or variance from the
            baseline procedures significantly departed from accepted
            practices and rises to the level of a violation of the Code of
            Scientific Conduct or Code of Ethics for Science Supervision
            and Management set forth in NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy.

       Determine whether the individuals engaged in the misconduct
            intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the Code
            of Scientific Conduct or Code of Ethics for Science Supervision
            and Management in NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy.

        Task Seven: In the event that scientific misconduct or misconduct
    resulting in a loss of scientific integrity has occurred, determine
    what steps are necessary to restore the loss of integrity.
        Separately, formulate recommendations for NOAA to help safeguard
    against future violations of scientific integrity related to political
    interference.
        For the purpose of this evaluation, the Panel considered the
    analysis included in Tasks One through Seven as well as their
    professional expertise and experience to develop recommendations
    intended to support more effective adherence to the Scientific
    Integrity Policy in the future.
           Chapter 3: Summary of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy
                          and Adjudication Procedures
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
    Scientific Integrity Policy (NOAA Administrative Order 202-735D:
    Scientific Integrity) outlines the agency's scientific integrity
    principles, code of conduct, code of ethics, and criteria to determine
    scientific and research misconduct. Section 3 of the policy defines
    scientific integrity as follows:

            The condition resulting from adherence to professional values
            and practices when conducting and applying the results of
            science that ensures objectivity, clarity, and reproducibility,
            and that provides insulation from bias, fabrication,
            falsification, plagiarism, interference, censorship, and
            inadequate procedural and information security.

        NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and accompanying Procedural
    Handbook provide criteria for determining scientific misconduct and
    five core procedures for adjudicating alleged violations.
    3.1 Criteria for Determining Scientific Misconduct
        Section 2.01 of the Procedural Handbook for NOAA's Scientific
    Integrity Policy states that:

            A finding of scientific misconduct or misconduct resulting in
            the loss of scientific integrity requires a determination by
            the NOAA Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO) and/or Determining
            Officer (DO) by a preponderance of the evidence on the record
            before him or her that the person or entity has:

         Significantly departed from accepted practices of the
                relevant research community and violated the Code of
                Scientific Conduct or Code of Ethics for Science
                Supervision and Management set forth in NOM's Scientific
                Integrity Policy; and

         Engaged in the misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or in
                reckless disregard of the Code of Scientific Conduct or
                Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and Management in
                NOM's Scientific Integrity Policy.
    3.2 Core Procedures for Adjudicating Alleged Violations of Scientific
            Integrity
        The accompanying Procedural Handbook to NOM's Scientific Integrity
    Policy articulates a precise process for NOM to use in responding to
    allegations of scientific misconduct or a loss of scientific integrity
    by a NOM employee, contractor, or recipient of NOM financial
    assistance. The Procedural Handbook provides the following core
    procedures for identifying and adjudicating alleged violations of
    scientific integrity.
    Reporting the Allegation
        Allegations are to be submitted in writing to NOAA's SIO within 90
    calendar days of the discovery of the alleged misconduct.\18\ If
    applicable, an allegation should contain all of the following
    information to evaluate the complaint:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``Procedural
    Handbook for NAO 202-735 D: Scientific Integrity;'' December, 2011:
    Section 3.02.

      a.  The name of the person or organization alleged to have committed
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            the misconduct;

      b.  A statement of facts (including dates, locations, and actions)
            that support the allegation, including when and how the
            Complainant first learned of such facts;

      c.  A list of documents supporting the allegation;

      d.  A list of witnesses who may corroborate the a1legation;

      e.  An explanation of how the criteria for scientific misconduct or
            loss of scientific integrity are met, including for loss of
            scientific integrity: citations or other information
            identifying the accepted practices of the relevant scientific
            community; an explanation of how the alleged misconduct
            constitutes a significant departure from those practices and
            violates the Code of Scientific Conduct or Code of Ethics for
            Science Supervision and Management set forth in NOAA's
            Scientific Integrity Policy

      f.  An explanation of any conflicts of interest, as defined in
            section 4.04(b)(i), the Complainant has with the subject of the
            allegation;

      g.  A statement indicating whether the allegation has been submitted
            elsewhere, such as the NOAA Employee and Labor Relations
            Division, Office of Special Counsel, or Office of the Inspector
            General.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ NOAA, Section 3.04.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Screening the Allegation
        NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy's Procedural Handbook provides
    that the SIO is to screen the allegation to decide whether it should be
    dismissed or should proceed to an inquiry and possible investigation.
    The official may also form a committee for assistance with that
    assessment. Pursuant to this requirement, the NOAA SIO, Dr. Cynthia
    Decker, concluded that the allegations of misconduct were credible and
    consulted with NOAA General Counsel on appropriate procedures to move
    the adjudication forward.\20\ Detailed descriptions of the allegations
    can be found in tables 4-1; 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4, all found in Chapter 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Cynthia J. Decker, ``Memorandum from Cynthia J. Decker for The
    Record; Subject: Scientific Integrity Allegations 2019-007/8/9/10
    Inquiry and Investigation Process,'' 2019; National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, ``Procedural Handbook for NAO 202-735D:
    Scientific Integrity,'' December, 2011: Section 4.03(d).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Investigating the Allegation
        The purpose of this procedure is to determine whether scientific
    misconduct and/or loss of scientific integrity occurred and to
    recommend corrective action. NOAA's procedures include a step for the
    SIO or other designated body to investigate the allegation and to
    decide whether it should be dismissed or, if a violation occurred,
    assess whether an allegation sufficiently specifies scientific
    misconduct or the loss of scientific integrity and whether that
    misconduct or loss can be resolved with evidence and expertise that can
    be collected by the Inquiry Team, or if a more extensive investigation
    is warranted.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``Procedural
    Handbook for NAO 202-735D: Scientific Integrity,'' December, 2011:
    Section 4.04.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If the Inquiry Team determines by a preponderance of evidence that
    a more extensive investigation is warranted, an Integrity Review Panel
    (IRP) is formed, tasked to determine whether scientific misconduct or
    loss of scientific integrity occurred, and recommends corrective
    action.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ NOAA, Section 4.05.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In considering the posture of the Complainants and Respondents to
    allegations 2019-007, -008, -009, and -0010, the SIO with consultation
    from NOAA General Counsel determined that NOAA was not suited to
    adjudicate this matter internally and required an external independent
    expert to investigate and make findings and recommendations. In a
    Memorandum for The Record explaining this discussion, the NOAA SIO, Pr.
    Cynthia Decker, explains, ``Due to the posture of the complainant and
    respondent in the proceeding, no one at NOAA ``is suited to adjudicate
    this matter internally, and NOAA requires a neutral expert to
    investigate and make findings and recommendations in order for a NOAA
    Determining Official to resolve the complaints.'' \23\ To ensure an
    unbiased proceeding, the Academy was contracted to serve as a combined
    Inquiry/Investigation Team, carry out all functions the Procedural
    Handbook bestows to an Inquiry Team and IRP, and submit a report with
    findings and recommendations to the DO for review and further action,
    as appropriate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Cynthia J. Decker, ``Memorandum from Cynthia J. Decker for The
    Record, Subject: Scientific Integrity Allegations 2019-007/8/9/10
    Inquiry and Investigation Process,'' 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Responding to the Violation
        If the DO finds that scientific misconduct or loss of scientific
    integrity has occurred, the DO or Deputy Under Secretary for Operations
    will refer the matter to an appropriate manager in the Respondent's
    reporting structure for corrective administrative action.
    Opportunity for Input from the Complainant and Respondent
        During the investigation process, the Complainant and Respondent
    may provide written exceptions to the findings of the final
    investigation report within 10 calendar days.
                   Chapter 4: Description of the Allegations
        Following the release of the September 6 Statement, NOAA's
    Scientific Integrity Officer (SIO), Dr. Cynthia Decker, received four
    complaints alleging a violation of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy
    (NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 202-735D: Scientific Integrity). These
    complaints were then cataloged by the SIO and numbered as Scientific
    Integrity Allegations 2019-007 through 2019-0010.
        The following tables summarizes the four allegations submitted to
    NOAA's SIO. The allegations can be found in Appendix E.

                         Table 4-1. Allegation 2019-007
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complainant: Craig McLean\24\        Date Submitted: September 10, 2019
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Craig McLean is the NOAA
     Assistant Administrator for
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.
     He also serves NOAA in the acting
     role of Chief Scientist.
    Allegation Summary: The complaint    Policies Allegedly Violated:
     alleges that, ``intervention to     NAO 202-735D: Scientific Integrity
     contradict the forecasters was not  Section 5.02(d): Guidance for
     based in science but on external     Scientists to Speak with the Media
     factors including reputation and    Section 5.02(k): Sharing of Best
     appearance, or simply put,           Administrative and Management
     political. Our NOAA Scientific       Practices
     Integrity Policy and Code of        Section 6.01: NOAA Employee and
     Scientific Conduct found in NAO      Contractors Code of Scientific
     202-735D make clear that all NOAA    Conduct
     employees shall approach all        Section 7.01: Code of Ethics for
     scientific activities with           Science Managers
     honesty, objectively, and           Section 7.02: Code of Ethics for
     completely, without allegiance to    All Science Supervisors and
     individuals, organizations, or       Management
     ideology. The content of this       Section 7.03: Fundamental Research
     press release is very concerning     Communication Approval
     as it compromises the ability of    Section 8.01: Definitions of
     NOAA to convey life-saving           Scientific and Research Misconduct
     information necessary to avoid      Procedural Handbook
     substantial and specific danger to  Section 2.03: Coercive
     public health and safety. If the     manipulation, intimidation,
     public cannot trust our              misrepresentation, etc.
     information, or we debase our       Department of Commerce
     forecaster's warnings and            Administrative Order (DAO) 219-1:
     products, that specific danger       Public Communications
     arises.''                           Section 4.01 (a)(b)
                                         Section 5.03 (a) (b)
                                         18 U.S. CodeSec.  2074. False
                                          Weather Reports
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table 4-2. Allegation 2019-008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complainant Dr. Jane Lubchenco,\25\  Date Submitted: September 9, 2019
     Dr. Richard Spinrad,\26\ Dr.
     Andrew Rosenberg\27\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Dr. Jane Lubchenco is the
     University Distinguished Professor
     and Marine Studies Advisor to the
     President at Oregon State
     University. She previously served
     as Under Secretary of Commerce for
     Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
     Administrator from 2009-2013.
    \26\ Dr. Richard Spinrad is the
     president of the Marine Technology
     Society. He previously served as
     the Chief Scientist of NOAA from
     2014-2017 and as director for
     various NOAA offices from 2003-
     2010.
    \27\ Dr. Andrew Rosenberg is
     director of the Center for Science
     and Democracy at the Union of
     Concerned Scientists. He
     previously served as the Deputy
     Director of NOAA's National Marine
     Fisheries Service from 1998-2000.
    Allegation Summary: The complaint    Policies Allegedly Violated: NAO
     alleges that, ``recent actions to    202-735D: Scientific Integrity
     censor NWS scientists put the       Section 4.05: NOAA Scientists May
     public safety at risk, are           Freely Speak to the Media
     inconsistent with NOAA's            Section 7.01: Code of Ethics for
     scientific integrity principles,     Science Managers
     violate the public trust, and
     compromise the independence and
     reliability of the National
     Weather Service.''
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table 4-3. Allegation 2019-009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complainant: Dr. Carl Childs\28\     Date. Submitted: September 11, 2019
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Dr. Carl Childs is a scientist
     on NOAA's Scientific Support Team,
     located within the Emergency
     Response Division (ERD) of the
     NOAA Office of Response &
     Restoration. Dr. Childs is the
     president of the bargaining unit
     representing the scientists in
     NOAA's Emergency Response Division
     (IFPTE Local 8A).
    Allegation Summary: The complaint    Policies Allegedly Violated: NAO
     alleges that, ``no attempt was       202-735D: Scientific Integrity
     apparently made to contact the      Sections 7 01: Code of Ethics for
     NOAA staff who generated the         Science Managers
     original (unmodified) hurricane     Section 8.01: Definitions of
     forecast before the statement        Scientific and Research Misconduct
     release. The September 6 statement  18 U.S. Code Sec.  2074. False
     was an intentional                   Weather Reports
     misrepresentation of scientific
     findings that damages the
     scientific standing of the NWS and
     the entire agency. It casts
     unwarranted doubt on the
     performance of NWS forecasters and
     jeopardized public faith in NOAA
     as an impartial communicator of
     vital public safety information.
     It is clear that the statement
     from NOAA management serves only
     to deflect criticism of the source
     of the misleading information at
     the expense of NWS employees who
     safeguard the public in a manner
     consistent with the best
     scientific information
     available.''
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Table 4-4. Allegation 2019-0010
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Complainant: Congressman Paul        Date. Submitted: September 11, 2019
     Tonko\29\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Congressman Paul Tonko
     represents New York's 20th
     Congressional District. Tonko
     serves on the House Committee on
     Energy and Commerce; House
     Committee on Science, Space, and
     Technology; and the House
     Committee on Natural Resources. He
     chairs the Subcommittee on
     Environment and Climate Change.
    Allegation Summary: The compliant    Policies Allegedly Violated: NAO
     alleges that recent reports          202-735D: Scientific Integrity
     published by media outlets,         No specific sections mentioned.
     ``indicate that political           Although Congressman Tonko does not
     leadership responsible for           explicitly mention a section, his
     overseeing NOAA may have             allegation does directly quote
     communicated threats and applied     Section 7.02: Code of Ethics for
     political pressure in an effort to   All Science Supervisors and
     suppress the release of vital,       Management of NOAA's Scientific
     current forecasting information      Integrity Policy.
     critical to emergency
     preparedness,'' and, ``an agency-
     wide directive sent on September
     1, 2019 restricting National
     Weather Service from releasing
     information that could be seen as
     contradicting President Trump.''
     These ``reported abuses by high
     ranking political appointees in
     contravention of agency convention
     and best practices, appear to
     violate the NOAA Administrative
     Order on Scientific Integrity.''
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Chapter 5: Chronology of Key Events
        The following is a chronology of key events that occurred leading
    up to the formulation and release of the September 1 Birmingham Tweet
    by the National Weather Service (NWS) Birmingham Weather Forecast
    Office (WFO) and the subsequent September 6 Statement by the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All of the times in the
    chronology below are in Eastern Time Zone. The events and accuracy of
    the descriptions were validated using several different sources of
    information including interviews conducted by the Academy Team and NOAA
    General Counsel, text and e-mail communications, and other
    documentation. Appendix B provides a more comprehensive overview
    including the events, dates, parties involved; and supporting
    documentation.
    Wednesday, August 28, 2019
       5:02 p.m.: Susan Buchanan (NWS Communications Director)
            releases NOAA Communications media plan for Hurricane Dorian.
    Thursday, August 29, 2019
       Dr. Neil Jacobs (NOAA Acting Administrator) leads a briefing
            on Hurricane Dorian at the White House. A NOAA graphic (the one
            that later appears altered with a black marker) is used in the
            briefing.
    Saturday, August 31, 2019
       4:00 p.m.: President Trump receives a briefing on Hurricane
            Dorian via video teleconference while he is at Camp David.
    Sunday, September 1, 2019
       8:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m.: NWS Birmingham WFO receives multiple
            phone calls from the public. Two of the calls come in directly
            after the President's tweet at 10:51 a.m.

       10:51 a.m.: President Trump tweets that Alabama, ``will most
            likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated.''

       11:11 a.m.: NWS Birmingham WFO tweets that, ``Alabama will
            NOT see any impacts from #Dorian.'' (``the September 1
            Birmingham Tweet'').

       12:31 p.m.: President Trump is briefed on Hurricane Dorian
            at Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA)
            Headquarters. Ken Graham (Director of the National Hurricane
            Center (NHC)) leads the briefing.

       3:00 p.m.: Chris Vaccaro (Senior Media Relations Specialist
            at NOAA) sent an e-mail to the NWS Public Affairs team
            directing that all media inquiries be sent to him and Julie
            Roberts (Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Communications
            at NOAA).

       3:06 p.m.: Julie Roberts sends an e-mail asking all NWS
            offices to consult with NOAA Office of Communications before
            responding to any social media inquiries.

       4:49 p.m.: Andrew Stern (Manager of NWS Operations Center)
            sends an e-mail to the NWS Operations Center staff to inform
            a11 Regional Operation Centers (ROC) and WFOs to ``only stick
            with official NHC forecasts if questions arise from some
            national level social media posts this afternoon. Staff should
            not provide any opinion about the national level post and
            should direct any questions that cannot be satisfied to NOAA
            Public Affairs.''

       9:41 p.m.: Chris Darden (Meteorologist-in-Charge, NWS
            Birmingham WFO) sends an e-mail out to all NWS Birmingham WFO
            staff updating them on the day's events and to forward any
            calls or questions to him.
    Wednesday, September 4, 2019
       12:57 p.m.: President Trump is briefed on Hurricane Dorian
            at the Oval Office in front of the press. A NOAA graphic
            appears to be altered with black marker. This becomes national
            news.

       2:42 p.m.: Julie Roberts e-mails George Jungbluth (NWS Chief
            of Staff) and tells him that NOAA Communications is handling
            ``the situation'' and ``there should be no action taken by
            anyone within the National Weather Service or the National
            Hurricane Center.''

       3:37 p.m.: NWS Operations Center sends out a media guidance
            to all ROCs and National Centers asking that they do not
            respond via social media or other modes to any questions
            related the tweets.

       4:45 p.m.: Chris Darden sends an e-mail out to all NWS
            Birmingham WFO staff updating them that NOAA Headquarters
            called Darden and asked all further media inquiries to be
            forwarded to Chris Vaccaro at NOAA Communications.
    Thursday, September 5, 2019
       5:36 p.m.: Chris Vaccaro sends an e-mail asking NWS to
            resend the September 4 media guidance. Vaccaro states in the e-
            mail that forecasters should not communicate with media via
            their personal Twitter accounts.

       7:48 p.m.: George Jungbluth resends September 4 media
            guidance to NWS personnel.
       Approximately 7:00 p.m.: Secretary Wilbur Ross (Commerce)
            calls Dr. Neil Jacobs and asks him to prepare a timeline of
            events and communications surrounding Dorian.

       10:53 p.m.: Dr. Neil Jacobs calls Julie Roberts and informs
            Roberts of Jacobs' phone call with Secretary Ross.
    Friday, September 6, 2019
       2:30 a.m.: Julie Roberts receives a phone call from
            Secretary Wilbur Ross' personal assistant and Mike Walsh
            (Department of Commerce Chief of Staff, who had also been
            delegated the duties of General Counsel).

       2:30-3:48 a.m.: Julie Roberts compiles a summary document of
            all events and communications that have happened surrounding
            Dorian h03                h00 and sends the summary to Mike
            Walsh and other Commerce and NOAA employees.

       7:00 a.m.: Julie Roberts calls Dr. Neil Jacobs and fills him
            in on the calls she received from the Secretary earlier that
            morning.

       8:30 a.m.: Julie Roberts and Dr. Neil Jacobs arrive at the
            Commerce office and meet in the Deputy Secretary's conference
            room.\30\ Commerce Officials who participated in all or a
            portion of this meeting include: David Dewhirst (Deputy
            General' Counsel), Kevin Manning (Press Secretary and Deputy
            Director of Public Affairs), Deputy Secretary Karen Dunn
            Kelley, Joe Semsar (Chief of Staff for Deputy Secretary Karen
            Dunn Kelley), and Cordell Hull (Deputy General Counsel and also
            performing the duties of Assistant Secretary for Legislative
            and Intergovernmental Affairs).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ According to Julie Roberts, the meeting was never officially
    convened, ``it was just everyone sitting around the table working on
    whatever we were working on at the time.'' Julie Kay Roberts,
    ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by NOAA General Counsel,
    October 11, 2019: Page 91, Line 18-21; According to Dr. Neil Jacobs,
    ``when Julie [Roberts] and I showed up there was already a couple
    drafts versions of the statement going back and forth floating
    around.'' Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 105, Line 19-21.

       Deputy Secretary Karen Dunn Kelley goes to h03
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            h00 a meeting. h03      h00

       A statement is drafted on David Dewhirst's tablet.

       10:30 a.m.: Julie Roberts goes upstairs and asks Scott
            Smullen (NOAA Deputy Director of Communications) and Chris
            Vaccaro to look at the statement.

       Roberts, Jacobs, Vaccaro, and Smullen edit the September 6
            Statement. Jacobs and Roberts work to ensure that the statement
            is technically accurate. There was a debate about Birmingham.
            Specifically, Jacobs, Roberts, Vaccaro, and Smullen wanted to
            remove the Birmingham part of the statement but were told no by
            Commerce officials.

       Secretary Ross and his staff call to discuss the statement.

       Jacobs and Roberts raise their concern about the Birmingham
            part of the statement but are told they cannot take out the
            reference to the Birmingham office.

       3:00 p.m.: Dr. Neil Jacobs calls Stuart Levenbach (NOAA
            Chief of Staff) and tells him about the statement.

       3:11 p.m.: David Dewhirst e-mails Mike Walsh a copy of the
            statement for approval.

       Between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m.: Dr. Neil Jacobs calls Stuart
            Levenbach, Dr. Louis Uccellini (NOAA Assistant Administrator,
            Director of NWS), and Taylor Jordan (NOAA Senior Policy
            Advisor) to tell them about the statement before it goes out.

       3:43 p.m.: David Dewhirst e-mails Julie Roberts a copy of
            the statement after it has been approved by senior political
            leaders at Commerce.

       4:00 p.m.: Julie Roberts and Dr. Neil Jacobs reach out to
            Benjamin Friedman (NOAA Deputy Under Secretary for Operations)
            to let him know about the statement before it goes out.

       4:40 p.m.: Dr. Louis Uccellini and other NOAA officials
            speak over the phone with Chris Darden to give him a heads up
            before the statement goes out.

       4:45 p.m.: NOAA Communications releases September 6
            Statement that says Hurricane Dorian could have impacted
            Alabama and that the September 1 Birmingham Tweet was
            ``inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast
            products available at the time.''

       4:52 p.m.: Chris Vaccaro sends out an e-mail to NOAA
            personnel informing them that the statement has been
            distributed and that inquiries ``should solely be directed to''
            the NOAA Office of Communications line. E-mail gets forwarded
            to other NOAA staff.

       5:31 p.m.: NOAA Communications posts the statement on
            Twitter.

       6:00 p.m.: Chris Darden sends out an e-mail to the NWS
            Birmingham WFO staff informing them of the statement and
            commending them on the work they do to support Alabama. Darden
            asks the staff to ``please be cautious about commenting
            publicly'' on the statement.

       8:22 p.m.: Stuart Levenbach e-mails Dr. Louis Uccellini and
            tells Uccellini that he (Levenbach) was not involved in any
            part of drafting the statement. To Levenbach's knowledge,
            Roberts and Jacobs were the only people from NOAA involved in
            writing the statement.
    Saturday, September 7, 2019
       2:26 a.m.: Stuart Levenbach e-mails Kevin Wheeler (NOAA
            Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy) with a summary of how the
            statement was developed as Levenbach understood it from a call
            with Dr. Jacobs.

       3:11 p.m.: All hands e-mail sent out to NWS staff thanking
            them for their work oil Hurricane Dorian.
    Monday, September 9, 2019
       Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Dr. Richard Spinrad, and Dr. Andrew
            Rosenberg file an allegation of violation of NOAA's Scientific
            Integrity Policy.
    Tuesday, September, 10, 2019
       Representative Paul Tonko files an allegation of violation
            of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy.

       Craig McLean files an allegation of violation of NOAA's
            Scientific Integrity Policy.
    Wednesday, September 11, 2019
       Dr. Carl Childs files an allegation of violation of NOAA's
            Scientific Integrity Policy.

       Craig McLean provides more alleged violations of NOAA's
            Scientific Integrity Policy to expand upon his allegation filed
            on September 10.
                    Chapter 6: Findings and Recommendations
    6.1 Criteria to Assess Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
        Based on its review of applicable policies and rules, the Panel
    identifies five criteria to guide the assessment of allegations of
    scientific misconduct filed under NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy.
    Criteria One: Scientific research should be independent from political
            interference. Political officials and agency employees should
            not suppress or alter scientific findings and conclusions.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Barack Obama, ``Memorandum to the Heads of Executive
    Departments and Agencies, Subject: Scientific Integrity,'' March 9,
    2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NOAA is a scientific agency, and its ability to advance its mission
    relies on the ``transparency, traceability, and scientific integrity at
    all levels.'' \32\ The intent of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy
    (NOAA Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity) is to
    protect the independence of the agency's scientific research and
    strengthen public confidence in the quality and reliability of NOAA
    scientific activities. Scientists should feel that they can focus on
    their research free of political concerns. For example, the policy
    states:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``NOAA
    Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity,'' December 7,
    2011: Section 4.01

            Section 7.02. All individuals [NOAA employees and contractors]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            identified in Section 2.02 must not:

       Suppress, alter, or otherwise impede the timely release of
            scientific or technological findings or conclusions, unless
            explicitly required by a Department or government-wide statute,
            regulation, Executive Order, Presidential Memorandum, or other
            legal authority.

       Intimidate or coerce employees, contractors, recipients of
            financial assistance awards, or others to alter or censor
            scientific findings.

       Implement institutional barriers to cooperation and the
            timely communication of scientific findings or technology.

        In addition, the Department of Commerce Public Communication Policy
    (Department Administrative Order 219-1: Public Communications)
    clarifies that the role of the Office of Communications is to provide
    media expertise and assist with the communication of scientific
    information.

            Section 5.03. All public affairs employees shall adhere to the
            following best practices:

       Assist with presentation, style, and logistics of scientific
            and engineering information, but not alter its substance in
            anyway.
    Criteria Two: Scientists have the right to communicate with media and
            the public about scientific research findings based on their
            official work.
        NOAA has adopted policies and procedures to ensure a culture of
    transparency and openness and facilitate the free flow of scientific
    information. N0AA's Scientific Integrity Policy includes provisions
    that provide scientists the right to speak publicly about their
    scientific research:

            Section 4.05. To be open and transparent about their work, and
            consistent with DAO 219-1 on (Public Communications) and their
            official duties, NOAA scientists may freely speak to the media
            and the public about scientific and technical matters based on
            their official work, including scientific and technical ideas,
            approaches, findings, and conclusions based on their official
            work. Additional guidance for employees is available in DAO
            219-1. Communication by e-mail or other electronic means in
            response to inquiries from the media, and concerning scientific
            or technical matters based on an employee's official work, are
            considered to be the same as oral communication and not subject
            to approval, but are still subject to the restrictions on
            protected non-public information set forth in DAO 219-1. Social
            media communications are governed by the Department of Commerce
            Policy on the Approval and Use of Social Media and Web 2.0, as
            well as DAO 219-1.

            Section 4.06. NOAA scientists are free to present viewpoints,
            for example about policy or management matters, that extend
            beyond their scientific findings to incorporate their expert or
            personal opinions, but in doing so they just make clear that
            they are presenting their individual opinions--not the views of
            the Department of Commerce or NOAA. In such cases, NOAA
            personnel may also note their NOAA affiliation as part of their
            biographical information, provided that their NOAA affiliation
            is noted as one of several biographical details, or, if the
            information is being published in a scientific or technical
            journal, their NOAA affiliation may be listed with an
            appropriate disclaimer. Appropriate disclaimers for use by NOAA
            scientists when expressing such opinions will be posted to the
            Scientific Integrity Commons website.

            Section 5.02. NOAA will:

                    (a)  Ensure the free flow of scientific information
                    online and in other formats, consistent with privacy
                    and classification standards, and in keeping with the
                    Department of Commerce and NOAA data sharing and
                    management policies. Whenever appropriate, this
                    information will include data and models underlying
                    regulatory proposals and other policy decisions.

                    (d)  Ensure that NOAA and Department of Commerce public
                    communications guidance provides procedures by which
                    scientists may speak to the media and the public about
                    scientific and technical matters based on their
                    official work and areas of expertise. In no
                    circumstances may any NOAA official ask or direct
                    Federal scientists or other NOAA employees to suppress
                    or alter scientific findings.

                    (k)  Ensure the sharing of best administrative and
                    management practices that promote the integrity of
                    NOAA's scientific activities.

        Similarly, Commerce's Public Communication Policy explicitly allows
    scientists to engage with the media to discuss their scientific
    research.

            Section 4.01(d). In support of a culture of openness, and
            consistent with this Order and their official duties,
            Department employees may speak to the media and the public
            about their official work and freely and openly discuss
            scientific and technical ideas, approaches, findings, and
            conclusions based on their official work.
    Criteria Three: Scientists have the right to review and correct any
            official document that cites or references their scientific
            work to ensure the accuracy of the information.
        NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy requires that NOAA official
    documents, including press releases, be reviewed by scientists who
    conduct the research to ensure the integrity of its scientific process
    and products:

            Section 7.01. Science managers and supervisors will ensure:\33\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``NOAA
    Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity,'' December 7,
    2011: Section 2.02.

       Appropriate rules and procedures are in place and
            implemented to preserve the integrity of the scientific process
            and the dissemination of its scientific products and
            information, including providing scientists the right to review
            and correct any official document (such as a press release or
            report) that cites or references their scientific work, to
            ensure that accuracy has been maintained after the clearance
            and editing process.
    Criteria Four: NOAA employees and supervisors should report suspected
            cases of scientific or research misconduct.
        NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy requires that NOAA employees and
    supervisors report suspected scientific misconduct:

            Section 6.01(d). All NOAA employees and contractors should:

       Immediately report any observed, suspected, or apparent
            Scientific and Research Misconduct through means established in
            Section 8 and the Procedural Handbook for this Order.

            Section 7.05. NOAA science managers and supervisors will
            immediately report suspected cases of scientific or research
            misconduct through means established under Section 8 and the
            Procedural Handbook for this Order.
    Criteria Five: Any Official Communication intended for the media must
            be submitted in a timely manner before the communication occurs
            to the head of the operating unit or Secretarial office, or
            their designee(s), and to the Appropriate Public Affairs Office
            (as defined in Section 8.05) for approval.
        Commerce's Public Communication Policy clearly lays out the
    Department's approval process for Official Communication materials
    intended for the media. The head of the operating unit and the Public
    Affairs Office must sign off on Official Communication materials prior
    to their public release.

            Section 8.01. Approval. For any Official Communication intended
            for the media (e.g., news releases, interviews/news
            conferences), all written and audiovisual materials that are,
            or are prepared or received in connection with, the Official
            Communication must be submitted in a timely manner before the
            communication occurs to the head of the operating unit or
            Secretarial office, or their designee(s), and to the
            Appropriate Public Affairs Office (as defined in Section 8.05)
            for approval in a timely manner. The Appropriate Public Affairs
            Office will be responsible for coordinating the finalization of
            the communication with the originating offices, including
            pertinent staff. Unless otherwise authorized by the Appropriate
            Public Affairs Office, all Official Communications with the
            media will be on-the-record (i.e., attributable to the person
            making the remarks or providing information or materials).
    6.2 Adjudication Standards
        The Panel followed the procedures and processes provided by the
    Scientific Integrity Policy's accompanying Procedural Handbook to
    conduct this assessment. The Procedural Handbook identifies two
    categories of potential violation of the Scientific Integrity Policy:
    (i) scientific misconduct and (2) loss of scientific integrity.
        Section 8.01 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy defines
    scientific misconduct:

            Section 8.01. Scientific and Research Misconduct is defined as
            fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
            performing, or reviewing scientific and research activities, or
            in the products or reporting of these activities. Scientific
            and Research Misconduct specifically includes:

       intentional circumvention of the integrity of the science
            and research process by violation of NOAA's Code of Ethics for
            Science Supervision and Management; and

       actions that compromise the scientific process by violating
            NOAA's Code of Scientific Conduct.

       Scientific and Research Misconduct does not include honest
            error or differences of opinion.

        The adjudication standards for scientific misconduct are set forth
    in Section 2.01 of the Procedural Handbook. The evidence required to
    support findings of scientific misconduct are:

       Significant departure from accepted practices of the
            relevant research community and violated the NOAA Code of
            Scientific Conduct or Code of Ethics for Science Supervision
            and Management set forth in NAO 202-735D;

       Commit misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless
            disregard of the Code of Scientific Conduct or Code of Ethics
            for Science Supervision and Management in NAO 202-735D;

       The allegation is supported by a preponderance of evidence.

        The Procedural Handbook does not include explicit criteria to
    determine a loss of scientific integrity and only provides limited
    guidance:

            Section 2.03. Coercive manipulation, intimidation,
            misrepresentation, censorship, or other misconduct that affects
            the quality or reliability of scientific information may
            involve the loss of scientific integrity,

            Section 2.04. In the event the NOAA SIO and/or DO determines by
            a preponderance of the evidence that a loss of scientific
            integrity has taken place, but o misconduct is evident, the
            NOAA SIO and/or DO will propose and ensure appropriate action
            is taken to restore NOAA's scientific integrity.
    6.3. Findings and Recommendations
        Having conducted its analysis, the Panel selected three key
    allegations for deliberation. The Panel notes that certain allegations
    submitted for review were either subsumed by one of the three selected
    or did not rise to the level of an actual violation. The table
    following the copies of allegations in Appendix E provides a summary of
    the rationale for selection of the allegations under review. For each,
    the report provides the supporting facts, analysis, findings, and
    recommendations. The attendant facts were drawn from the team's review
    of prior testimonies, supplemental interviews, and a review of
    documents listed in Appendix H.
        In considering the allegations, the Panel recognizes that the
    September 6 Statement and the September 1 Birmingham Tweet discussed
    herein are inextricably linked. The September 6 Statement directly
    addressed the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and the underlying science.
    Second, the Panel considered both the content and process by which the
    September 6 Statement was developed and released. The Panel
    acknowledges the unique nature of the circumstances surrounding the
    September 6 Statement, including the extensive involvement of the
    media. Finally, it is the reasoned opinion of the Panel, that in the
    aggregate, the evidence gathered in this inquiry is appropriate and
    sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for the findings and
    conclusions contained herein.
    Allegation One: NOAA Media Guidance limited the ability of scientists
            to communicate with the media and the public about their
            research findings.
        Media guidance issued by NOAA leadership between September 1 and 6,
    2019, limited the ability of scientists to communicate with the media
    and the public about their research findings. Policies allegedly
    violated include Section 4.05, Section 4.06, Section 5.02 (a), (d), and
    (k) of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy; and Section 4.01 of
    Commerce's Public Communication Policy.
    Conditions Observed
        Between September 1 and 6, 2019, NOAA Office of Communications sent
    out various e-mails to National Weather Service (NWS) leadership, the
    NWS Public Affairs team, and Communications staff directing NWS offices
    and staff to route any media request to NOAA Office of Communications
    and not to respond to any questions via media and social media either
    officially or through personal Twitter accounts. NWS issued several
    media guidance communications instructing staff to stick with official
    forecasts and direct media inquiries to NOAA Office of Communications.
    Table 6-1 below summarizes the media instructions from NOAA
    Communications and NWS.

         Table 6-1 Media Guidance (September 1, 2019-September 6, 2019)
                      Times Shown in Eastern Time Zone (ET)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    E-mails from NOAA     September 1, 2019, 3:00 p.m. Chris Vaccaro, Senior
     Communications        Media Relations Specialist, sent an e-mail to the
                           NWS Public Affairs team and communication staff--
                           ``all media inquiries about the President's tweet
                           and the Birmingham tweet should be directed to me
                           and Julie Roberts.''
                         ---------------------------------------------------
                          September 1, 2019, 3:06 p.m. Julie Roberts, Deputy
                           Chief of Staff, sends an e-mail to the NWS Public
                           Affairs team and communication staff--``please
                           ask all NWS offices to consult with us before
                           responding to any social media inquiries.''
                         ---------------------------------------------------
                          September 4, 2019, 2:42 p.m. Julie Roberts e-mails
                           George Jungbluth (NWS Chief of Staff)--``we are
                           handling the situation there should be no action
                           taken by anyone within the National Weather
                           Service or the National Hurricane Center.''
                         ---------------------------------------------------
                          September 4, 2019, 2:44 p.m. Julie Roberts e-mails
                           George Jungbluth, Jeremy Andrucyk (NWS Director
                           of Communications), Mary Erickson (NWS Deputy
                           Director), and Dr. Louis Uccellini (NWS
                           Director)--``Please ask NWS Social Media not to
                           respond to the messages going out. Any media
                           inquiries to NWS should be directed to Chris to
                           handle.''
                         ---------------------------------------------------
                          September 5, 2019, 5:36 p.m. Chris Vaccaro sends
                           an e-mail to George Jungbluth; Susan Buchanan
                           (NWS Public Affairs Officer); and Jeremy
                           Andrucyk, asking NSW to resend the September 4
                           media guidance. Vaccaro also states in the e-mail
                           that forecasters should not communicate with
                           media via their personal Twitter accounts.
                         ---------------------------------------------------
                          September 6, 2019, 4:52 p.m. Chris Vaccaro sends
                           out an e-mail to NOAA personnel informing them
                           that the statement has been distributed and that
                           inquiries ``should solely be directed to'' the
                           NOAA Office of Communications line. E-mail gets
                           forwarded around between NOAA staff.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    E-mails from NWS      September 1, 2019, 4:49 p.m. Andrew Stern
     Operations Center     (Operations Center Manager, NWS) sends out an e-
                           mail to the NWS Operations Center to inform all
                           Regional Operation Centers (ROC) and Weather
                           Forecast Offices to ``only stick with official
                           NHC forecasts if questions arise from some
                           national level social media posts this afternoon.
                           Staff should not provide any opinion about the
                           national level post and should direct any
                           questions that cannot be satisfied to NOAA Public
                           Affairs.''
                         ---------------------------------------------------
                          September 4, 2019, 9:41 p.m. NWS Operations Center
                           sends out a media guidance to all ROCs and
                           National Centers asking that they do not respond
                           via social media, or other, to any questions
                           related to the tweets.
                         ---------------------------------------------------
                          September 5, 2019, 7:48 p.m. George Jungbluth sent
                           an e-mail asking all media questions to be
                           forwarded to NOAA Communications.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Criteria
        The NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy and Commerce Public
    Communication Policy affords scientists the right to freely communicate
    their scientific opinions with the media in Section 4.05, Section 4.06,
    and Section 5.02 (a), (d), and (k) of NOAA's Scientific Integrity
    Policy and Section 4.01 of Commerce's Public Communication Policy.
    Analysis
        As presented above, NOAA and NWS leadership issued multiple media
    instructions between September 1 and 6, 2019. Some Complainants
    perceived the media guidance as restricting the ability of WFO
    meteorologists to communicate with the media and the public about their
    research findings.\34\ They allege that the media guidance violated
    Section 4.05, Section 4.06, and Section 5.02 (a), (d), and (k) of
    NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy; Supporting this position, Chris
    Darden noted in the interview that he felt he was not at liberty to
    speak to the press--''we certainly felt pressure not to say anything.''
    \35\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ Jane Lubchenco, Richard Spinrad, and Andrew Rosenberg,
    ``Allegation 2019-008,'' September 9, 2019; Craig N. McLean,
    ``Allegation 2019-007,'' September 10, 2019.
        \35\ Chris Darden; ``Interview of Chris Darden,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, October 21, 2019: Page 157, Line 13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In contrast, staff from NOAA's Office of Communications explained
    that the purpose of the media instructions was to shield NOAA forecast
    offices and forecasters from aggressive media reporters--not to prevent
    scientists from discussing their research with the media.\36\ Further,
    as Hurricane Dorian was still active during this period, NOAA senior
    management felt it was critical for the affected scientists to focus on
    their work and avoid the press.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ Julie Kay Roberts, ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview
    by NOAA General Counsel, October 11, 2019; Chris Vaccaro, ``Interview
    of Chris Vaccaro,'' interview by Academy Team, January 17, 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For example, an e-mail from Chris Vaccaro (Senior Media Relations
    Specialist, NOAA Office of Communications) to NWS leadership instructed
    forecasters not to engage with the media on their personal Twitter
    accounts,'' In light of today's additional tweets, can this message be
    resent as a reminder? Additionally, I hear that reporters may be
    contacting forecasters on their personal Twitter accounts and they
    should not engage.'' \37\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ Julie Kay Robert, ``Interview of Julie Kay Roberts,''
    interview by NOAA General Counsel, October 11, 2019: Exhibit 17.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In separate interviews, Roberts and Vaccaro from NOAA's Office of
    Communications explained that, similar to prior media instructions,
    Vaccaro's e-mail was not intended to limit scientists' ability to
    communicate their views on their personal social media accounts but
    rather to protect NOAA employees from the social media from surrounding
    the September 1 Birmingham Tweet.
        In addition, several NOAA officials stated in their interviews that
    it is the agency's standard operating procedure to issue this type of
    media guidance in controversial situations or if there is a high level
    of media inquiries.\38\ Moreover, the officials stated that it is the
    responsibility of NOAA's Office of Communications to develop a
    coordinated, agency-wide communication strategy in such circumstances.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 158, Lines 13-14.; Julie Kay
    Roberts; ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by NOAA General
    Counsel, October 11, 2019: Page 46, Line 11; Louis Uccellini,
    ``Interview of Louis Uccellini,'' interview by NOAA General Counsel,
    November 26, 2019: Page 41-43.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While NOAA and NWS Communication officials maintain that issuing
    media guidance is standard operating procedure, the agency does not
    have formal processes in place, and it is not clear who has the final
    authority to review and approve media guidance. As Vaccaro noted, the
    decision to issue media guidance is typically made in consultation with
    the leaders within the Office of Communications and the impacted line
    office/operating branch.\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ Chris Vaccaro, ``Interview of Chris Vaccaro,'' interview by
    Academy Team, January 17, 2020: Page 31, Lines 19-22.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Findings
        The Panel determined by a preponderance of the evidence on record
    that the allegation that the media guidance issued by NOAA leadership
    between September 1 and 6, 2019, did not constitute scientific
    misconduct or a loss of scientific integrity.
        The Panel recognizes that a key component of the Scientific
    Integrity Policy is to ensure the free flow of scientific information
    and for scientists to communicate with the media and the public about
    their research findings. Conversely, in times of an emergency, it is
    important to develop a coordinated, effective communication approach
    with the press and public at large.
    Recommendations
        The Panel proposes the following recommendations for the
    Determining Officer to consider to safeguard against future violations
    of scientific integrity:

       Develop formal policy guidelines for the issuance of media
            guidance to NOAA staff. Specifically, these guidelines should
            clarify roles and responsibilities, institutionalize the
            process, and identify the circumstances under which the agency
            should issue media guidance.

       Develop an interagency framework (that includes other
            Federal agencies and the White House) for the sharing of
            scientific data and materials concerning severe weather related
            events. The framework would include protocols for the timely
            update of information to reflect changing weather conditions
            and the release of the information to the general public.
    Allegation Two: Contrary to the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy,
            forecasters in the Birmingham office were not permitted to
            review the draft September 6 Statement prior to its release.
        NWS Birmingham WFO forecasters were not provided the opportunity to
    review and opine on the September 6 Statement that referenced the
    September 1 Birmingham Tweet and underlying scientific activity. The
    policy allegedly violated is Section 7.01 of NOAA's Scientific
    Integrity Policy.
    Conditions Observed
        As discussed below in Allegation 3, senior Commerce officials
    largely directed the drafting of the September 6 Statement. In
    addition, two senior NOAA political appointees were involved in the
    development of September 6 Statement: Dr. Neil Jacobs (NOAA Acting
    Administrator) and Julie Roberts (Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of
    Communications). Two NOAA senior career officials, Chris Vaccaro
    (Senior Communication Specialist) and Scott Smullen (Deputy Director of
    Communications), reviewed an early draft of the statement and offered
    their comments. However, they left the meeting before the statement was
    finalized,\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Julie Kay Roberts, ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview
    by NOM General Counsel, October 11, 2019: Page 98, Line 1-17; Chris
    Vaccaro, ``Interview of Chris Vaccaro,'' interview by Academy Team,
    January 17, 2020: Page 58-64.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Shortly before the release of the statement, Jacobs and Roberts
    contacted other NOAA officials, including Benjamin Friedman (NOAA
    Deputy Under Secretary for Operations), Dr. Louis Uccellini, Stuart
    Levenbach (NOAA Chief of Staff), and Taylor Jordan (Senior Policy
    Advisor) to inform them of the statement. These officials were not
    provided the opportunity to provide substantive input in the drafting
    of the draft statement.\41\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 160, Line 12-15; Julie Kay
    Roberts, ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by NOAA General
    Counsel, October 11, 2019: Page 109, Line 4-7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dr. Louis Uccellini and several other NWS officials contacted Chris
    Darden (Meteorologist-in-Charge, NWS Birmingham Office) to advise him
    that the statement would be released. However, according to Darden, by
    the time he actually read the statement, it had already been
    released.\42\ As such, the forecasters in the Birmingham office were
    not afforded an opportunity to review the September 6 Statement before
    it went out.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ Chris Darden, ``Interview of Chris Darden,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, October 21, 2019: Page 162, Line 21-23.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Criteria
        The NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy provides scientists the right
    to review and correct any official document that cites or references
    their scientific work to ensure the accuracy of the information.
    Section 7.01 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy states:

            Appropriate rules and procedures are in place and implemented
            to preserve the integrity of the scientific process and the
            dissemination of its scientific products and information,
            including providing scientists the right to review and correct
            any official document (such as a press release or report) that
            cites or references their scientific work, to ensure that
            accuracy has been maintained after the clearance and editing
            process.\43\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``NOAA
    Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity,'' December 7,
    2011: Section 7.01.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Analysis
        NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy defines a ``scientific product''
    as the ``presentation of the results of scientific activities including
    the analysis, synthesis, compilation, or translation of scientific
    information and data into formats for the use of NOAA, the Department
    of Commerce, or the Nation.'' \44\ According to this definition, the
    September 1 Birmingham Tweet is a scientific product, as it reflects
    the forecasters' professional judgment and is based on the results of
    the forecasters' scientific activities. Further, as discussed above,
    Section 7.01 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy provides scientists
    the right to review and correct any official document that cites or
    references their scientific work to ensure the accuracy of the
    information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ NOAA, Section 3, Definition of Scientific Product.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As the September 6 Statement references and criticizes the
    September 1 Birmingham Tweet, a draft of the statement should have been
    provided to the Birmingham office for review and comment prior to its
    release.
        In contrast with this requirement, the Birmingham office was not
    afforded the opportunity to review the draft September 6 Statement. By
    the time Jacobs and Roberts communicated with other NOAA and NWS senior
    officials and Uccellini had been in contact with Darden, the draft
    statement was already in its finished form. According to Uccellini, the
    purpose of the phone call with Chris Darden was not to solicit his
    feedback, but rather to give him notice that the statement would be
    released shortly.\45\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ Louis Uccellini, ``Interview of Louis Uccellini,'' interview
    by NOAA General Counsel, November 26, 2019: Page 108, Line 3-12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Certain interviewees explained that while the September 6 Statement
    was released by NOAA Communications, it was not a true NOAA Official
    Communication as the drafting of the statement did not follow NOAA's
    standard press release development process and protocols.\46\ Further,
    senior Commerce officials took the lead in the development and release
    of the statement. Roberts stated in her first interview that, under the
    circumstances, there was no practical opportunity to engage the
    Birmingham office in the development of the statement and Roberts felt
    that even if she had raised the issue with Commerce officials, it would
    not have made any difference.\47\ Jacobs also stated in his interview
    that ``feedback probably wasn't going to make a whole lot of
    difference.'' \48\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ Julie Roberts, ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by
    NOAA General Counsel, October 11, 2019; Chris Vaccaro, ``Interview of
    Chris Vaccaro,'' interview by Academy Team, January 17, 2020.
        \47\ Julie Roberts, ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by
    NOAA General Counsel, October 11, 2019.
        \48\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 162, Line 13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The September 6 Statement was issued as a NOAA Official
    Communication and distributed through NOAA's system and as a result,
    NOAA's relevant polices and procedural requirements are applicable.
    According to Section 8.01 of Commerce's Public Communication Policy,
    the head of the operating unit and the Public Affairs office have the
    authority to approve and issue Official Communication materials and
    therefore are responsible for ensuring compliance with NOAA's
    procedural requirements.
        The Panel recognizes that the September 6 Statement is different
    from a normal NOAA press release but nonetheless concludes that it is
    an Official Communication. Consequently, as the NOAA Acting
    Administrator and the Director of NOAA Communications,\49\ Jacobs and
    Roberts had a responsibility to ensure that NOAA's Scientific Integrity
    Policy and other procedural requirements were followed. This did not
    happen during the meeting with Commerce officials or at other critical
    points on September 6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ NOAA does not have an Office of Public Affairs. NOAA
    Communications serves as the agency's Office of Public Affairs. Julie
    Roberts' title was Deputy Chief of Staff, but she also served as the
    Director of Communications.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, Jacobs stated in his interview with NOAA General
    Counsel that his interpretation of the Scientific Integrity Policy is
    that a NOAA press release should be reviewed by scientists, but not
    necessarily he scientist who was involved in the original research.
    Jacobs said he reviewed the draft statement and that in his opinion as
    a trained scientist, the September 6 Statement was technically
    accurate.\50\ However, section 7.01 of the Scientific Integrity Policy
    requires that the scientists who actually produced the scientific work
    have the opportunity to offer comments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 162.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Moreover, Section 7.01 of the Scientific Integrity Policy requires
    that NOAA science managers and supervisors ensure appropriate rules and
    procedures are in place to provide scientists the opportunity to review
    and comment on the agency's official documents. Some interviewees
    stated that NOAA scientists are normally involved in the development of
    the agency's communication materials.\51\ However, the Panel learned
    that NOAA lacks formal procedures to ensure compliance with Section
    7.01 of the Scientific Integrity Policy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \51\ Julie Roberts, ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by
    NOAA General Counsel, October 11, 2019; Chris Vaccaro, ``Interview of
    Chris Vaccaro,'' interview by Academy Team, January 17, 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Findings
        The Panel determined by a preponderance of the evidence on the
    record that Dr. Nell Jacobs and Julie Roberts violated the Code of
    Ethics for Science Supervision and Management, set forth in Section
    7.01 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy, when they failed to engage
    the Birmingham office in the development of the September 6 Statement.
    Further, the Panel finds that they engaged in the misconduct
    intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the Code of
    Scientific Conduct or Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and
    Management in NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy.
    Recommendations
        The Panel proposes the following recommendations for the
    Determining Officer to consider to safeguard against future violations
    of scientific integrity:

       Develop a written policy statement on the right of NOAA
            scientists to review, comment, and amend any Official
            Communication that relies on their scientific analysis. This
            statement will complement NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy.

       Revise NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy's accompanying
            Procedural Handbook to include criteria and supporting examples
            to assist with the determination of scientific misconduct and a
            loss of scientific integrity. For example, NOAA could cite this
            case as an example of a violation of NOAA's Scientific
            Integrity Policy and scientific misconduct with regards to
            several criteria.
    Allegation Three: The drafting and release of the September 6 Statement
            was driven by external political pressure.
        The drafting and release of the September 6 Statement was driven by
    external political pressure from Commerce senior leaders. Further, the
    September 6 Statement inappropriately criticized Birmingham's September
    1 Tweet and underlying scientific activity and compromised NOAA's
    reputation as an independent scientific agency. These actions violated
    Section 7.02 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy.
    Conditions Observed
        The drafting and release of the September 6 Statement did not
    follow standard NOAA policies and procedures. Although NOAA policies
    call for NOAA scientists and Communications officials to work
    collaboratively on an Official Communication, senior Commerce officials
    largely directed the drafting of the September 6 Statement.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 104, Lines 17-22; Julie
    Roberts, ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by Academy Team,
    January 23, 2020: Page 36, Lines 10-12; Chris Vaccaro, ``Interview of
    Chris Vaccaro,'' interview by Academy Team, January 17, 2020: Page 76,
    Lines 12-18.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the morning of September 6, senior Commerce officials convened a
    meeting to develop the public statement. The meeting took place in a
    conference room of the Commerce office building. Commerce officials
    (and their titles at the time of the events in question) who
    participated in all or a portion of this meeting include:

       David Dewhirst, Deputy General Counsel;

       Kevin Manning, Press Secretary and Deputy Director of Public
            Affairs;

       Joe Semsar, Chief of Staff for Deputy Secretary Karen Dunn
            Kelley;

       Deputy Secretary Karen Dunn Kelley; and

       Cordell Hull, Deputy General Counsel and also performing the
            duties of Assistant Secretary for Legislative and
            Intergovernmental Affairs.

        Four NOAA officials, including Dr. Neil Jacobs, Julie Roberts,
    Chris Vaccaro, and Scott Smullen, were involved in the preparation of
    the September 6 Statement, Vaccaro and Smullen reviewed an early draft
    version of the statement and offered comments but did not participate
    in other parts of the discussion.
        Jacobs and Roberts joined the meeting around 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time
    Zone. At that point, the draft statement had already been drafted on
    Dewhirst's tablet and was subsequently read to everyone in the room.
    Jacobs and Roberts said in their interviews that they participated in
    the discussion on the technical aspect of the statement to ensure it
    was scientifically accurate.\53\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 122; Julie Roberts, ``Interview
    of Julie Roberts,'' interview by NOAA General Counsel, October 11,
    2019: Page 99.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to several interviews,\54\ there was a discussion about
    the draft statement's criticism of the Birmingham WFO. NOAA officials
    (Jacobs, Roberts, Vaccaro, and Smullen) proposed to remove the
    reference to the Birmingham office from the statement, but this
    suggestion was rejected by Commerce officials. At some point, other
    Commerce officials joined the discussion by phone.\55\ Jacobs and
    Roberts raised the concern about the Birmingham reference again, but
    were told that the Birmingham reference needed to stay in.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \54\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 106, Line 7; Julie Roberts,
    ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by NOAA General Counsel,
    October 11, 2019: Page 98, Line 10; Chris Vaccaro, ``Interview of Chris
    Vaccaro,'' interview by Academy Team, January 17, 2020: Page 46, Lines
    10-15.
        \55\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019; Julie Roberts, ``Interview of Julie
    Roberts,'' interview by NOAA General Counsel, October 11, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dewhirst sent the draft statement to Mike Walsh at 3:11 p.m.
    Eastern Time Zone and forwarded the statement to Julie Roberts at 3:43
    p.m. Eastern Time Zone.\56\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \56\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 180; Julie Roberts, ``Interview
    of Julie Roberts,'' interview by NOAA General Counsel, October 11,
    2019: Page 104.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Roberts, Smullen, and Vaccaro discussed how to release the
    statement.\57\ Roberts noted that there was a request from Commerce to
    not only distribute the statement through the NOAA media distribution
    system, Meltwater, but also post it on NOAA website.\58\ NOAA
    Communications released the statement at 4:52 p.m. Eastern Time Zone:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \57\ Julie Roberts, ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by
    NOAA General Counsel, October 11, 2019: Page 104, Lines 12-19.
        \58\ Roberts, Page 111, Lines 7-11.

            From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the
            information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center
            to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that
            tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact
            Alabama. This is clearly demonstrated in Hurricane Advisories
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            #15 through #41, which can be viewed at the following link.

            The Birmingham National Weather Service's Sunday morning tweet
            spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with
            probabilities from the best forecast products available at the
            time.

        NOAA Communications posted the statement to the agency's website
    and through Twitter.
        The second paragraph of the above statement is widely viewed by
    NOAA officials and scientific staff as a criticism of the September 1
    Birmingham Tweet and underlying scientific activity. For example, Dr.
    Louis Uccellini stated that the September 6 Statement criticizes the
    Birmingham office publicly when forecasters had done their job
    according to all scientific and operational standards.\59\ Chris
    Darden, Meteorologist-in-Charge, Birmingham office, said that the
    impact of the September 6 Statement on his staff was harsh--``when they
    feel like they're basically being told they don't know how to do their
    job or they can't do a job, and that's how they perceive this, then it
    was a real kick in the gut.'' \60\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ Louis Uccellini, ``Interview of Louis Uccellini,'' interview
    by NOAA General Counsel, November 26, 2019: Page 108-109.
        \60\ Chris Darden, ``Interview of Chris Darden,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, October 21, 2019: Page 166, Lines 19-23.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Criteria
        The principal intent of the Scientific Integrity Policy is to
    remove politics from, scientific research and prevent the intentional
    or unintentional suppression of scientific findings and conclusions:
    Section 7.02 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy states:

            All individuals identified in Section 2.02 of this Order must
            not:

       Suppress, alter, or otherwise impede the timely release of
            scientific or technological findings or conclusions, unless
            explicitly required by a Department or government-wide statute,
            regulation, Executive Order, Presidential Memorandum, or other
            legal authority.

       Intimidate or coerce employees contractors, recipients of
            financial assistance awards, or others to alter or censor
            scientific findings.

       Implement institutional barriers to cooperation and the
            timely communication of scientific findings or technology.

        Further, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Memo
    enquires that agencies develop policies to:

            Ensure a culture of scientific integrity. Scientific progress
            depends upon honest investigation, open discussion, refined
            understanding, and a firm commitment to evidence. Science, and
            public trust in science, thrives in an environment that shields
            scientific data and analyses from inappropriate political
            influence; political officials should not suppress or alter
            scientific or technological findings.\61\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \61\ John P. Holden, ``Memorandum to the Heads of Executive
    Departments and Agencies, Subject: Scientific Integrity,'' December 17,
    2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Analysis
        Section 7.02 of the NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy prohibits
    NOAA employees, including political officials, from suppressing or
    altering scientific findings. As discussed below, the development and
    release of the September 6 Statement violated NOM's scientific
    integrity and reputation as an independent scientific agency in several
    respects.
        First, the development and release of the September 6 Statement did
    not follow NOAA's normal process and appear to be the result of strong
    external pressure. Second, the criticism of the Birmingham office in
    the September 6 Statement is not consistent with the intent and
    requirements of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy. This could result
    in a chilling effect on other NOAA staff who might be reluctant to
    share their scientific opinions in the future to avoid similar
    criticism.
    The development of the September 6 Statement did not follow NOAA's
            normal process.
        Under normal conditions, a weather-related statement would be
    drafted by NWS. The head of NWS and his/her senior staff would be
    involved in reviewing the statement. If there were a contentious issue,
    all of the discussions would take place at the line office level first.
    NWS would then send the draft statement to NOAA Communications and NOAA
    leadership for review.\62\ In this case, four NOAA officials reviewed
    the draft September 6 Statement and offered comments before its
    release, but none of the NOAA/NWS senior career officials or
    forecasters played a meaningful role in the development of the
    September 6 Statement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ Craig McLean, ``Interview of Craig McLean,'' interview by
    Academy Team, January 23, 2020: Page 16; Julie Kay Roberts, ``Interview
    of Julie Roberts,'' interview by Academy Team, January 23, 2020: Page
    22.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The September 6 Statement appears to be the result of strong external
            pressure.
        The direction to develop and release the September 6 Statement came
    from Commerce officials. Jacobs said in his first interview that ``I
    think Dewhirst and other DOC folks had probably also spoken to him
    [Walsh] earlier in the morning . . . it was pretty clear that, you
    know, they were given instructions to not just fix the problems, but do
    it with some type of statement.'' \63\ During the meeting on September
    6, Commerce officials took the lead in developing the statement. The
    draft statement was reviewed and approved by Commerce officials before
    its release. The September 6 Statement was issued as a NOAA public
    statement and attributed to a NOAA spokesperson. As Jacobs said, NOAA
    officials thought it was not a good idea to put out this statement, and
    ``no one wanted to own it for obvious reasons.'' \64\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \63\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 104, Lines 17-22.
        \64\ Jacobs, Page 124.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Jacobs said that, during the process, no one told him directly,
    ``do this or you will get fired.'' \65\ However, as Jacobs noted in the
    interview, given ``the amount of panic and concern, and getting called
    at 3 in the morning, it was pretty well implied that this was something
    that was a fireable offense if you disobeyed;'' \66\ Indeed, Jacobs'
    perception was that all the political staff at the meeting thought
    their jobs were in jeopardy.\67\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \65\ Jacobs, Page 100.
        \66\ Jacobs, Page 100-101.
        \67\ Jacobs, Page 168, Lines 4-6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Several NOAA officials, such as Benjamin Friedman and Craig McLean,
    mentioned that they talked to Jacobs subsequent to the release of the
    September 6 Statement, and Jacobs sounded very depressed and appeared
    to be under great stress.\68\ Roberts spoke with Mike Walsh, Commerce
    Chief of Staff, on the phone on September 6 around 2:30 a.m. Walsh told
    Roberts, ``There are jobs on the line. It could be the forecast office
    or it could be somebody higher than that and that's less palatable to
    me.'' \69\ Roberts said she did not think her job was on the line and
    felt that the forecasters in the Birmingham office or Dr. Neil Jacobs
    could lose their jobs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \68\ Friedman, Benjamin, ``Interview of Benjamin Friedman,''
    interview by NOAA General Counsel, October 24, 2019: Page 58; Craig
    McLean, ``Interview of Craig McLean,'' interview by Academy Team,
    January 23, 2020: Page 61.
        \69\ Julie Roberts, ``Interview of Julie Roberts,'' interview by
    NOAA General Counsel, October 11, 2019: Page 70.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The criticism of the Birmingham office in the September 6 Statement is
            not consistent with the intent and requirements of the NOAA
            Scientific Integrity Policy.
        The September 6 Statement's criticism of the September 1 Birmingham
    Tweet's use of absolute terms was inappropriate and inconsistent with
    the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy for several reasons. First, the
    use of absolute terms in communicating weather-related risks to the
    general public is commonly used by meteorologists across the country. A
    review of various WFOs' tweets show that it is common to incorporate
    absolute terms in messages to the public. Appendix G shows examples of
    these messages.
        Second, the use of absolute terms is viewed as an effective tool to
    communicate weather related risk--or the lack thereof--on social media.
    As NOAA meteorologists posit, a key challenge for forecasters during a
    severe weather event is to convert the public's perception of safety
    (optimism bias) to a perception of risk and to induce them to take
    appropriate measures.\70\ Conversely, a scientifically accurate weather
    forecast using risk probabilities and scenario analysis may not be very
    useful to the general public who do not understand probabilities,\71\
    Indeed, a 2016 study on how forecast and warning messages are perceived
    by the general public highlights the importance of separating the
    technical details from the actions that must be taken to protect as
    individual citizens are not concerned about hurricanes in a scientific
    sense.\72\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \70\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
    Weather Service Office of the Chief Learning Officer. ``Radar &
    Applications Course, Storm-Based Warning Fundamentals, Lesson 12:
    Impact Based Warnings: Overview,'' 2017.
        \71\ World Meteorological Organization, ``Guidelines on
    Communicating Forecast Uncertainty,'' WMO/TD No. 1422, 2008.
        \72\ Julie L. Demuth et al., ``Creation and Communication of
    Hurricane Risk Information,'' Bulletin of the American Meteorological
    Society 93, no. 8 (2012): 1133-1145.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Weather Service states that its primary mission is to
    protect lives and property through the timely issuance of watches and
    warnings when there are hazardous weather conditions.\73\ Accordingly,
    the purpose of the September 1 Birmingham Tweet was to communicate the
    risks related to the hurricane to the public so the message should be
    phrased in ways that allow the general public to quickly understand
    it.\74\ An analysis of public hurricane evacuation decisions and
    responses to forecast and warning messages conducted by scientists from
    the National Center for Atmospheric Research in 2016 also found that
    when issuing safety messages, NWS uses strong, personalized language in
    order to get people to follow the instructions of the message,\75\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \73\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
    Weather Service, ``2019-2022 Strategic Plan,'' 2018.
        \74\ Chris Darden, ``Interview of Chris Darden,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel October 21, 2019: Page 144-145.
        \75\ Rebecca E. Morss et al., ``Understanding public hurricane
    evacuation decisions and responses to forecast and warning messages,''
    Weather and Forecasting 31, no. 2 (2016): 395-417.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a prior interview, Dr. Neil Jacobs commented that NWS is still
    in the learning stage and has engaged social scientists to figure out
    the most effective approach to communicating risk probability to the
    general public.\76\ Supporting the benefit of engaging social
    scientists to assist with risk communication, the American
    Meteorological Society (AMS) posits that there is a ``clear and
    compelling need to enhance the utility of weather and climate research
    and the dissemination of atmospheric information using knowledge from
    the social sciences about how individuals and society interact with
    weather and climate.'' \77\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \76\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 129, Line 10.
        \77\ American Meteorological Society, ``Strengthening Social
    Sciences in Weather--Climate Enterprise: Professional Guidance
    Statement,'' February 2, 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third, if a forecast office were to issue an inappropriate or
    inaccurate forecast, it would not be the agency's typical correction
    process to issue a public statement. Jacobs stated that when the
    wording of a forecast is not appropriate, NWS leaders or someone from
    the regional headquarters will send out an e-mail to forecasters.\78\
    McLean said that a forecast office will immediately issue a correction
    if there is an inaccurate forecast or a local misunderstanding. NOAA
    and NWS would not issue an agency-level public statement to correct an
    inappropriate weather forecast and criticize a forecast office.\79\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \78\ Neil Jacobs, ``Interview of Neil Jacobs,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, November 6, 2019: Page 114, Lines 21-22; Page 115,
    Lines 1-3; Page 129, Lines 21-22.
        \79\ Jacobs, Page 115, Lines 5-7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Finally; the criticism of the Birmingham office could potentially
    have a chilling effect on other NOAA staff who might be reluctant to
    share their scientific opinions in the future to avoid similar
    criticism. Several NOAA officials expressed their concerns about the
    possible chilling effects of the September 6 Statement. For example,
    Darden said that scientists in other forecast offices felt ``there is a
    little bit of a fear of `this could happen to us' kind of thing.'' \80\
    McLean said that NOAA is a resilient agency, but many people worry that
    this kind of issue might happen again.\81\ Several NOAA officials
    reported that they received hate e-mails from the public that included
    threatening language.\82\ McLean noted, the September 6 Statement
    ``stirred a lot of people and stirred a lot of emotion.'' \83\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \80\ Chris Darden, ``Interview of Chris Darden,'' interview by NOAA
    General Counsel, October 21, 2019: Page 168, Line 5.
        \81\ Craig McLean, ``Interview of Craig McLean,'' interview by
    Academy Team, January 23, 2020: Page 106, Lines 2-13.
        \82\ Craig McLean, ``Interview of Craig McLean,'' interview by
    Academy Team January 23, 2020: Page 92, Lines 1-6. Page 92, Lines 1-6.
        \83\ McLean, Page 92.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Findings
        The Panel determined by a preponderance of the evidence on the
    record that the actions of Dr. Neil Jacobs and Julie Roberts involving
    the development and issuance of the September 6 Statement violated the
    Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and Management set forth in
    Section 7 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy. Further, the Panel
    finds that they engaged in the misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or
    in reckless disregard of the Code of Scientific Conduct or Code of
    Ethics for Science Supervision and Management in NOAA's Scientific
    Integrity Policy.
        The Panel concludes that the development and issuance of the
    September 6 Statement is not consistent with the intent and
    requirements of NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy.\84\ The September 6
    Statement is viewed by many NOAA/NWS scientists as an inappropriate
    criticism of the Birmingham office, and the development of the
    statement was not based on science but appears to be largely driven by
    external influences from senior Commerce officials who drafted. the
    September 6 Statement. As a result, while there was no direct
    suppression or alteration of scientific findings, the September 6
    Statement might suppress the willingness and ability of NOAA scientific
    staff to express their scientific opinions without reservation in the
    future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \84\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``NOAA
    Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity,'' December 7,
    2011: Section 7.02.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the Commerce Public Communication Policy, the head of
    the operating unit and the public affairs office have the ultimate
    responsibility to approve and issue press releases. For the purpose of
    this analysis, the September 6 Statement was issued as an official NOAA
    statement, and as the head of the agency and the Director of
    Communications, Dr. Neil Jacobs and Julie Roberts should take
    responsibility for the September 6 Statement.
        While Jacobs and Roberts violated NOAA's Scientific Integrity
    Policy, there is a contextual factor for the Determining Official to
    consider. NOAA officials--Dr. Neil Jacobs and Julie Roberts--followed
    the direction from Commerce officials to issue the September 6
    Statement. While they expressed their objections to criticizing the
    Birmingham WFO in the statement, they were overridden by Commerce
    officials. While it was Jacobs' and Roberts' choice to issue the
    September 6 Statement as the pertinent leaders of the agency, they
    purported to believe that it was out of their hands. It is important
    for the Determining Official to take into account the circumstances
    under which the September 6 Statement was developed and released when
    making final determinations.
    Recommendations
        The Panel proposes the following recommendations for the
    Determining Officer to consider to safeguard against future violations
    of scientific integrity:

       Establish a formal intra-agency agreement to guide the
            interactions between Commerce and NOAA officials in the
            drafting of NOAA communications.

       Establish an intra-agency policy to articulate the role of
            Commerce political appointees in the communication of
            scientific findings. Develop supporting procedures and identify
            examples of political interference.

       Incorporate key principles of scientific integrity,
            including NOAA's Codes of Ethics for Science Supervision and
            Management, in the agency's annual ethics training.

       Require NOAA staff and NOAA political officials to take
            scientific integrity training that includes the Code of Ethics
            for Science Supervision and Management. Once a staff member has
            completed the training, he/she will sign a statement confirming
            they will abide by these principles.

       Establish protocols with the Commerce OIG and/or other
            agencies to investigate alleged violations of scientific
            integrity involving senior NOAA and Commerce political
            leadership.\85\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \85\ In some Federal agencies, such the Department of the Interior
    (DOI), the Scientific Integrity Officer has an informal agreement with
    the DOI OIG that the OIG would handle a case that involves a senior
    official in DOI or one of the bureaus. The Academy Team's interview
    with GAO suggests that a formal agreement between an agency and its OIG
    to address scientific integrity issues would be helpful. Some agencies,
    such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), have contingencies
    built into their policies to handle the allegations that involve high
    level political officials.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Concluding Thoughts
        Scientific integrity is the cornerstone of the public's trust in
    the Nation's scientific institutions, which the Nation relies on for
    accurate and honest scientific and technical information. In the ever-
    changing dynamic of social media, people frequently turn to social
    media platforms for life-saving information, especially in the event of
    a severe weather event. The advent of social media and its ubiquity
    create an immediate interactive context for all actions taken by
    government that affect the public.
        In this dynamic environment, public officials must gauge the
    potential effects of actions and communications, including on social
    media, on the public's perception and behavior. It was the concern for
    public perception and public safety that motivated the September 1
    Birmingham Tweet. Public servants on the frontline of communicating the
    risks of storms must be able to continue to act quickly and responsibly
    when warranted by the situation at hand. Future policy guidance must
    reflect this dynamic and the need for local officials to act quickly
    and responsibly when the need arises. Moving ahead, there needs to be a
    directed effort to inform policy development through the use of the
    social sciences so that public servants and government officials can
    effectively convey the risk to the public so they can act accordingly.
                                     ______

                                   Appendices
              Appendix A: Panel Biographies and Study Team Members
    Panel of Academy Fellows
        Admiral (Ret.) Thad Allen, Panel Chair. 23rd Commandant, U.S. Coast
    Guard; James S. Tyler Chair, Institute for Leadership, U.S. Coast Guard
    Academy; Member and Board Director, Council on Foreign Relations;
    Chair, Space Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board
    (NASA); Member, Homeland Security Advisory Committee; Senior Executive
    Advisor at Booz Allen Hamilton, HudsonAnalytix and Fortinet; Former
    Board Director, Partnership for Public Service. Former Senior Fellow,
    RAND Corporation; Principal Federal Official in the responses to
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005); National Incident Commander,
    Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010).
        Dr. Kaye Husbands Fealing. Full Professor and Chair, School of
    Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology; Senior Study Director,
    Center for National Statistics, National Academy of Sciences;
    Professor, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota;
    Program Director, Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, National
    Science Foundation; William Brough Professor (also tenured full,
    associate, assistant professor), Economics Department, Williams
    College.
        Dr. Shantanu Agrawal. President and CEO, National Quality Forum.
    Former Deputy Administrator and Center Director, Centers for Medicare &
    Medicaid Services; Managing Director, Clinical Analytics and
    Efficiency, ChenMedical, LLC; Former Positions with Center for Program
    Integrity (CPI), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Director,
    Data Sharing and Partnership, Chief Medical Officer; Former Positions
    with McKinsey & Company, Inc.: Engagement Manager, Senior Associate,
    Associate.
        Dr. Elizabeth Robinson. Chief Financial Officer, Air Line Pilots
    Association. Former Chief Financial Officer, National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration; Assistant Director for Budget, Budget Review
    Division, U.S. Office of Management and Budget; Deputy Director,
    Congressional Budget Office; Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
    Review and Concepts, and Program Examiner for Energy Issues, U.S.
    Office of Management and Budget; Staff Member, House Committee on
    Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives; Project
    Director and Expert, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress;
    Congressional Science Fellow, Geological Society of America; Assistant
    Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University.
    Study Team
        Brenna Isman, Director of Academy Studies
        Mark Thorum, Project Director
        Chloe Yang, Senior Research Analyst
        mise Johnson, Research Associate
        Gillian Townsend, Research Associate

                      Appendix B: Chronology of Key Events
                       All times are in Eastern Time Zone.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               WHO WAS         WHERE IS IT
           DATE               EVENT           INVOLVED         REFERENCED
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Wednesday,   Susan Buchanan     Susan    Copies of Dr.
     August 28, 2019,    (NWS Director)    Buchanan          Louis
             5:02 p.m.   releases NOAA     Maureen   Uccellini's e-
                         Communications    O'Leary           mails relevant
                         media plan for    Lauren    to the
                         Hurricane         Gaches            investigation
                         Dorian            Jasmine   were provided
                                           Blackwell         to the Academy
                                           Dennis    by NOAA. This e-
                                           Feltgen           mail is page 60
                                           Jeremy    of that
                                           Andrucyk          document.
                                           NWS
                                           Executive
                                           Council
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Thursday,   Dr. Neil Jacobs    Dr.      Dr. Neil Jacobs'
      August 29, 2019    leads a           Neil Jacobs       interview with
                         briefing on       Preside   NOAA General
                         Hurricane         nt Trump          Counsel: Page
                         Dorian at the     Vice      11, Line 2.
                         White House. A    President Pence  Julie Roberts'
                         NOAA graphic      Admiral   interview with
                         (the one that     Pete Brown        NOAA General
                         later appears     Pete      Counsel: Page
                         altered with a    Gaynor            24, Line 19.
                         black marker)     Julie    The official
                         is used in the    Roberts (not in   White House
                         briefing.         the Oval Office   press release
                                           for tbe           and photos from
                                           briefing)         the briefing
                                                             can be found
                                                             online.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Saturday,   The President      Dr.      Dr. Neil Jacobs'
     August 31, 2019,    receives a        Neil Jacobs       interview with
             4:00 p.m.   briefing on       Julie     NOAA General
                         Hurricane         Roberts,          Counsel: Page
                         Dorian via        Secreta   13, Line 7.
                         video             ry McAleenan     Julie Roberts'
                         teleconference    Pete      interview with
                         while he is at    Gaynor            NOAA General
                         Camp David.       Other     Counsel: Page
                                           FEMA leadership   31, Line 6.
                                           Gov.
                                           DeSantis (FL)
                                           Gov.
                                           Kemp (GA)
                                           Gov.
                                           Cooper (NC)
                                           Gov.
                                           McMaster (SC)
                                           Preside
                                           nt Trump
                                           Jeff
                                           Bayard
                                           Dan
                                           Kaniewski
                                           Members
                                           of National
                                           Security
                                           Council
                                           Senator
                                           Rick Scott
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sunday,   National Weather   Birming  Phone log of the
    September 1, 2019,   Service           ham Weather       Birmingham
       8:00 a.m.-11:00   Birmingham        Forecast Office   Weather
                  a.m.   Weather                             Forecast Office
                         Forecast Office                     was provided to
                         (WFO) receives                      the Academy
                         multiple phone                      Team by NOAA.
                         calls from the
                         public. Two of
                         the calls are
                         directly after
                         the President's
                         tweet.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sunday,   President Trump    Preside  Tweet is on the
    September 1, 2019,   tweets that       nt Trump          President's
            10:51 a.m.   Alabama, ``will                     personal
                         most likely be                      Twitter account
                         hit (much)                          (@realDonaldTru
                         harder than                         mp).
                         anticipated.''
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sunday,   National Weather   Birming  Tweet is on NWS
    September 1, 2019,   Service           ham Weather       Birmingham
            11:11 a.m.   Birmingham WFO    Forecast          WFO's Twitter
                         tweets that       ,Office           account.
                         ``Alabama will
                         NOT see any
                         impacts from
                         #Dorian.''
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sunday,   The President is   Ken      Dr. Neil Jacobs'
    September 1, 2019,   briefed on        Graham (over      interview with
            12:31 p.m.   Hurricane         VTC)              NOAA General
                         Dorian at FEMA    Members   Counsel: Page
                         Headquarters.     of the Press      16, Line 1;
                         Ken Graham from   Dr.       Page 25, Line
                         the Hurricane     Neil Jacobs       17.
                         Center leads      Julie    Julie Roberts'
                         the briefing.     Roberts           interview with
                                           Preside   NOAA General
                                           nt Trump          Counsel: Page
                                           Gov.      36, Line 2.
                                           DeSantis (FL)    The briefing was
                                           Gov.      also open to
                                           Kemp (GA)         the press.
                                           Gov.
                                           Cooper (NC)
                                           Gov.
                                           McMaster (SC)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sunday,   Chris Vaccaro      Julie    Vaccaro's e-mail
    September 1, 2019,   sent an e-mail    Roberts           is Exhibit 9 of
             3:00 p.m.   to the Weather    Chris     Julie Roberts'
                         Service Public    Vaccaro           interview with
                         Affairs team--    NWS       NOAA General
                         all media         Public Affairs    Counsel.
                         inquiries about   Dennis
                         the President's   Feltgen
                         tweet and the     David
                         Birmingham        Miller
                         tweet should be   Jeremy
                         directed to       Andrucyk
                         Julie Roberts     Corey
                         and Vaccaro.      Pieper
                                           Scott
                                           Smullen
                                           Kate
                                           Brogan
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sunday,   Julie Roberts      Julie    Copies of Julie
    September 1, 2019,   sends e-mails     Roberts           Roberts' e-
             3:06 p.m.   asking all NWS    Chris     mails relevant
                         offices to        Vaccaro           to the
                         consult with      NWS       investigation
                         NOAA Office of    Public Affairs    were provided
                         Communications    Dennis    to the Academy
                         before            Feltgen           Team by NOAA.
                         responding to     David     This e-mail is
                         any social        Miller            page 190 of
                         media             Jeremy    that document.
                         inquiries.        Andrucyk
                                           Corey
                                           Pieper
                                           Scott
                                           Smullen
                                           Kate
                                           Brogan
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sunday,   Andrew Stern       Andrew   The e-mail is
    September 1, 2019,   (Operations       Stern             page 1 of
             4:49 p.m.   Center Manager,   Nationa   Exhibit 5 of
                         NWS) sends out    l Weather         Julie Roberts'
                         an e-mail to      Service           interview with
                         the National      Operations        NOAA General
                         Weather Service   Center            Counsel.
                         Operations        John
                         Center to         Murphy
                         inform all        Mary
                         Regional          Erickson
                         Operation         Susan
                         Centers (ROC)     Buchanan
                         and Weather       Lauren
                         Forecast          Gaches
                         Offices to
                         ``only stick
                         with official
                         NHC forecasts
                         if questions
                         arise from some
                         national level
                         social media
                         posts this
                         afternoon.
                         Staff should
                         not provide any
                         opinion about
                         the national
                         level post and
                         should direct
                         any questions
                         that cannot be
                         satisfied to
                         NOAA Public
                         Affairs.''
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Sunday,   Chris Darden       Chris    Copies of Chris
    September 1, 2019,   sends an e-mail   Darden            Darden's e-
             9:41 p.m.   out to all NWS    NWS       mails relevant
                         Birmingham WFO    Birmingham WFO    to the
                         staff updating    Staff             investigation
                         them on the       Mike      were provided
                         day's events      Coyne             to the Academy
                         and to forward    Jose      Team by NOAA.
                         any calls or      Garcia            This e-mail is
                         questions to      Susan     page 63 of the
                         forward them to   Buchanan          document.
                         him.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Wednesday,   The President is   Preside  The briefing was
    September 4, 2019,   briefed on        nt Trump          covered by the
            12:57 p.m.   Hurricane         Kevin     press and
                         Dorian at the     McAleenan         coverage is
                         Oval Office in    Karl      available
                         front of the      Schultz           online.
                         press. A NOAA     Adm.
                         graphic appears   Peter Brown
                         to be altered     Pete
                         with black        Gaynor
                         marker. This      Press
                         becomes
                         national news.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Wednesday,   Julie Roberts e-   Julie    The e-mail is
    September 4, 2019,   mails George      Roberts           page 3 of
             2:42 p.m.   Jungbluth and     George    Exhibit 5 of
                         tells him that    Jungbluth         Julie Roberts'
                         NOAA                                interview with
                         Communications                      NOAA General
                         is handling                         Counsel.
                         ``the
                         situation'' and
                         ``there should
                         be no action
                         taken by anyone
                         within the
                         National
                         Weather Service
                         or the National
                         Hurricane
                         Center.''
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Wednesday,   NWS Operations     NWS      Exhibit 17 of
    September 4, 2019,   Center sends      Operations        Julie Roberts'
             3:37 p.m.   out a media       Center            interview with
                         guidance to all                     NOAA General
                         ROCs and                            Counsel
                         National
                         Centers asking
                         that they do
                         not respond via
                         social media or
                         other to any
                         questions
                         related the
                         tweets.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Wednesday,   Chris Darden       Chris    Copies of Chris
    September 4, 2019,   sends an e-mail   Darden            Darden's e-
             4:45 p.m.   out to all NWS    NWS       mails relevant
                         Birmingham WFO    Birmingham WFO    to the
                         staff updating    Staff             investigation
                         them that NOAA    Chris     were provided
                         Headquarters      Vaccaro           to the Academy
                         called Darden                       Team by NOAA.
                         and asked all                       This e-mail is
                         further media                       page 19 of the
                         inquiries to be                     document.
                         forwarded to
                         Chris Vaccaro
                         at NOAA
                         Communications.
    -------------------
            Thursday,   Chris Vaccaro      Chris    Exhibit 17 of
    September 5, 2019,   sends an e-mail   Vaccaro           Julie Roberts'
             5:36 p.m.   asking NWS to     George    interview with
                         resend tbe        Jungbluth         NOAA General
                         September 4       Susan     Counsel.
                         media guidance.   Buchanan
                         Vaccaro states    Jeremy
                         in the e-mail     Andrucyk
                         that              Julie
                         forecasters       Roberts
                         should not
                         communicate
                         with media via
                         their personal
                         Twitter
                         accounts.
    -------------------
            Thursday,   Secretary Wilbur   Wilbur   Dr. Neil Jacobs'
    September 5, 2019,   Ross calls Dr.    Ross              interview with
           6/7:00 p.m.   Neil Jacobs and   Dr.       NOAA General
                         asks him to       Neil Jacobs       Counsel: Page
                         prepare a                           27 line 9, Page
                         timeline of                         28 line 11.
                         events and                         Julie Roberts'
                         communications                      interview with
                         surrounding                         NOAA General
                         Dorian.\86\                         Counsel: Page
                                                             64, line 21.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ Dr. Neil
     Jacobs is the
     only one with
     firsthand
     knowledge that we
     have access to
     Julie Roberts has
     secondhand
     knowledge of this
     call.
            Thursday,   Dr. Neil Jacobs    Dr.      Screenshots of
    September 5, 2019,   calls Julie       Neil Jacobs       Julie Roberts'
            10:53 p.m.   Roberts and       Julie     phone calls are
                         informs Roberts   Roberts           Exhibit 6 of
                         of Jacobs'                          Roberts'
                         phone call with                     interview with
                         Secretary Ross.                     NOAA General
                                                             Counsel.
                                                            Dr. Neil Jacobs'
                                                             interview with
                                                             NOAA General
                                                             Counsel: Page
                                                             27, line 9.
                                                            Julie Roberts'
                                                             interview with
                                                             NOAA General
                                                             Counsel: Page
                                                             63, line 16.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Julie Roberts      Julie    Julie Roberts'
    September 6, 2019,   receives a        Roberts           interview with
             2:30 a.m.   phone call from   Steven    NOAA General
                         Secretary         Barranca          Counsel: Pages
                         Wilbur Ross's     Mike      68-71.
                         personal          Walsh            Screenshots of
                         assistant and                       Roberts' phone
                         Chief of Staff.                     calls are
                                                             Exhibit 6 of
                                                             Roberts'
                                                             interview with
                                                             NOAA General
                                                             Counsel.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Julie Roberts      Julie    Copies of Julie
    September 6, 2019,   compiles a        Roberts           Roberts e-mails
        2:30-3:48 a.m.   summary           Mike      relevant to the
                         document of all   Walsh             investigation
                         events and        Joe       were provided
                         communications    Semsar            to the Academy
                         that have         Rebecca   Team by NOAA.
                         happened          Glover            The e-mail is
                         surrounding       Kevin     page 12 of that
                         Dorian h06        Manning           document. The
                               h00 and                       summary is
                         sends the                           Exhibit 7 of
                         summary to Mike                     Julie Roberts'
                         Walsh and other                     interview with
                         Commerce and                        NOAA General
                         NOAA employees.                     Counsel.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Julie Roberts      Julie    Julie Roberts'
    September 6, 2019,   calls Dr. Neil    Roberts           interview with
             7:00 a.m.   Jacobs and        Dr.       NOAA General
                         fills him in on   Neil Jacobs       Counsel: Page
                         the calls she                       83, Line 20.
                         received from                      Neil Jacobs'
                         the Secretary                       interview with
                         earlier that                        NOAA General
                         morning.                            Counsel: Page
                                                             29, Line 12.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Julie Roberts     In room prior to  Julie Roberts'
    September 6, 2019,   and Dr. Neil      their arrival:    interview with
             8:30 a.m.   Jacobs arrive     David     NOAA General
                         at the Commerce   Dewhirst          Counsel: Page
                         office and meet   Kevin     84, Line 9.
                         in the Deputy     Manning          Dr. Neil Jacobs'
                         Secretary's       Joe       interview with
                         conference        Semsar            NOAA General
                         room.            Dr. Neil Jacobs    Counsel: Page
                                           and Julie         102, Line 13.
                                           Roberts arrive
                                           next.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Present in the
                                           meeting room
                                           sporadically
                                           throughout the
                                           day:
                                           Deputy
                                           Secretary Karen
                                           Dunn Kelley
                                           Cordell
                                           Hull
                                           Chris
                                           Vaccaro
                                           Scott
                                           Mullen
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   According to       Julie    Julie Roberts'
    September 6, 2019,   Julie Roberts,    Roberts           interview with
             8:30 a.m.   the meeting was   Dr.       NOAA General
                         never             Neil Jacobs       Counsel: Page
                         officially        David     91, Line 15.
                         convened, ``it    Dewhirst
                         was just          Kevin
                         everyone          Manning
                         sitting around    Joe
                         the table         Semsar
                         working on
                         whatever we
                         were working on
                         at the time.''
                         \87\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\ Julie
     Roberts' initial
     perspective when
     she arrived at
     the meeting is
     not echoed in Dr.
     Neil Jacobs'
     interview.
              Friday,   According to Dr.   Dr.      Dr. Neil Jacobs'
    September 6, 2019,   Neil Jacobs,      Neil Jacobs       interview with
             8:30 a.m.   ``when Julie      Julie     NOAA General
                         [Roberts] and I   Roberts           Counsel:
                         showed up there   David     Page105, Line
                         was already a     Dewhirst          19.
                         couple draft      Kevin
                         versions of the   Manning
                         statement going   Joe
                         back and forth    Semsar
                         floating
                         around.'' \88\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ Dr. Neil
     Jacobs' initial
     perspective when
     he arrived at the
     meeting is not
     echoed in Julie
     Roberts'
     interview.
              Friday,   Deputy Secretary   Karen    Julie Roberts'
    September 6, 2019    Karen Dunn        Dunn Kelley       interview with
                         Kelley goes to    Commerc   NOAA General
                         a h06             e Staff           Counsel: Page
                         h00 meeting                         88, Line 16.
                         Kelley asks
                         that all
                         advisories and
                         communications
                         h06          h0
                         0 about Dorian
                         be
                         compiled.\89\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\ The only
     account of this
     event comes from
     Julie Roberts'
     interview with
     NOAA General
     Counsel.
              Friday,   A statement is     David    Julie Roberts'
    September 6, 2019    drafted on        Dewhirst          interview with
                         David             Julie     NOAA General
                         Dewhirst's        Roberts           Counsel: Page
                         tablet.           Dr.       96, Line 22.
                                           Neil Jacobs      Dr. Neil Jacobs'
                                           Kevin     interview with
                                           Manning           NOAA General
                                           Joe       Counsel: Page
                                           Semsar            109, Line 6.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Julie Roberts      Julie    Julie Roberts'
    September 6, 2019,   goes upstairs     Roberts           interview with
            10:30 a.m.   and asks Scott    Scott     NOAA General
                         Smullen and       Smullen           Counsel: Page
                         Chris Vaccaro     Chris     97, Line 22.
                         to help look at   Vaccaro
                         the
                         statement.\90\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ The only
     account of this
     event comes from
     Ju1ie Roberts'
     interview with
     NOAA General
     Counsel.
              Friday,   Roberts, Jacobs,   Julie    Julie Roberts'
    September 6, 2019    Vaccaro, and      Roberts           interview with
                         Smullen edit      Chris     NOAA General
                         the statement.    Vaccaro           Counsel: Page
                         Jacobs and        Dr.       98, Line 7.
                         Roberts work to   Neil Jacobs      Dr. Neil Jacobs'
                         ensure that the   Scott     interview with
                         statement is,     Smullen           NOAA General
                         technically                         Counsel: Page
                         accurate.                           108, Line 9.
                        There was a
                         debate about
                         Birmingham
                         specifically.
                         Jacobs,
                         Roberts, and
                         Vaccaro wanted
                         to remove the
                         Birmingham part
                         of the
                         statement but
                         were told no.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Secretary Ross     Secreta  Julie Roberts'
    September 6, 2019    and his staff     ry Wilbur Ross    interview with
                         call to discuss   Mike      NOAA General
                         the statement.    Walsh             Counsel: Page
                                           Earl      100, Line 4.
                                           Comstock
                                           Julie
                                           Roberts
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Jacobs and         Dr.      Dr. Neil Jacobs'
                         Roberts raised    Neil Jacobs       interview with
                         their concern     David     NOAA General
                         about the         Dewhirst          Counsel: Page
                         Birmingham part   Joe       109, Lines 7-
                         of the            Semsar            20.
                         statement but     Cordell
                         were told they    Hull
                         cannot take
                         Birmingham out.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Dr. Neil Jacobs    Dr.      Stuart
    September 6, 2019,   calls Stuart      Neil Jacobs       Levenbach's
             3:00 p.m.   Levenbach and     Stuart    interview with
                         tells him about   Levenbach         NOAA General
                         the                                 Counsel: Page
                         statement.\91\                      13, Line 4.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ The only
     account of this
     phone call comes
     from Stuart
     Levenbach's
     interview.
              Friday,   David Dewhirst e-  David    Copies of Julie
    September 6, 2019,   mails Mike        Dewhirst          Roberts' e-
             3:11 p.m.   Walsh a copy of   Mike      mails relevant
                         the statement     Walsh             to the
                         for approval.                       investigation
                                                             were provided
                                                             to the Academy
                                                             Team by NOAA.
                                                             The e-mail is
                                                             page 23 of that
                                                             document.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Dr. Neil Jacobs    Dr.      Stuart
    September 6, 2019,   calls Stuart      Neil Jacobs       Levenbach's
        3:30-4:00 p.m.   Levenbach, Dr.    Dr.       interview with
                         Dr. Louis         Louis Uccellini   NOAA General
                         Uccellini, and    Stuart    Counsel: Page
                         Taylor Jordan     Levenbach         13, Line 4;
                         to tell them      Taylor    Page 36, Line
                         about the         Jordan            6.
                         statement                          Dr. Neil Jacobs'
                         before it goes                      interview with
                         out.                                NOAA General
                                                             Counsel: Page
                                                             138, Line 10.
                                                            Dr. Louis
                                                             Uccellini's
                                                             interview with
                                                             NOAA General
                                                             Counsel: Page
                                                             69, Line 11.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   David Dewhirst e-  David    Copies of Julie
    September 6, 2019,   mails Julie       Dewhirst          Roberts' e-
             3:43 p.m.   Roberts a copy    Julie     mails relevant
                         of the            Roberts           to the
                         statement after                     investigation
                         it has been                         were provided
                         approved by                         to the Academy
                         higher ups at                       Team by NOAA.
                         Commerce.                           The e-mail is
                                                             page 23 of that
                                                             document.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Julie Roberts      Benjami  Benjamin
    September 6, 2019,   and Dr. Neil      n Friedman        Friedman's
             4:00 p.m.   Jacobs reach      Julie     interview with
                         out to Benjamin   Roberts           NOAA General
                         Friedman to let   Dr.       Counsel: Page
                         him bow about     Neil Jacobs       38, Line 9;
                         the statement     Stuart    Page 41, Line
                         before it goes    Levenbach         6.
                         out.                               Julie Roberts'
                                                             interview With
                                                             NOAA General
                                                             Counsel: Page
                                                             106, Line 13.
                                                            Dr. Neil Jacobs'
                                                             interview with
                                                             NOAA General
                                                             Counsel: Page
                                                             149, Line 13.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Dr. Louis          Dr.      Dr. Louis
    September 6, 2019,   Uccellini and     Louis Uccellini   Uccellini's
             4:40 p.m.   other NOAA        George    interview with
                         officials get     Jungbluth         NOAA's General
                         in touch with     Mary      Counsel: Page
                         Chris Darden to   Erickson          73, Line 1.
                         give him a        Chris    Chris Darden's
                         heads up before   Darden            interview with
                         the statement     John      NOAA General
                         goes out.         Murphy            Counsel: Page
                                           Steven    56, Line 22.
                                           Cooper
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   NOAA               NOAA     Statement is
    September 6, 2019    Communications    Communications    available on
             4:45 p.m.   releases                            the NOAA
                         statement that                      website.
                         says Hurricane
                         Dorian could
                         have impacted
                         Alabama and
                         that the
                         Birmingham
                         National
                         Weather
                         Service's tweet
                         was
                         ``inconsistent
                         with
                         probabilities
                         from the best
                         forecast
                         products
                         available at
                         the time.''
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Chris Vaccaro      Chris    Copies of Chris
    September 6, 2019,   sends out an e-   Vaccaro           Darden's e-
             4:52 p.m.   mail to NOAA      Nationa   mails relevant
                         personnel         l Weather         to the
                         informing them    Service Office    investigation
                         that the          of Public         were provided
                         statement has     Affairs           to the Academy
                         been              Dennis    Team from NOAA.
                         distributed and   Feltgen           This e-mail is
                         that inquiries    Julie     page 10 of the
                         ``should solely   Roberts           document.
                         be directed       Scott
                         to'' the NOAA     Smullen
                         Office of
                         Communications
                         line. E-mail
                         gets forwarded
                         around between
                         NOAA staff.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   NOAA               NOAA     Tweet with
    September 6, 2019,   Communications    Communications    statement is on
             5:31 p.m.   posts the                           NOAA
                         statement on                        Communications'
                         Twitter.                            Twitter
                                                             (@NOAAComms).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Chris Darden       Chris    Copies of Chris
    September 6, 2019,   sends out an e-   Darden            Darden's e-
             6:00 p.m.   mail to the       NWS       mails relevant
                         National          Birmingham WFO    to the
                         Weather Service   Staff             investigation
                         Birmingham                          were provided
                         Weather                             to the Academy
                         Forecast Office                     by NOAA. This e-
                         staff informing                     mail is page
                         of the                              106 of the
                         statement and                       document.
                         commending them
                         on the work
                         they do to
                         suppo11
                         Alabama. Darden
                         asks the staff
                         to ``please be
                         cautious about
                         commenting
                         publicly'' on
                         the statement.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Friday,   Stuart Levenbach   Stuart   Exhibit 3 of
    September 6, 2019,   e-mails Dr.       Levenbach         Stuart
             8:22 p.m.   Louis Uccellini   KDr.      Levenbach's
                         and tells         Louis Uccellini   interview
                         Uccellini that                      conducted by
                         be (Levenbach)                      NOAA General
                         was not                             Counsel.
                         involved in any
                         part of
                         drafting the
                         statement.
                        To Levenbach's
                         knowledge
                         Roberts and
                         Jacobs were
                         they only
                         people from
                         NOAA involved
                         in writing the
                         statement.'' \9
                         2\
    \92\ Secondhand
     knowledge--Stuart
     Levenbach was not
     in the room when
     the statement was
     drafted.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Saturday,   Stuart Levenbach   Stuart   Exhibit 7 of
    September 7, 2019,   e-mails Kevin     Levenbach         Stuart
             2:26 a.m.   Wheeler with a    Kevin     Levenbach's
                         summary of how    Wheeler           interview
                         the statement     Dr.       conducted by
                         was developed     Neil Jacobs       NOAA's General
                         as Levenbach                        Counsel.
                         understood it
                         from a call
                         with Dr.
                         Jacobs.\93\
    \93\ Secondhand
     knowledge--Stuart
     Levenbach was not
     in the room when
     the statement was
     drafted; his
     understanding of
     the process comes
     from a phonecall
     with Dr. Neil
     Jacobs.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Saturday,   All hands e-mail   Dr.      Exhibit 5 of Dr.
    September 7, 2019,   sent out to       Louis Uccellini   Louis
             3:11 p.m.   National          Mary      Uccellini's
                         Weather Service   Erickson          interview
                         Staff thanking    John      conducted by
                         them for their    Potts             NOAA's General
                         work on           John      Counsel.
                         Hurricane         Murphy
                         Dorian.           Kevin
                                           Cooley
                                           Peyton
                                           Robertson
                                           All NWS
                                           Personnel
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Monday,   Dr. Jane           Dr.      Copy of
    September 9, 2019    Lubchenco, Dr.    Jane Lubchenco    allegation
                         Richard           Dr.       provided
                         Spinrad, and      Richard Spinrad
                         Dr. Andrew        Dr.
                         Rosenberg file    Andrew
                         a complaint of    Rosenberg
                         violation of
                         NOAA's
                         Scientific
                         Integrity
                         Policy
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Tuesday,   Representative     Represe  Copy of
    September 10, 2019   Paul Tonko        ntative Paul      allegation
                         files a           Tonko             provided
                         complaint of
                         violation of
                         NOAA's
                         Scientific
                         Integrity
                         Policy
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Tuesday,   Craig McLean       Craig    Copy of
    September 10, 2019   files a           McLean            allegation
                         complaint of                        provided
                         violation of
                         NOAA's
                         Scientific.
                         Integrity
                         Policy
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Wednesday,   Dr. Carl Childs    Dr.      Copy of
    September 11, 2019   files a           Carl Childs       allegation
                         complaint of                        provided
                         violation of
                         NOAA's
                         Scientific
                         Integrity
                         Policy
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Appendix C: Policies
        Copies of Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration policies relevant to the inquiry are linked
    below.

       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Scientific
            Integrity Policy (NOAA Administrative Order 202-735D:
            Scientific Integrity)

        https://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/ames/administrative_orders/
            chapter_
            202/202-735-D.pdf

       Procedural Handbook to NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy

        https://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/ames/administrative_orders/
            chapter_
            202/Procedural_Handbook_NAO_202-735D_%20FINAL_Aug2017%20Amend
            ment.pdf

       Department of Commerce Public Communication Policy
            (Department Administrative Order 219-1)

        http://www.osec.doc.gov/opog/dmp/daos/dao219_1.html

       Department of Commerce Social Media Guidebook.

        htt;p://osec.doc.goy/webresources/socialmedia/
            DOC_Social_Media_Guidebook%
            20_2013-01-31.pdf

       NOAA Framework for Internal Review and Approval of
            Fundamental Research Communications.

        https://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/ames/administrative_orders/
            chapter_
            202/FRC%20Guidance%20Nov%208%202016.pdf
                                     ______

     Appendix D: Summaries of Interviews Conducted and Interview Questions
        Summaries of interviews conducted, and the associated interview
    questions appear in the following order in Appendix D:

       Chris Darden, Meteorologist-in-Charge, National Weather
            Service Birmingham Weather Field Office

       Dr. Neil Jacobs, Acting Administrator, National Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Administration

       Craig McLean, Acting Chief Scientist, National Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Administration

       Julie Roberts, Deputy Chief of Staff, Director of
            Communications, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
            Administration\94\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \94\ Julie Roberts left NOAA in December 2019 to join the Economic
    Development Administration within the Department of Commerce.

       Chris Vaccaro, Media Relations Specialist, National Oceanic
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            and Atmospheric Administration

        Interview questions for the Subject Matter Expert interviews
    conducted appear in the following order in Appendix D:

       U.S. Government Accountability Office, Authors of Scientific
            Integrity Policies: Additional Actions Could Strengthen
            Integrity of Federal Research Report.

         Wyatt R. Hundrup, Analyst in Charge

         Douglas Hunker, Staff Contributor

         Robert Marek, Assistant Director of Science,
                Technology Assessment, and

         John Neumann, Managing Director

       Dr. Leysia Palen, Professor and Founding Chair of
            Information Science; Professor of Computer Science

       Dr. Rebecca Morss, Deputy Director, Mesoscale & Microscale
            Meteorology Lab
                                     ______

                         Chris Darden Interview Summary
        Meteorologist-in-Charge, NWS Birmingham Weather Forecast Office
                January 21, 2020, at 3:09 p.m. Central Time Zone
               NWS Birmingham Weather Forecast Office, Calera, AL
    Reason for Selection
        The Academy Team selected Chris Darden to be interviewed for a
    second time because as the Meteorologist-in-Charge of the NWS
    Birmingham WF0,\95\ he oversees the office that sent out the September
    1 tweet affirming that Alabama will not see any impacts from Hurricane
    Dorian. Through a second interview with Chris Darden, the Academy Team
    hoped to learn about the policies and procedures of the Birmingham WFO,
    and the involvement of Chris Darden and Birmingham WFO staff in the
    development and release of both the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and
    September 6 Statement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \95\ NOAA General Counsel first interviewed Chris Darden on October
    21, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Interview Objectives
        The interview sought to learn more about how a WFO fits into the
    larger NWS and NOAA organizational structure and how a WFO collaborates
    with other branches of NOAA, such as the National Hurricane Center and
    other WFOs. A prominent theme of this interview was policies and
    procedures, particularly as they relate to communications and typical
    WFO operating procedures. To gain a better understanding of how this
    WFO operates, the Academy Team asked about this office's social media
    practices, corrective processes, and how NOAA's Office of
    Communications works with WFOs like Birmingham. Chris Darden was asked
    to expand on answers previously given in the first interview.
    Additionally, the Academy Team asked Chris Darden about NOAA's
    Scientific Integrity Policy as it relates to his office's involvement
    in the events that transpired.
    Summary of Interview
        Chris Darden informed the Academy Team that not only is his office
    responsible for covering 39 counties in Alabama, but also the WFO is
    the state liaison officer meaning that the state of Alabama will
    request a Birmingham WFO meteorologist to come to the State Emergency
    Operations Center to provide 24/7 support to the state in the event of
    a major weather-related event. Darden spoke of common communication
    channels maintained during a hurricane between the WFO, the National
    Hurricane Center (NHC), the Weather Prediction Center, and Regional
    Operations Centers.
        As Darden explained, the Birmingham WFO has a dedicated decision
    support service (DSS) meteorologist on most of their shifts whose
    responsibilities include coordinating communication with FEMA and
    posting on the office's social media. On September 1, the DSS
    communicated with: other meteorologists on shift--who looked at
    forecasts, probabilistic models, and the latest morning guidance--to
    determine the correct response to the influx of phone calls and
    Facebook messages from people in Alabama asking if Alabama was going to
    be affected by Hurricane Dorian. Based on the meteorologists'
    determination, the DSS issued the September 1 Birmingham Tweet and a
    Facebook post about how Alabama will see no impacts from the hurricane.
        In the event of issuing an inadvertently wrong warning, the
    Birmingham WFO's typical process of correcting a mistake, while not a
    formal written policy, would involve immediately cancelling the
    warning, posting on social media explaining that the warning was issued
    in error, and sending the correction on NWSChat. NWSChat is the
    communication group between NWS, FEMA, core media partners, and some
    private sector entities such as the Weather Channel, for example. No
    corrective action was taken by the Birmingham WFO because the September
    1 Birmingham Tweet was consistent with the scientific information
    reviewed by the WFO meteorologists. In the event of a discrepancy with
    another WFO's forecast, the Birmingham WFO will communicate with the
    other WFO to determine the correct forecast or warning to issue.
        As for using absolute terms, Chris Darden provided the reasoning
    that as a WFO, they try to communicate with the public in a way that
    will solicit a desired response to a weather event or lack thereof. He
    stressed that their mission is to save lives and their communications
    need to reflect the action people need to take to remain safe.
        Chris Darden confirmed that on September 1, the Birmingham WFO
    forecasters conducted scientific activities, such as looking at model
    data and forecast information from NHC, and made a scientific
    assessment based off of the best available information to inform the
    development of the September 1 tweet from the Birmingham WFO. Chris
    Darden characterized the September 1 Birmingham Tweet as a scientific
    product.
        Chris Darden received several e-mails between September 1 and 6
    directing all NWS offices and staff to forward media inquiries to the
    NOAA Office of Communications and to not respond to any questions
    either officially or through personal social media accounts. Darden
    explained that it is common to receive guidance from NOAA
    Communications requesting that all media inquiries be directed to that
    office during situations that require a coordinated media effort.
        In regard to the September 6 Statement, Chris Darden explained that
    neither he nor anyone in his office was given the opportunity to review
    the statement prior to its release. Chris Darden was not made aware of
    the statement until approximately 4:00 p.m. on September 6, when he was
    called by Dr. Louis Uccellini, who is the NWS Director, and other NWS
    officials. Chris Darden was not afforded the opportunity to make
    revisions to the statement as he was told that there was nothing he
    could do. By the time he finished the phone call, the September 6
    Statement had already been released.
                      Interview Questions for Chris Darden
    Current Position and Responsibilities
       Current position, duties and reporting line.
    Birmingham Weather Forecast Office Policies and Procedures
       Role of the Birmingham Weather Forecast Office within NOAA.

       In the event of a serious weather-related event such as
            Hurricane Dorian, how does your office typically interact with
            the National Hurricane Center and other NOAA offices?
    Activities Related to the Development and Release of the September 1
            Tweet
       How would you characterize the September 1 Tweet including
            the underlying science used to inform the tweet?

       What is the typical internal process to draft and release a
            social media communication such as the September 1 Tweet? Are
            there any formal policies and procedures in place?
    Activities Related to the Development and Release of the September 6
            Statement
       Describe your involvement with the activities leading up to
            the September 6 Statement including your interaction with other
            NOAA offices and any external entities.

       Describe your involvement with the development and release
            of the September 6 Statement.

       Is there anything else you would like to share with the
            Academy Team for the record?
                                     ______

                       Dr. Neil Jacobs Interview Summary
                           Acting Administrator, NOAA
                February 3, 2020, at 3:12 p.m. Eastern Time Zone
           National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC
    Reason for Selection
        The Academy Team selected Dr. Neil Jacobs for a second interview
    because he is the Acting Administrator of NOAA and was involved with
    the development and release of the September 6 Statement.\96\ Through a
    second interview, the Panel hoped to learn more about the policies and
    procedures of NOAA as they relate to scientific integrity, how he
    interacts with the Department of Commerce leadership, and Dr. Neil
    Jacobs' involvement in the development and release of the September 6
    Statement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \96\ NOAA General Counsel first interviewed Dr. Neil Jacobs on
    November 6, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Interview Objectives
        The purpose of this interview was to understand relevant NOAA
    policies and procedures and inquire further about Dr. Neil Jacobs'
    involvement in the development and release of the NOAA September 6
    Statement. The Academy Team aimed to learn how Dr. Jacobs interacts
    with Commerce leadership and what Commerce's typical role in the
    development and release of NOAA communications is. Additionally, the
    Academy Team requested that Dr. Jacobs explain how he ensures
    compliance with NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy and Commerce's
    Public Communication Policy. The Academy Team also sought to learn from
    Dr. Jacobs what the agency's standard process for issuing media
    guidance is. As Dr. Jacobs was involved in the development and release
    of the September 6 Statement, a prominent component of this interview
    was inquiring about his involvement in the development and release of
    the September 6 Statement.
    Summary of Interview
        Dr. Neil Jacobs explained that he is only involved in the
    communications process when there is a need to elevate the matter to
    his level--particularly when there is a quote from him involved.
    Usually, no agency-level communications are released without someone in
    his office reviewing them first.
        As for Commerce's involvement in the drafting of NOAA
    communications, Dr. Jacobs explained that Commerce will often review
    NOAA agency-level communications as part of the clearance process. Dr.
    Jacobs explained that NOAA communications typically originate with a
    NOAA line office before Dr. Jacobs reviews it and then sends it to
    Commerce before Dr. Jacobs performs the final review. Another typical
    chain of approval is that the communication originates within NOAA, is
    then sent to a line office for review, is then sent to Commerce, and
    finally is sent to Dr. Jacobs for final review. Dr. Jacobs expressed
    that to his knowledge, the process of NOAA working with Commerce staff
    on communications is not formally written in a policy but he has never
    looked to determine if such a policy exists.
        As for communicating risk, Dr. Jacobs offered his perspective that
    there is no consensus within the National Weather Service on how to
    best communicate probabilities and the associated risks with the public
    in the messages. Generally speaking, Dr. Jacobs elaborated that people
    do not necessarily understand probabilities, however, probabilities are
    more objective than other choices of phrasing. The purpose of
    communications about weather forecasts is to communicate the risk to
    the public. State and local emergency managers play an important role
    in translating the probability and risk to their audiences, according
    to Dr. Jacobs.
        All forecasts eventually become inaccurate, so NWS constantly
    updates the forecasts with every shift of forecasters, as Dr. Jacobs
    explained. Typically, NWS WFOs will communicate with each other and
    other NOAA centers because forecasts are constantly evolving. NOAA
    headquarters does not typically comment on the public communications of
    a WFO, and there is no formal policy in place that determines the
    process of publishing a statement on a WFO's work, according to Dr.
    Jacobs.
        The media guidance, Dr. Jacobs explained, came from an internal NWS
    decision, not NOAA, and media guidance such as the guidance sent
    between September 1 and 6 are not uncommon. Forecasters may receive
    similar guidance several times a year. The purpose of the media
    guidance was for continuity of operations. NOAA does not have a
    standard process for issuing media guidance to staff.
        Dr. Jacobs explained that he became involved in the development of
    the September 6 Statement fairly late because his phone was off during
    the early morning hours of September 6 and arrived at the office after
    there may have been earlier versions of the statement already drafted.
    He missed several calls in the early morning hours of September 6 but
    did not speak to Secretary Ross or anyone on his staff about developing
    a statement until he arrived in the office on the morning of September
    6. Commerce officials were involved from the start of the statement
    development process because they were present before Dr. Jacobs
    arrived. Dr. Jacobs also stated that the Commerce officials who had
    been drafting the statement likely did not understand probabilistic
    forecasting. During the drafting of the statement, Commerce officials
    called in, but Dr. Jacobs did not know everyone was on the line.
        Dr. Jacobs characterized the September 6 Statement as a NOAA
    product because everything coming out of the agency is a NOAA product.
    As he understands it, Dr. Jacobs stated that the intent of the
    statement was to reconcile the Birmingham WFO's tweet with the National
    Hurricane Center's forecast products. Dr. Jacobs was not thrilled by
    the September 6 Statement because the statement singled out the
    Birmingham WFO for its tweet, despite other WFOs and the National
    Hurricane Center tweeting variations of the same idea. For that reason,
    Dr. Jacobs explained that he objected to the statement during the
    development, but no action was taken by Commerce officials in the room
    in respect to considering his objection. Dr. Jacobs stated that the
    people in the room may have felt pressure to release the statement
    because Commerce wanted the statement released.
        Dr. Jacobs also offered his perspective on the correctness of the
    September 1 tweet from the Birmingham WFO by explaining that in a
    technical sense, while relatively Small, the probability of Hurricane
    Dorian impacting a portion of southeast Alabama existed. However, in
    terms of communicating the risk to the people of Alabama, the
    Birmingham WFO was correct, according to Dr. Jacobs.
        In regard to the September 6 Statement complying with the NOAA
    Scientific Integrity Policy, Dr. Jacobs expressed that the September 6
    Statement did not necessarily meet the standards of the Scientific
    Integrity Policy. Additionally, Dr. Jacobs explained that his
    understanding is that the Scientific Integrity Policy was written for
    science and research and not necessarily press releases. Dr. Jacobs
    often reviews communications originally written by non-scientists,
    including people from Commerce and other parts of NOAA, when the
    science is incorrect. The correction process typically requires
    scientists to check the validity of the communication and ensure that
    in a technical sense, the communication is accurate before it is
    published.
                    Interview Questions for Dr. Neil Jacobs
    Position and Responsibilities
       Position, duties and responsibilities.
    NOAA Policies and Processes
       As the Acting Administrator, how do you typically interact
            with the Department of Commerce leadership?

       Is Commerce typically involved in the development and
            release of official NOAA communications? If yes, how?

       If a severe weather event occurs, what is the most effective
            way/vehicle to communicate probabilistic forecasts to the
            general public?

       In performing your responsibilities as the Acting
            Administrator, how do you ensure compliance with NOAA's
            Communication and Scientific Integrity Policy?

       What is NOAA's standard process for issuing media guidance?
            Are there any formal policies in place?
    Activities Related to the Development and Release of the September 6
            Statement
       Describe your involvement with the development and release
            of the September 6 Statement.

       Is there anything else you would like to share with the
            Academy team for the record?
                                     ______

                         Craig McLean Interview Summary
    Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and Acting
                             Chief Scientist, NOAA
                 January 23, 2020, 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time Zone
           National Academy of Public Administration, Washington D.C.
    Reason for Selection
        The Academy Team selected Craig McLean to be interviewed because of
    McLean's position as NOAA's Acting Chief Scientist and because of
    McLean's role in this specific inquiry as one of the four Complainants.
    As the Acting Chief Scientist of NOAA, McLean serves as the senior
    scientist for the agency, providing direction for science and
    technology priorities. McLean also serves NOAA as the Assistant
    Administrator for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and is responsible
    for overseeing, directing, and implementing NOAA's research enterprise.
    McLean has served over 25 years with NOAA and during his tenure McLean
    has been heavily involved in the development of NOAA's Scientific
    Integrity Policy. The Academy Team hoped to learn more about NOAA's
    standard operating procedures specifically regarding communications and
    how the Scientific Integrity Policy operates within the agency, as well
    as learning the specific reasoning behind Craig McLean filing an
    allegation.
    Interview Objectives
        The Academy Team had two main objectives for the interview of Craig
    McLean. First, the interview sought to learn more about how
    communication and collaboration occurs across NOAA, specifically
    looking at how the Office of Communications interacts with the
    different NOAA line offices and scientists, and how the Department of
    Commerce typically interacts with NOAA. Prominent themes for this
    section of the interview were policies and procedures, particularly as
    they relate to NOAA communications and interactions with Commerce. The
    second objective of the interview was to learn about the rationale
    McLean had for filing his allegations of violations of NOAA's
    Scientific Integrity Policy. The Academy Team asked McLean to walk
    through his allegation and how he perceived actions surrounding the
    September 6 Statement violating specific sections of the Scientific
    Integrity Policy.
    Summary of Interview
        Craig McLean informed the Academy Team that NOAA relies on Weather
    Forecast Offices (WFO) and local expertise to carry out the mission of
    NOAA. The public often looks to their local resources for news and
    local offices have expertise on the location that they cover. The
    forecasters in the WFOs are given specific training related to
    communicating with the press and social media and it is unusual for the
    Office of Communications to direct forecasters not to speak with the
    media. It is imperative to the core mission of NOAA that forecasters
    have free access to communicate with the media.\97\ However, McLean did
    understand that the purpose of the Office of Communications asking
    forecasters not to comment of the events of September 1 through 6 was
    to protect them from being pulled into a political debate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \97\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``NOAA
    Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity,'' December 7,
    2019: Section 5.02(d).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to Craig McLean, it was completely within the
    responsibilities of the Birmingham WFO to send out the September 1
    tweet. The forecasts and related messages produced by NOAA WFOs are
    based in science and pro4uced by trained scientists who have the skills
    to produce conclusions and messages to the public based on technical
    scientific inputs. The forecasters in Birmingham acted swiftly and
    accurately to convey a message to the public that addressed their
    concerns and kept them safe from any unwarranted panic. The absolute
    terms of the tweet were not only accurate as the perceived threat to
    Alabama had passed, but also a necessary step to quell the fears of the
    public.
        Regarding NOAA communication policies, McLean explained that NOAA's
    Communications Office has the responsibility of issuing press releases
    and in many cases, producing the original drafts of those press
    releases. The Communications Office has representatives from each NOAA
    line office who liaise between the line offices, scientists, and
    communications officials.
        When discussing NOAA communications policies and standard operating
    procedures related to those policies, McLean brought up the typical
    interactions between NOAA and the Department of Commerce. According to
    McLean, there is a political pervasiveness from the Department of
    Commerce throughout the daily life of NOAA's senior leaders. The
    influence has such a far reach that even the NOAA Administrator cannot
    send an all hands message to NOAA staff without having it first
    reviewed by the Department of Commerce. The NOAA Office of
    Communications often needs to go to Commerce for approval before NOAA
    issues the communication. McLean sees this pervasiveness as an
    underlying issue for NOAA that hinders the agency's ability to carry
    out its core mission.
        In regard to the September 6 Statement from NOAA, Craig McLean
    explained that the statement was unprecedented and anomalous in many
    ways. McLean elaborated that it was unusual for a statement to be
    attributed to NOAA with no point of contact for further information.
    The anonymity of the September 6 Statement harms NOAA's reputation
    because there is a need for the agency to be transparent and open to
    the public.\98\ From McLean's understanding, no line offices or career
    NOAA staff were consulted on the statement, which is a violation of the
    Scientific Integrity Policy.\99\ If a WFO were to put out an incorrect
    statement or forecast, a correction would have been made soon after the
    original posting and have been done by a competent authority close to
    the original source such as the National Weather Service or the
    National Hurricane Center.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \98\ NOAA, Section 4.01.
        \99\ NOAA, Section 7.01.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        McLean perceived numerous violations of the NOAA Scientific
    Integrity Policy. The section of the policy that upholds the need for
    public access to information was violated because the September 6
    Statement contradicted science that was known to be factually correct
    and put out untruthful information to the public.\100\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \100\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``NOAA
    Administrative Order 202-735D: Scientific Integrity,'' December 7,
    2011: Section 5.02(b).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Scientific Integrity Policy also upholds that in no
    circumstance may any NOAA official ask or direct a Federal scientist to
    suppress of alter scientific findings.\101\ In the events surrounding
    the September 6 Statement, NOAA parties were directed to say that the
    WFO was wrong. These actions also violated the section of the
    Scientific Integrity Policy that directs scientists to approach
    scientific activity objectively, without allegiance to individuals,
    organizations, or ideology.\102\ The way in which the September 6
    Statement was constructed and the message that it contained had an
    allegiance to entities outside of NOAA. According to McLean, the
    actions taken by NOAA officials regarding the creation and release of
    the September 1 statement were dishonest and attempted to convey
    fraudulent information using deceit and misrepresentation which is a
    violation of the Code of Scientific Conduct and Code of Ethics upheld
    by the fundamental Principles of Scientific Integrity.\103\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \101\ NOAA, Section 5.02(d).
        \102\ NOAA, Section 6.01(a).
        \103\ NOAA, Section 6 and Section 7.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Scientific Integrity Policy covers all employees of NOAA.\104\
    McLean sees Dr. Neil Jacobs as responsible for the September 6
    Statement as he is the Acting Administrator of NOAA. According to
    McLean, Dr. Neil Jacobs should have raised concerns about potential
    violations of scientific integrity and filed a complaint as soon as the
    statement was released. McLean also saw Julie Roberts as responsible
    for the September 6 Statement as she was the Director of Communications
    and had authority over the statement's released.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \104\ NOAA, Section 2.02(a).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Interview Questions for Craig McLean
    Current Position and Responsibilities
       Current position, duties and responsibilities.
    NOAA Policies and Processes
       What is the typical internal process for NOAA to review and
            release an organization wide statement such as the September 6
            Statement?

       What is the typical internal process to draft and release a
            social media communication such as the September 1 tweet? What
            are the leading practices for communicating scientific/forecast
            information via social media?

       What's NOAA's standard process for issuing media guidance?
            Are there any formal policies in place?
    Activities Related to the Development and Release of the September 6
            Statement
       Describe your involvement with the development and release
            of the September 6 Statement.
    Allegation of Scientific Misconduct
       On September 10, 2019, you submitted a complaint alleging
            violations of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy (NAO 202-
            735D), the Department of Commerce Administrative Order
            (DAO)219-1, Public Communications, and 18 USC 2074. Please
            explain the rationale behind the allegations.

       Is there anything else you would like to share with the
            Academy Team for the record?
                                     ______

                        Julie Roberts Interview Summary
           Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Communications, NOAA
                January 23, 2020, at 2:36 p.m. Eastern Time Zone
           National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC
    Reason for Selection
        The Academy Team selected Julie Roberts for a second interview
    because as Deputy Chief of Staff and Director of Communications,\105\
    she was involved with the development and release of the NOAA September
    6 Statement and the media guidance distributed between September 1 and
    6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \105\ NOAA General Counsel first interviewed Julie Roberts on
    October 11, 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Interview Objectives
        In this interview, the Academy Team desired to understand standard
    NOAA communications procedures in order to determine if the media
    guidance and September 6 Statement deviated from standard procedures.
    Additionally, the Academy Team sought to better understand Julie
    Roberts' involvement in the development and release of the September 6
    Statement, including her interactions with other NOAA offices and
    external entities.
    Summary of Interview
        Julie Roberts informed the Academy Team that in her former role at
    NOAA as Director of Communications she was responsible for overseeing
    the entire agency's communication strategy. Roberts then went on to
    discuss the standard procedures that are followed by NOAA's Office of
    Communications. Roberts explained that staff from the Office of
    Communications are embedded within the different line offices of NOAA
    and the standard practice would be that scientist from the different
    line offices would work with the NOAA Office of Communications to
    create communications for the public on their work. Sending media
    guidance to NOAA scientists is also a standard practice of the Office
    of Communications, according to Roberts. When there is a large scale,
    high-profile situation, the office sends media guidance to NOAA staff
    to ensure that the same messaging given to the public and media is
    consistent across the agency. Roberts further elaborated that a many of
    press documents go to the Department of Commerce for review or approval
    h06            h00. Roberts explained to the Academy Team that while
    NOAA's Office of Communications follows these standard practices, there
    are no formal policies or procedures that guide how these practices are
    followed.
        Julie Roberts explained that she was not really involved in the
    creation of the September 6 Statement. Roberts stated that she was
    tasked with creating a timeline of NOAA communications h06
    h00 while the statement was being crafted by Commerce officials in the
    room. Roberts explained that she had no substantive comments on the
    statement besides pushing back on the part that discussed the
    Birmingham office. Roberts did not see this part of the statement as
    being productive, as Roberts thought that the September 1 Birmingham
    Tweet was not political.
        Roberts felt that there was external pressure regarding the
    September 6 Statement. Based on the call that Dr. Neil Jacobs received
    in the early morning hours of September 6 and the close of business
    deadline set by Secretary Ross, Roberts perceived the September 6
    Statement as a Commerce statement that was given to NOAA to release.
    According to Roberts, there was pressure from Commerce officials for
    Roberts to be the attributed spokesperson for the September 6
    Statement, but Roberts pushed back because she did not feel comfortable
    being attributed to a statement that she did not draft.
        Julie Roberts explained to the Academy Team that she was so tired
    and overworked from monitoring Hurricane Dorian for the past 10 days
    that she did not consider how the September 6 Statement could
    potentially violate NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy or Commerce's
    Public Communication Policy. She elaborated that while she and Dr.
    Jacobs could have resigned in an attempt to stop the statement from
    being released, they felt the need to stay and try to help fix the
    situation.
                     Interview Questions for Julie Roberts
    Position and Responsibilities
       Position, duties and involvement with the formulation and/or
            release of NOAA communications.
    Office of Communications Policies and Procedures
       Role of the Office of Communications/Public Affairs within
            the agency?

       How does your office typically interact with the National
            Weather Service (NWS) and other offices? How does your office
            typically work with NOAA scientists to ensure compliance with
            NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policies?

       What is NOAA's standard process for issuing media guidance?
            Are there any formal policies and procedures in place?

       What is the typical internal process for NOAA to draft and
            release an organization wide statement such as the September 6
            Statement?
    Activities Related to the Development and Release of the September 6
            Statement
       Describe your involvement with the activities leading up to
            the September 6 Statement including your interaction with NWS,
            other NOAA offices and any external entities.

       Describe your involvement with the development and release
            of the September 6 Statement.

       Is there anything else you would like to share with the
            Academy team for the record?
                                     ______

                        Chris Vaccaro Interview Summary
                    Senior Media Relations Specialist, NOAA
                January 20, 2020, at 2:02 p.m. Eastern Time Zone
           National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC
    Reason for Selection
        The Academy Team chose to interview Chris Vaccaro, Senior Media
    Relations Specialist in the NOAA Office of Communications, because he
    was largely involved with the media guidance issued between September 1
    and 6 and was present, although briefly, during the development of the
    September 6 NOAA statement. As Senior Media Relations Specialist, Chris
    Vaccaro is responsible for facilitating communications that originate
    at the NOAA headquarters level and coordinating press-related materials
    that originate in the line offices and field offices.
    Interview Objectives
        Through this interview, the Academy Team desired to understand NOAA
    Office of Communications policies and procedures as they relate to the
    media guidance and the September 6 Statement, how the office works with
    other offices inside and outside of NOAA, and the involvement of Chris
    Vaccaro and other NOAA officials in the development of the September 6
    Statement. A prominent component of this interview was the standard
    process for issuing media guidance because the Panel is tasked with
    assessing the allegation that the media guidance violated the
    Scientific Integrity Policy. Similarly, because the Panel must assess
    whether the September 6 Statement violated the Scientific Integrity
    Policy, the interview aimed to understand the standard process for
    developing and releasing NOAA communications and determine whether the
    process on September 6 deviated from the standard process and
    constitutes a violation of scientific integrity.
    Summary of Interview
        The NOAA Office of Communication coordinates with the National
    Hurricane Center and other line offices during a large weather-related
    event, such as a hurricane, according to Chris Vaccaro. His role is
    coordinating with the media and NOAA leadership during such an event.
        Chris Vaccaro explained that the Department of Commerce
    historically is not involved in most NOAA Communications, with the
    exception being that Commerce may become involved in a controversial
    issue or a matter requiring the secretary's involvement. There is no
    intra-agency agreement outlining when it is appropriate for the
    Department of Commerce to become involved in NOAA's communications.
        Regarding the involvement of scientists in developing NOAA
    communications, Chris Vaccaro expressed that scientists are regularly
    involved in the communications process because all of their
    communications are derived from science. Often, scientists will write
    the communication for NOAA's Office of Communications or at a minimum,
    be involved in the drafting of the communication, according to Chris
    Vaccaro. The scientists would also see the cleared product before it
    goes out, which Vaccaro stated was the normal procedure.
        Chris Vaccaro elaborated on the Office of Communication's approval
    procedures for communications and touched on the Department of
    Commerce's Public Communication Policy (DAO 219-1). Vaccaro explained
    that communications are signed off by the head of the operating unit
    and the appropriate public affairs officer for approval, per the DAO.
    also explained that any entity that has equities the communication,
    especially those directly referenced therein, also typically sign off
    on the communication before the communication's release.
        Typically, as Chris Vaccaro mentioned, NOAA infrequently uses
    agency statements and when they do, the Statements are attributed to a
    NOAA spokesperson. Unattributed statements are exceptionally rare. The
    avenue used to communicate a NOAA message depends on the subject and
    the expediency of the matter. In regard to the September 6 Statement
    from NOAA, Chris Vaccaro explained that the statement qualifies as an
    Official Communication from NOAA because the statement is perceived to
    be from the agency.
        Chris Vaccaro explained that media guidance is often issued by the
    NOAA Office of Communications in consultation with NOAA Communications
    leaders and the head of the impacted office. Per his explanation, media
    guidance commonly is used to protect an individual or office from
    getting involved into a difficult situation from a communications
    standpoint. The media guidance offered between September 1 and 6
    requesting that NWS staff direct all inquiries to NOAA Communications
    was issued by NWS in conjunction with NOAA Office of Communications
    leadership. In his interview, Vaccaro explained that the e-mail he sent
    on September 5 asking NWS to resend the September 4 media guidance that
    mentioned that forecasters should not communicate with the media via
    their personal Twitter accounts was not intended to stifle forecasters'
    ability to communicate with the media. As explained by Chris Vaccaro,
    the intent of the guidance was to tell NWS offices that they are free
    to send media inquiries to NOAA public affairs officers because the
    agency was the subject of national news. He explained the need for a
    coordinated media response from NOAA and to return normalcy from a
    chaotic situation.
        As for Chris Vaccaro's involvement in the development of the
    September 6 Statement, he was minimally involved. A Commerce official,
    whose name was unknown to Vaccaro, read aloud from his iPad an earlier
    version of the statement during the time that Vaccaro was present in
    the Commerce Deputy Secretary's conference room at approximately 10:00
    a.m. on September 6. After hearing the statement, he and Scott Smullen
    (Deputy Director of NOAA Communications) vocalized that it was not
    necessary to mention the Birmingham WFO in the statement, but there was
    no action taken then after he gave his input. A Commerce official in
    the conference room received a phone call and requested that the rest
    of the people in the room leave, which prompted Chris Vaccaro and Scott
    Smullen to return to their desks. Vaccaro did not see the statement
    again until it was e-mailed to him by Julie Roberts at approximately
    4:00 p.m. that day. The final version of the statement that was sent to
    Vaccaro in the afternoon was different than the version he heard in the
    conference room in the morning. According to Vaccaro, his only official
    role in the development and release of the September 6 Statement was to
    get the statement to a colleague whose job was to distribute the
    statement through their press release channels and post the statement
    to NOAA's website and Twitter.
        Chris Vaccaro stated that he did not think the statement was
    necessary as it was sent out five days after the events on September 1.
    From his perspective, he did not think that the September 6 Statement
    is a statement that would have originated from within the agency.
                     Interview Questions for Chris Vaccaro
    Current Position and Responsibilities
       Current position, duties and involvement with the
            formulation and/or release of NOAA communications
    Office of Communications Policies and Procedures
       Role of the Office of Communications/Public Affairs within
            the agency

       How does your office typically interact with the National
            Weather Service and other offices? How does your office
            typically work with NOAA scientists to ensure compliance with
            NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy?

       What is NOAA's standard process for issuing media guidance?
            Are there any formal policies and procedures in place?

       What is the typical internal process for NOAA to draft and
            release an organization wide statement such as the September 6
            Statement?
    Activities Related to the Development and Release of the September 6
            Statement
       Describe your involvement with the activities leading up to
            the September 6 Statement including your interaction with NWS,
            other NOAA offices and any external entities.

       Describe your involvement with the development and release
            of the September 6 Statement.
                                     ______

           Government Accountability Office (GAO) Interview Questions
               February 11, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time Zone
           National Academy of Public Administration, Washington, DC
       As your team assessed the scientific integrity policies of
            nine Federal agencies--including NOAA, can you comment on the
            relative strengths and weaknesses of those policies?

       Where would you rank NOAA's policies among the nine you
            analyzed?

       Do the nine Federal agencies you assessed have similar
            processes to adjudicate allegations of scientific misconduct?

       Your report and Congressional testimony allude to
            allegations of Federal officials adversely affecting the
            integrity of scientific information. Does GAO have
            recommendations for Federal agencies to avoid inappropriate
            political influence in the gathering, analysis and release of
            scientific data?

       How do Federal agencies differ in their definition of a loss
            of Scientific Integrity?

       How do Federal agencies differentiate between scientific
            misconduct and loss of scientific integrity?

       Do you have any suggestions as to Federal guidance on the
            ``generally accepted practices of scientific research?''

       As discussed in the GAO report, one key component of
            scientific integrity policies is ``facilitating the free flow
            of scientific and technological information.'' On the other
            hand, many agencies issue media guidance (e.g., instructing
            staff to forward all media inquiries to the communication
            office) when there is a major event or a high level of media
            inquiries. Does GAO have recommendations for Federal agencies
            to maintain balance between free flow of scientific information
            and the need for a coordinated communication approach?

       Does the initial Sept 1 tweet from the Birmingham Office
            and/or the Sept 6 statement fall under the purview of NOAA's
            Scientific Integrity Policies?

       If one or both does, can the explain their reasoning for
            their inclusion? For example, for the Sept 1 tweet, was the
            tweet a ``scientific assessment''?

       Regarding the tweet and statement, would all requirements
            from the policy apply? For example, for the Sept 6 statement,
            would the requirement to solicit a review of the statement by
            the authors of the tweet (to which the statement refers) apply?
                                     ______

                      Dr. Leysia Palen Interview Questions
    Professor of Computer Science, and Professor and Founding Chair of the
       Department of Information Science, University of Colorado Boulder
               February 20, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time Zone
                                Videoconference
        The National Weather Service (NWS) states that its primary mission
    is to protect lives and property through the timely issuance of watches
    and warnings when there are hazardous weather conditions. We understand
    that the use of social media by NWS to communicate severe weather
    related risks is increasingly common.

       When is it appropriate/effective for NWS to use social media
            (Twitter, You Tube and Facebook) as a platform to communicate
            weather risks?

       How might this practice complement traditional approaches
            such as official NOAA communications on web sites?

       What is the possible downside of using social media to
            communicate severe weather-related risks? Is social media
            vulnerable to false and inaccurate reports?

        We understand that a key challenge for forecasters during a severe
    weather event is to convert the public's perception of safety (optimism
    bias) to a perception of risk and to induce them to take appropriate
    measures.

       In your view, what is the most effective way to communicate
            those risks to the general public to induce them to react
            appropriately to the risks? Please comment on the advantages/
            disadvantages of using clear and certain terms versus
            probabilistic forecasts? Should impact statements be
            conditional--what may occur if . . .?

       In your view, what is the most effective way to communicate
            information when you face uncertain probabilities?

       Is there a related risk of losing credibility with the
            public by issuing false alarms?

        In a 2014 Position Statement, The American Meteorological Society
    (AMS) posits that there is a ``dear and compelling need'' to enhance
    the utility of weather and climate research and the dissemination of
    atmospheric information using knowledge from the social sciences about
    how individuals arid society interact with weather and climate.

       Would you agree with this statement? If so, how can social
            science research improve the dissemination of severe weather
            events to the public.

       How do you bridge the gap between technical science and
            social science when disseminating information to the public?
                                     ______

                     Dr. Rebecca Morss Interview Questions
     Senior Scientist and Deputy Director of the Mesoscale and Microscale
                            Meteorology Laboratory,
                    National Center for Atmospheric Research
               February 22, 2020, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time Zone
                                Videoconference
        The National Weather Service (NWS) states that its primary mission
    is to protect lives and property through the timely issuance of watches
    and warnings when there are hazardous weather conditions. We understand
    that the use of social media by NWS to communicate severe weather
    related risks is increasingly common.

       When is it appropriate/effective for NWS to use social media
            (Twitter, You Tube and Facebook) as a platform to communicate
            weather risks?

       Is the use of social media more effective with certain
            demographics than others?

       Is the use of social media more effective with certain
            information products? For example--text versus a graphic
            depiction of risk.

       How might this practice complement traditional approaches
            such as official NOAA communications on websites?

       What is the possible downside of using social media to
            communicate severe weather-related risks? Is social media
            vulnerable to false and inaccurate reports?

        We understand that a key challenge for forecasters during a severe
    weather event is to convert the public's perception of safety (optimism
    bias) to a perception of risk and to induce them to take appropriate
    measures.

       In your view, what is the most effective way to communicate
            those risks to the general public to induce them to react
            appropriately to the risks?

       Please comment on the advantages/disadvantages of using
            clear and absolute terms versus probabilistic forecasts,

       In your view, what is the most effective way to communicate
            information when you face uncertain probabilities?

       Is there a related risk of losing credibility with the
            public by issuing false alarms?

        In a 2014 Position Statement, The American Meteorological Society
    (AMS) posits that there is a ''clear and compelling need'' to enhance
    the utility of weather and climate research and the dissemination of
    atmospheric information using knowledge from the social sciences about
    how individuals and society interact with weather and climate.

       Would you agree with this statement? If so, how can social
            science research improve the dissemination of severe weather
            events to the public.
                                     ______

                Appendix E: Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
        Copies of the complaints submitted alleging violations of NOAA's
    Scientific Integrity Policy (NAO 202 735D: Scientific Integrity) appear
    in the following order in Appendix E.

       Allegation 2019-007; Craig McLean

       Allegation 2019-008; Dr. Lubchenco, Dr. Richard Spinrad, and
            Dr. Andrew Rosenberg

       Allegation 2019-009; Dr. Carl Childs

       Allegation 2019-0010; Representative Paul Tonko

        The copies of the complaints are followed by a table that
    summarizes of the rationale for selection of the allegations under
    review.

        Senator Cantwell. I know the Department of Commerce
    Inspector General is currently also looking into this matter,
    so we will get the additions.
        Mr. Walsh was apparently involved in efforts to obscure the
    origins of the ill-fated citizenship question on the 2020
    Census from Secretary Ross and the White House, and so I look
    forward to asking questions about that.
        Next, Mr. Chairman, we have Mary Toman, who was nominated
    to serve as Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs.
    This position oversees both the U.S. Census Bureau and the
    Bureau of Economic Analysis, which puts critical information
    like the Gross Domestic Product report.
        And as you mentioned, Joel Szabat to serve as the Under
    Secretary of Policy for the Department of Transportation. If
    confirmed, he would have a key position in dealing with matters
    like ensuring the safety of our transportation networks in the
    wake of COVID-19 and working on the surface transportation
    reauthorization bill.
        And finally, Mr. O'Rielly, to serve as Commissioner of the
    FCC. Welcome back. We have a lot to talk about, everything from
    the Ligado decision to your views on the 5.9 megahertz to media
    ownership and many, many other issues. So we will look forward
    to a chance to ask you questions.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time. I look forward
    to hearing from the witnesses.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        To our witnesses, your full written statements will be
    admitted into the record, and we ask each of you to summarize
    your testimony at this point in 5 minutes or less. So we will
    begin down at this end of the table with Mr. Szabat. You are
    recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.

             STATEMENT OF JOEL SZABAT, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER

                SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY,

                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Szabat. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell,
    members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today and thanks to President Trump and
    Secretary Chao for their continuing confidence in me. I am
    grateful that this committee and your Senate colleagues saw fit
    to confirm me in my current position as Assistant Secretary for
    Aviation and International Affairs. I look forward to
    continuing to work with each of you and your staff to
    strengthen our nation?s transportation system.
        Since June 2019, I have additionally been performing the
    duties and responsibilities of the Under Secretary of
    Transportation for Policy, for which position I have been
    nominated. If confirmed, I will be the seventh Under Secretary
    of Transportation for Policy since the post was created in
    2002.
        As a measure of my tenure in the Department of
    Transportation, specifically in the Policy Office, I have
    served under four of the six prior Under Secretaries. My
    experience runs across each of the last three administrations,
    including the first Under Secretary and the most recent. At
    various times, I have run three of the four components that
    comprise the Office of the Under Secretary: the Office of
    Aviation and International Affairs; the Office of Policy; and
    the first multimodal discretionary grant program, TIGER, which
    has since morphed into the Build America Bureau.
        Over the course of the last 12 months, I have tried leading
    the Office of the Under Secretary on a path consistent with
    Secretary Chao's vision and our statutory mandate. The
    Department of Transportation is, first and foremost, a
    transportation safety agency.
        The release of the President's budget on February 10
    previewed the administration's upcoming surface transportation
    reauthorization proposal. Longer authorizations provide more
    certainty to local governments and drive down construction
    costs. The President's budget announced a $1 trillion 10-year
    plan. The primary theme will be improvements that benefit
    safety.
        Since the coronavirus arrived in America earlier this year,
    the Department's major focus has been battling the disease and
    ensuring that our transportation systems support the ongoing
    economic rebound. That has also become my primary concern as
    one of the original members of the White House Coronavirus Task
    Force.
        Following the advice of our nation's health professionals,
    the Department coordinated flight restrictions to slow the
    spread of the virus. We adjusted hazardous material regulations
    to allow the seamless delivery of testing kits and supplies.
        As the Centers for Disease Control publishes guidelines for
    safely reopening the economy, we are securing tens of millions
    of face coverings for transportation passengers and workers,
    truck and bus drivers, transit and train operators, pilots and
    flight attendants, air traffic controllers, and many more.
    These critical transportation workers are unsung heroes in the
    front lines of fighting the disease. It is an ongoing honor to
    be able to support them.
        Prior to the coronavirus, we were already grappling with
    the impact of the accelerating rate of technological change
    across all modes of transportation. As technology rapidly
    alters the face of transportation, it is our duty to keep pace
    as a transportation safety agency. A priority of mine, in
    support of Secretary Chao's vision, is to continue to work to
    safely integrate emerging technologies, including drones and
    other autonomous vehicles, into our existing and national
    aviation and surface transportation networks.
        Nobody yet knows what the new normal will be when the
    immediate threat of the coronavirus recedes. Changes in how we
    live and work will also drive changes in transportation. The
    Office of the Under Secretary oversees or coordinates the work
    of hundreds of outstanding research scientists, engineers,
    statisticians, and economists. Some of them are already looking
    into what changes might emerge, so we are better prepared for
    them if they do.
        Because of necessary social-distancing requirements, I
    cannot be joined today by family, mentors, or colleagues. Since
    she cannot join me, I would like to acknowledge my wife,
    Chiling Tong, in absentia. A prominent Asian Pacific American
    activist, she worked with a group of mostly Chinese American
    organizations that have collectively purchased and distributed
    over 10 million masks and other protective gear for hospitals
    and emergency services in the greater New York City and
    Washington, D.C. areas. This kind of citizen activism makes
    Americans and America great.
        Nearly 40 years ago, I began my public service as a United
    States Army cavalry scout and tanker, patrolling the East-West
    German border. All of us who have worn our country's uniform
    well remember the camaraderie of being in a close-knit group
    sharing a common mission. That spirit still animates us today.
    When I tried to thank our transportation coronavirus team in
    early March for working their twenty-first straight day, a
    senior career executive would have none of it. ``Most of us
    chose public service because we wanted to help people,'' he
    said. ``Now is our time.'' I try to live up to that ethos
    daily.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today. I am happy to take your questions.
        [The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
    Szabat follow:]

       Prepared Statement of Joel Szabat, Nominee for Under Secretary of
          Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation
        Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the Committee
    . . .

        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
    grateful that this Committee and your Senate colleagues saw fit to
    confirm me in my current position as Assistant Secretary for Aviation &
    International Affairs. I look forward to continuing to work with each
    of you and your staff to strengthen our Nation's transportation system.
        Since June of 2019 I have additionally been performing the duties
    and responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Transportation for
    Policy, for which position I have been nominated. If confirmed, I will
    be the seventh Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, since the
    post was created in 2002.
        It is a measure of my tenure in the Department of Transportation,
    specifically in the policy office, that I have served under four of the
    six prior Under Secretaries. My experience runs across each of the last
    three administrations, including the first Under Secretary (Jeff Shane)
    and the most recent (Derek Kan). At various times I have run three of
    the four components that comprise the Office of the Under Secretary:
    the Office of Aviation and International Affairs; the Office of Policy;
    and the first multimodal discretionary grant program (TIGER), which has
    grown into the Build America Bureau.
        Over the course of the last twelve months I have sought to perform
    duties of the Under Secretary consistent with Secretary Chao's vision
    and our statutory mandate. The Department of Transportation is, first
    and foremost, a transportation safety agency.
        The release of the President's budget on February 10th previewed
    the Administration's upcoming Surface Transportation Reauthorization
    proposal. Longer authorizations provide more certainty to local
    governments, and drive down construction costs. The President's Budget
    announced a $1 trillion, ten-year plan. The primary theme will be
    improvements that benefit safety.
        Since the coronavirus arrived in America earlier this year, the
    Department's major focus has been on battling the disease, and ensuring
    that our transportation systems support the ongoing economic rebound.
    That has also become my primary concern, as one of the original members
    of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.
        Following the advice of our Nation's health professionals, the DOT
    coordinated flight restrictions to slow the spread of the virus. We
    adjusted hazardous material regulations to allow the seamless delivery
    of testing kits and supplies.
        Secretary Chao herself has been outspoken about the need for
    practices that protect our front-line transportation workers as the
    economy reopens. We have responded to her direction that ample face
    coverings be made available to the travelling public, both for their
    own health, and to protect those who serve them.
        As the Centers for Disease Control publishes public health
    guidelines for safely reopening the economy, we are working through
    FEMA to secure tens of millions of face coverings for transportation
    workers--truck and bus drivers, transit and train operators, pilots and
    flight attendants, air traffic controllers, and many more. These
    critical transportation workers are unsung heroes in the front lines of
    fighting the disease. It is an ongoing honor to be able to support
    them.
        Prior to the coronavirus, we were already grappling with the impact
    of an accelerating rate of technological change across all modes of
    transportation. As technology rapidly alters the face of transportation
    it is our duty to keep pace, as a transportation safety agency. A
    priority of mine, in support of Secretary Chao's vision, is to continue
    to work to safely integrate emerging technologies, including drones and
    other autonomous vehicles, into our existing national aviation and
    surface transportation networks. We are in the process of endorsing a
    standardized list of advanced driver assistance systems terminologies
    this year through the Clearing the Confusion initiative. By the end of
    this year we will release the fourth iteration of our Autonomous
    Vehicle Federal guidance.
        Nobody yet knows what the `new normal' will be, when the threat of
    the coronavirus recedes. Changes in how we live and work will also
    drive changes in transportation. The Office of the Under Secretary
    oversees or coordinates the work of hundreds of outstanding research
    scientists, engineers, statisticians and economists. Some of them are
    already looking into what changes might emerge, so we are better
    prepared for them if they do.
        Since my expanded role began in the Under Secretary's office a year
    ago, our important work has continued apace. Through the multimodal
    BUILD and INFRA programs, and related grant and loan programs within
    the office, we awarded about $4 billion to over 100 projects
    nationwide, annually. In the past twelve months the Build America
    Bureau closed five loans in as many states, supporting $8 billion of
    needed transportation infrastructure improvements, with the American
    taxpayers' $2.2 billion share to be repaid. The Bureau also launched
    the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Express Program
    (``RRIF Express'') aimed at removing barriers and expediting loans to
    small railroads.
        In aviation, we have quickly implemented our CARES Act mandates to
    preserve the Essential Air Service program, and to continue scheduled
    flights to all points served by passenger air carriers receiving
    financial assistance from the Treasury department. We also provided
    technical assistance to the Treasury department, and validated which
    applicants were bona fide air carriers. We, in conjunction with the
    Federal Aviation Administration, coordinated within the Administration,
    with foreign partners, and with U.S. and foreign airlines to implement
    flight restrictions to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Today, we
    are working with the same counterparts to plan for the safe resumption
    of international air travel.
        Our Office of Research and Technology has played a lead role in the
    past year in advancing the Department's responsibilities in spectrum,
    and as the civilian Federal government lead for the Global Positioning
    Satellite system. In that capacity, we recommended against the
    introduction of new broadband that would interfere with GPS, and tested
    eleven potential backup technologies. We have also advocated for the
    preservation of the 5.9 GHZ ``Transportation Safety Band'' to allow for
    the emergence of new technologies, with a plan to deploy connected
    vehicle technology in 5 million vehicles in five years.
        I am especially proud of our role in coordinating and advancing
    Secretary Chao's signature initiative to fight human trafficking. We
    received over 200 new commitments from transportation stakeholders
    through our ``One Hundred Pledges in One Hundred Days,'' outreach
    campaign. These organizations will train over 1.3 million
    transportation employees on how to spot trafficking, and help the
    victims.
        Because of necessary social-distancing requirements I cannot be
    joined today by family, mentors or colleagues. Since she cannot join
    me, I would like to acknowledge my wife, Chiling Tong, in absentia. A
    prominent Asian Pacific American activist, she worked with a group of
    mostly Chinese-American organizations that have collectively purchased
    and distributed over ten million masks and other protective gear for
    hospitals and emergency services in the greater New York City and
    Washington D.C. areas. It is this kind of citizen activism that makes
    Americans, and America, great.
        Nearly forty years ago I began my public service as a United States
    Army cavalry scout and tanker, patrolling the East-West German border.
    All of us who have worn our country's uniform well-remember the
    camaraderie of being in a close-knit group, sharing a common mission.
    That same spirit animates us today. When I tried to thank our DOT
    coronavirus team for working their 21st straight day, a senior career
    executive would have none of it. ``Most of us chose public service
    because we wanted to help people,'' he said. ``Now is our time.''
        I try to live up to that ethos, daily.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
    am happy to take any questions.
                                     ______

                          a. biographical information
        1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Joel Matthew
    Szabat.
        2. Position to which nominated: Under Secretary of Transportation
    Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation.
        3. Date of Nomination: May 4, 2020.
        4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

            Residence: Information not released to the public.
            Office: 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE, Washington, D.C. 20590.

        5. Date and Place of Birth: 25 January 1959; Fort Worth, TX.
        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).

            Spouse: Chiling Tong, Chief Executive Officer and President of
            the National Asian/Pacific Islander Chamber of Commerce and
            Entrepreneurship (National Ace), 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
            Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20004.

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

            Georgetown University, 1981 BA Economics & Public
            Administration.
            Harvard University, 1988 MBA.

        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.

            Captain, U.S. Army, 1981-86.

            Management Consultant, Strategic Planning Associates, 1988-90.

            Executive Officer, U.S. EPA, 1990-93.

            Principal Consultant (Transportation), California State
            Assembly, 1993-2001.

            Principal, White Dragon Group (self-employed) 2001-02.

            Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, USDOT,
            2002-03.

            Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management & Budget, USDOT,
            2003-05.

            Transportation Counselor, U.S. Embassy, Baghdad, Iraq, 2005.

            Senior Counselor to the Secretary, USDOT, 2005-06.

            Chief of Staff, Small Business Administration, 2006-08.

            Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, USDOT,
            2008-11.

            Executive Officer, Maritime Administration, USDOT, 2011-18.

            Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation & International
            Affairs, USDOT, 2018-2019.

            Assistant Secretary for Aviation & International Affairs,
            USDOT, January 2019 to present.

            Acting Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, USDOT
            (through January 2020); and Performing the Duties of the Under
            Secretary January 2020-Present.

        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.
        Unpaid advisor to the International Leadership Foundation (ILF), an
    educational non-profit my wife and I founded in 2000.
        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.
        Unpaid advisor to the International Leadership Foundation (ILF), an
    educational non-profit my wife and I founded in 2000.
        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.
        Unsuccessful candidate for the Sacramento, CA Municipal Utility
    District (SMUD) in 1998. No debts.
        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. 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.

            Judy Chu for Congress--August 6, 2011--$1,750.

            McConnell Senate Committee--August 22, 2014--$2,100.

            McConnell Senate Committee--October 31, 2014--$2,100.

        16. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
    society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
    for outstanding service or achievements.

            Army Commendation Medal.

            Army Meritorious Service Medal.

            Presidential Rank Award (Meritorious Service).

            USDOT War on Terror Medal.

            USDOT Inspirational Leader.

            Ellis Island Foundation Medal of Honor.

            Distinguished Visitor, Eisenhower School for National Security
            and Resource Strategy, National Defense University.

        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.
        No books, articles, columns, or publications. Since becoming the
    Assistant Secretary for Aviation & International Affairs, and
    subsequently the Acting Under Secretary I have spoken to transportation
    stakeholder organizations and on panels at the Transportation Research
    Board (TRB).
        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--Joel Szabat--dormant. I have no other social media
    accounts.
        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.

            (House) Committee on Small Business, March 12, 2009, Ensuring
            Stimulus Contracts for Small and Veteran-Owned Businesses.

            (House) Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, March 26,
            2009, DOT's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.

            (House) Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee
            on Coast Guard & Marine Transportation, April 4, 2017,
            Authorization of Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation
            Programs.

            (Senate) Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
            Transportation, Housing & Urban Development and Related
            Agencies, April 5, 2017, Preventing Sexual Assault & Sexual
            Harassment at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.

            (Senate) Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation, May
            9, 2017, Maritime Transportation.

            (Senate) Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation,
            August 23, 2018, Nominations Hearing.

            (Senate) Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation, June
            19, 2019, Reauthorization of the Fixing America's Surface
            Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015.

            (House) Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee
            on Aviation, September 26, 2019, 2018 FAA Reauthorization.

            (Senate) Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
            November 20, 2019, Highly Automated Vehicles: Federal
            Perspectives on the Deployment of Safety Technology.

            (Senate) Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Transportation &
            Safety, January 28, 2020, Overview of the Build America Bureau
            and the U.S. Department of Transportation Rural Transportation
            Initiatives.

            (Senate) Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Aviation & Space,
            March 4, 2020, From SARS to Coronavirus: Examining the Role of
            Global Aviation in Containing the Spread of Infectious Disease.

        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 have been performing the duties of the position to which I have
    been nominated since June, 2019. Because ofmy work history, I had prior
    experience in most of the functions of my position before I assumed the
    responsibilities.
        For a year-and-a-half before I became Acting Under Secretary, I ran
    the Office of Aviation & International Affairs (January 2018-June
    2019), one of the four subordinate offices under the aegis of the Under
    Secretary.
        I have had two stints (2002-2003; 2009-2011) as Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Policy, a second office that reports to the Under
    Secretary. In 2009 I was the senior career official and performed the
    duties of the Under Secretary during the gap between the departure of
    the political appointees of one administration, and the confirmation of
    appointees for the incoming administration.
        In 2009 I was also named the Federal official responsible for
    overseeing DOT's $48 billion in Recovery Act funds. During this period
    I oversaw the establishment of staff to oversee the first major
    intermodal competitive grant program (TIGER) which has grown into a
    third office (Build America Bureau) that reports to the Under
    Secretary.
        The Department of Transportation has a unique ``modal'' structure,
    with decentralized statutory and regulatory authorities given to
    organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal
    Highway Administration. The Under Secretary has to coordinate their
    policy efforts with that of the rest of the Secretary's leadership. My
    time as the Executive Director of the Maritime Administration (2012-
    2018) gives me better understanding, experience, and credibility in
    performing that coordination.
        I have the good fortune to be an American, and I appreciate that
    public service is a way to give back to the country. This particular
    job is important. I believe I can do it well, and I have the background
    to do it better than most.
        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 am already responsible for ensuring that the Office of the Under
    Secretary and its component offices have proper management controls. If
    confirmed, I would continue that responsibility, and continue to work
    closely with both the Chief Financial Officer of the Office of the
    Secretary and the management and procurement staff in the Office of the
    Under Secretary, who provide financial controls expertise for this
    office.
        During the transition between Presidents Bush and Obama, I was the
    senior official managing the entire Office of the Under Secretary.
    During the transition between Presidents Obama and Trump, I was the
    senior official managing the Maritime Administration.
        As Executive Director of the Maritime Administration, all the
    program and support offices reported to me, totaling over 700 Federal
    employees. As Chief of Staff of the Small Business Administration, I
    directly supervised numerous staff offices, including the CFO,
    procurement, human resources, administration, civil rights, and
    government affairs.
        In the Army, I was a Tank Platoon leader, and then the Executive
    Officer and Acting Troop Commander of a Cavalry Troop of 200 officers
    and soldiers.
        22. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
    department/agency, and why?
        Transportation in a Pandemic: Maintaining vital national
    transportation services, and the well-being of critical infrastructure
    workers, is essential to fighting COVID-19. Transportation will also
    lead the national rebound, and must be positioned to do so quickly, as
    the threat of the virus abates.
        Safety: Safety is Secretary Chao's top priority. Safety is the
    primary statutory mission of most of the component administrations
    within the Department. Reducing accidents, injuries and deaths across
    transportation is far and away our most important mission.
        Infrastructure & Innovation: Much of our existing infrastructure is
    aging-out, or is obsolete for emerging technologies. The administration
    has recognized the need to reinvest in infrastructure with a ten year,
    $1 trillion plan. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with
    Congress on a new Surface Transportation Reauthorization. Our top
    innovation challenge is to safely integrate promising new technologies
    (e.g., drones, autonomous vehicles, hyperloop) into our existing
    transportation system.
                       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.
        My arrangement are fully described in Part 3 of my Public Financial
    Disclosure Report.
        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.
        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.
        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
    the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
    (DOT) Designed Agency Ethic Official to identify potential conflicts of
    interest. Further any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved
    in accordance with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have
    entered into with DOT's Designated Agency Ethics Official and that has
    been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential
    conflicts of interest.
        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.
        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
    the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
    (DOT) Designed Agency Ethic Official to identify potential conflicts of
    interest. Further any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved
    in accordance with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have
    entered into with DOT's Designated Agency Ethics Official and that has
    been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential
    conflicts of interest.
        5. Identify any other potential conflicts of interest, and explain
    how you will resolve each potential conflict of interest.
        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
    the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
    (DOT) Designed Agency Ethic Official to identify potential conflicts of
    interest. Further any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved
    in accordance with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have
    entered into with DOT's Designated Agency Ethics Official and that has
    been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential
    conflicts of interest.
        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 a Federal government employee since 2002, I have only ever been
    involved in representing the administration's position on legislative
    matters.
                                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. 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. None.
                         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, insofar as it is in my power to do so.
        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.
                                     ______

                             Resume of Joel Szabat
    2002-2006, 2008-Present
    US Department of Transportation (DOT)
    Washington, DC

    Acting Under Secretary for Transportation Policy June 2019-present.
    Direct DOT's offices of Aviation & International Affairs, Policy,
    Research and the Build America Bureau. Manage 800 Federal employees and
    a $1 billion annual budget. Advise the Secretary on policy and research
    initiatives; help shape DOT's annual budget requests. Represent DOT on
    the Amtrak Board of Directors; DOT's representative on the White House
    Coronavirus Task Force.

    Assistant Secretary for Aviation & International Affairs: January 2018-
    present. Confirmed in position January 2019. As Deputy Assistant
    Secretary ran the office in the absence of a non-career appointee from
    January 2018 until confirmed. Oversee staff that: negotiates agreements
    for U.S. air carriers to operate internationally; licenses all foreign
    and domestic air carriers to operate in the United States; rules on
    airline merger and joint venture requests; manages the Essential Air
    Service and Small Community Air Service Development grant programs; and
    coordinates international activities and policy for the Secretary
    across DOT.

    Executive Director of the Maritime Administration (MARAD) from 2011-
    2018. MARAD's senior career official and Chief Operating Officer,
    overseeing MARAD's career staff of nearly 800 Federal employees, and
    several hundred contractors, with an annual budget of over $700
    million, and over $1 billion of outstanding loans and grants. MARAD
    runs the Nation's only civilian Federal service academy (university),
    the United States Merchant Marine Academy at King's Point, New York.
    MARAD maintains a reserve fleet of cargo ships for military sealift and
    manages a commercial program including most of the US-flag
    international fleet. MARAD rose from the bottom third to the top half
    of agencies in the Federal Best Places to Work survey, during this
    period.

    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy from 2002-2003,
    2008-2011. Named DOT's Federal officer responsible for the Recovery Act
    in 2009. Stood up a dozen programs, which invested $48 billion in over
    15,000 road, transit and rail surface transportation projects
    nationwide. Oversaw the initial development and administration of the
    first three rounds of TIGER grants. Coordinated a seven-federal agency
    effort in 2002 under a Presidential executive order, to streamline
    project reviews of key transportation infrastructure. Co-chaired, along
    with the Department of Defense, the steering group of a multi-agency
    committee that developed and coordinated the Federal government's GPS
    policy. Managed budget, staff and contract resources for the Office of
    the Under Secretary, including Aviation & International Affairs.

    Senior Counselor for Transportation Infrastructure from 2005-2006.
    Advised Secretary. Led special projects such as Pandemic Flu
    preparation, reviewing research and development across the department,
    and Hurricane Katrina Lessons Learned.

    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management & Budget from 2003-2005. Led
    DOT's participation in the President's Management Agenda. Tied for
    first Federal agency to meet all requirements in four measured areas
    (Human Capital, Budget and Performance Integration, Competitive
    Sourcing, E-Government).

    2006-2008
    Chief of Staff, Small Business Administration
    Washington, DC

    Spearheaded the creation of the Patriot Express loan program, to help
    veterans and their families. Helped to reform SBA's disaster-assistance
    program, and to establish a public scorecard to track the progress of
    Federal agencies in meeting their small business contracting goals.
    Supervised the Chief Financial Officer, Human Resources, and other
    administration. Inherited the lowest score among large agencies in the
    Best Places to Work survey. The very next survey gave SBA the largest
    increase (30 percent) of any large Federal agency.

    February 2005-September 2005
    Transportation Counselor to the Ambassador
    Baghdad, Iraq

    Directed the U.S. government's transportation reconstruction program in
    Iraq. Managed $544m in Federal funds, and coordinated with foreign
    governments, to restore ports, airports and railroads in Iraq.

    2001-2002
    Principal, White Dragon Group
    Sacramento, CA

    Advised Asian Pacific American business leaders on how to increase
    their civic engagement and effectiveness.

    1993-2001
    Principal Consultant for Transportation, California State Assembly
    Sacramento, CA

    Served as the minority (Republican) party's sole transportation
    consultant. Analyzed bills, recommended how to vote, negotiated with
    stakeholders and with the majority. Developed a proposal for long-term
    infrastructure investment in California (the `20/20 vision'), adopted
    by the party.

    1990-1993
    Executive Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Washington, DC--Sacramento, CA

    Advised the Administrator and Deputy Administrator on management,
    budget and personnel issues. Piloted a program to embed Federal
    officials with state governments for better federal-state cooperation.

    1988-1990
    Associate, Strategic Planning Associates (now Mercer Management)
    Washington, DC

    As a management consultant, advised railroad and trucking firms. Helped
    develop an economic pricing model for long-haul trucking.

    1981-1986
    Captain, United States Army
    Fulda Gap, Germany--Fort Devens, Massachusetts

    Led a tank platoon and an Armored Cavalry Troop, as Executive Officer
    and Acting Commander, patrolling the East-West German border during the
    Cold War.
    Education
    Received a B.A. in Economics and Government from Georgetown University
    (1981) and an MBA from Harvard Business School (1988)
    Personal
    Born in Texas; grew up in Massachusetts. Co-founded the International
    Leadership Foundation (ILF), a non-profit organization promoting public
    service for Asian Pacific American college students. Married to Chiling
    Tong, a prominent APA activist, and co-founder of the ILF.

    Received the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award for leading the
    Recovery Act and TIGER within DOT. Named an `inspirational leader' in
    DOT in 2015. Earned the Meritorious Service Medal in the Army, and
    awarded the Ellis Island Foundation Medal of Honor for work with the
    Asian Pacific American community.
    Career and Non-Career Positions
    Appointed to a Schedule C (Administratively Determined) position at
    USEPA from 1990-1993. Appointed to a Schedule C Senior Executive
    Service position from 2002-2008. While at the Small Business
    Administration in 2008, applied to, and was accepted for, a vacant
    career Senior Executive Service position at USDOT. Career SES in USDOT
    from 2008-2019. Became Presidentially-appointed Senate-confirmed (PAS)
    Assistant Secretary in January, 2019.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Szabat.
        Commissioner O'Rielly.

       STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. O'RIELLY, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER,
                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

        Mr. O'Rielly. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
    members of the Committee, I sincerely appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you to discuss my nomination for a
    new term at the Federal Communications Commission.
        During my tenure, I have absolutely loved serving the
    American people and will be honored to continue in my position
    at the Commission, if you deem it appropriate. FCC work is both
    challenging and rewarding, and I believe that there is so much
    more that I can accomplish to improve the communication
    landscapes in the years to come.
        Nearly 7 years ago during my original confirmation hearing,
    I promised the Committee that I would seek to work with my
    fellow colleagues, to the extent possible, to find common
    ground. I think my record since suggests that I have kept my
    word. In sum, my commitment has been to find and support good
    ideas and sound policy outcomes no matter where or from whom
    they originate.
        Throughout, I have tried to stay true to my original
    commitments in approaching my role as a Commissioner. My
    principles are used as an important prism that guides me in my
    review of the issues, and I have focused on limiting the costs
    and burdens on the American people from new regulations and
    eliminating existing regulations that are no longer necessary.
    Regardless of my personal views on a particular matter,
    however, I am always beholden to the will of Congress.
        Substantively, one area on which I have spent considerable
    attention and energy is FCC process reform, which gets few
    headlines and little attention from practitioners. I firmly
    believe that transparency, accountability, and responsiveness
    of the Commission can be improved for the betterment of our
    decisionmaking and the American people.
        On policy matters, there is much work ahead. The biggest
    issue facing the Commission is how to bring broadband to those
    Americans without service. I am painfully aware of this
    demographic despite our poor mapping and related data. It is
    indisputable that broadband brings many benefits to those who
    are able to obtain it. Having traveled the Nation and heard
    from American families and businesses that do not have access,
    I am committed as ever to shrinking this population as fast as
    possible in a thoughtful way.
        Second and on a related note, since wireless broadband is a
    key part of solving this problem, the Commission must identify
    and reallocate additional spectrum bands for new wireless
    services, including 5G, 6G, and beyond. It is essential that
    the mid-band pipeline, which lies mostly empty, be replenished
    in the very near term. Absent this, we face the real risk that
    the U.S. will lose its preeminent position in global wireless
    leadership.
        Finally, there has been considerable debate in Congress and
    elsewhere about the regulatory treatment of the U.S. high
    technology community. Recently, the conversation has focused on
    the legal liability protections provided to high-tech companies
    and others offering applications or platforms for third party
    content. If asked to intervene, I intend to fully explore all
    of the extremely complex and relevant issues involved. Like my
    practice of reading every item on which I am asked to vote, you
    can be assured that I will do my homework on this important
    subject as well.
        I thank the Committee for its consideration of my
    nomination and stand ready to answer any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
    O'Rielly follow:]

           Prepared Statement of Michael P. O'Rielly, Commissioner,
                       Federal Communications Commission
        Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
    Committee: I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
    to discuss my nomination for a new term at the Federal Communications
    Commission, especially in the midst of the current COVID-19 pandemic
    facing our Nation.
        Many Members of the Committee may be familiar with me from my many
    years at the FCC or from just short of twenty years working on Capitol
    Hill. I have absolutely loved serving the American people and would be
    honored to continue in my position at the Commission, if you deem it
    appropriate. The work is both challenging and rewarding, and I believe
    that there is so much more that I can accomplish to improve the
    communications landscape in the years to come.
        Nearly seven years ago, during my original confirmation hearing, I
    promised the Committee that I would seek to work with my fellow
    colleagues, to the extent possible, to find common ground. I think my
    record since then suggests that I kept my word. Former Chairman Tom
    Wheeler, with whom I strongly disagreed on many issues, collaborated
    with me on numerous important matters, including reforming legacy rate-
    of-return regulation to promote broadband buildout. Similarly, I have
    worked with Commissioner Rosenworcel and former Commissioner Clyburn on
    a fair number of projects and issues. I have also joined with--and
    occasionally opposed--my fellow Republican colleagues to advance
    communications policy. While most of the time I have agreed with
    Chairman Pai's priorities, there have been some disagreements from time
    to time that may not have been necessarily visible to the public. You
    can be assured that I have worked behind the scenes to effectuate
    changes to those items, or portions thereof, that I couldn't support as
    presented. As is his reputation, Chairman Pai has been incredibly
    gracious in working with me to improve these items to mitigate my
    concerns. In sum, my commitment has been to find and support good ideas
    and sound policy outcomes, no matter where or from whom they originate.
        Throughout, I have tried to stay true to my original commitments in
    approaching my role as commissioner. As a self-admitted conservative
    Republican and firm defender of freedom, my principles are used as an
    important prism that guide me in my review of the issues, and I have
    focused on limiting the costs and burdens on the American people from
    new regulations and eliminating existing regulations that are no longer
    necessary. Regardless of my personal views on a particular matter,
    however, I am always beholden to the will of Congress: if Congress has
    not provided authority to act, then I have respected those constraints
    on our authority and openly opposed moving forward. Alternatively, if
    the Commission has been directed to take specific action, I have always
    voted to approve corresponding Commission implementation efforts. My
    fidelity remains to the statutory provisions as written by Congress,
    along with the FCC public record on any given topic. That said, the
    record in any proceeding is not a counting exercise or polling matter.
    A thoughtful submission, well-grounded in the law and Commission
    precedent, can and does outweigh thousands of form e-mails containing
    little real substance.
        One area that on which I have spent considerable attention and
    energy is improving the inner workings of the Commission. FCC process
    reform, which gets few headlines and little attention from
    practitioners, has been an important issue set for me--whether in the
    minority or majority. From making the text of items publicly available
    three weeks before a Commission Open Meeting, to my 60-plus procedural
    ideas, to my recent call for video conferencing to increase the
    accessibility of FCC meetings during COVID-19, I firmly believe that
    the transparency, accountability, and responsiveness of the Commission
    can be improved, for the betterment of our decision making and the
    American people. I appreciate that a number of my ideas have been
    incorporated into our procedures, but I believe there is more work to
    be done. Further, any improvements that have been made should be
    maintained and not erased at the whim of a new chair.
        On policy matters, there is much work ahead. I believe the biggest
    issue facing the Commission is how to bring broadband to those
    Americans without service. While some want to focus on affordability,
    and others on ensuring multiple competitors within a market, I have
    focused my time and efforts on bringing service to those millions of
    Americans without any access to broadband at all. I am painfully aware
    of this demographic, despite our poor mapping and related data. It is
    indisputable that broadband brings many benefits to those who are able
    to obtain it, and this is especially true in circumstances like the
    pandemic we face today. Having travelled the Nation and heard from
    American families and businesses that don't have access, I am committed
    as ever to shrinking this population as fast as possible in a
    thoughtful way.
        Secondly, and on a related note, since wireless broadband is a key
    part of solving this problem, the Commission must identify and
    reallocate additional spectrum bands for new wireless services,
    including 5G, 6G, and beyond. As a lead advocate for both 3.5 GHz and
    C-Band, I have worked extensively to make more mid-band spectrum
    available, but the progress we have made is not enough. The 350
    megahertz of licensed spectrum in both the 3.5 GHz band, which has
    certain limitations, and C-Band will not meet the future spectrum needs
    of new technology and the mobility-demanding public. It is essential
    that the mid-band pipeline, which lies mostly empty, be replenished in
    the very near term. Absent this, we face the real risk that the U.S.
    will lose its preeminent position in global wireless leadership.
    Preventing such an outcome means that the Commission is likely headed
    for future clashes with those entities occupying the most ideal mid-
    band spectrum.
        I have also been at the forefront of identifying additional bands
    for unlicensed use. Early on, I identified the 6 GHz band, which is
    located near the 5 GHz spectrum so prevalent in our existing Wi-Fi
    systems, as the best opportunity to expand unlicensed opportunities and
    provide the larger bandwidth channels needed for greater capacity,
    higher speed, and lower latency Wi-Fi, along with other unlicensed
    offerings. The Commission recently opened these frequencies for some
    unlicensed uses, and I hope to expand upon our technical rules to
    permit even more uses in the future, such as for very low power
    devices.
        Finally, there has been considerable debate in Congress and
    elsewhere about the regulatory treatment of the U.S. high technology
    community. Generally, the FCC does not have authority over many of the
    issues pertaining to these companies. Recently, the conversation has
    focused on the legal liability protections provided to high-tech
    companies and others offering applications or platforms for third party
    content. If asked to intervene, I intend to fully explore all of the
    extremely complex and relevant issues involved. Prior to getting to
    that point, I believe that the Commission would benefit from seeking
    public comment on any forthcoming petition to be filed by the National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration from a wide range of
    experts, including constitutional scholars, academics, and public
    policy leaders, on issues such as the Commission's jurisdiction and the
    First Amendment implications of any action under consideration. Like my
    practice of reading every item on which I am asked to vote, you can
    expect that I will do my homework on this important subject as well.
        I thank the Committee for its consideration of my nomination and
    stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

                          a. biographical information
        1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Michael
    Patrick O'Rielly.
        2. Position to which nominated: Commissioner, Federal
    Communications Commission.
        3. Date of Nomination: March 18, 2020.
        4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

            Residence: Information not released to the public.
            Office: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW,
            Room 8-A302, Washington, DC 20554.

        5. Date and Place of Birth: July 8, 1971; Lockport, NY.
        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).
            Sarah Elizabeth Goss O'Rielly, Cash Forecasting and Modeling
            Advisor, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Government of
            the District of Columbia.
        7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
    attended.

            University of Rochester, 1993, Bachelor of Arts, Political
            Science.

        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.  Federal Communications Commission, Commissioner, November 2013 to
            present, management.

      B.  Office of the Senate Republican Whip, Senator John Cornyn, Policy
            Advisor, January 2013 to November 2013.

      C.  Office of the Senate Republican Whip, former Senator Jon Kyl,
            Deputy Chief of Staff and Policy Director, April 2012 to
            January 2013, management.

      D.  Office of the Senate Republican Whip, former Senator Jon Kyl,
            Policy Advisor, July 2010 to April 2012.

      E.  Senate Republican Policy Committee, Senator John Thune and former
            Senator John Ensign, Policy Analyst, January 2009 to July 2010.

      F.  Former Senator John E. Sununu, Legislative Director, January 2007
            to January 2009, management.

      G.  Former Senator John E. Sununu, Legislative Assistant, January
            2003 to January 2007.

      H.  House of Representatives' Committee on Energy & Commerce, former
            Chairman W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin and former Chairman Tom Bliley,
            Professional Staff Member, January 1998 to January 2003.

      I.  House of Representatives' Committee on Energy & Commerce, former
            Chairman Tom Bliley, Telecommunications Policy Analyst, January
            1995 to January 1998.

      J.  Former Representative Tom Bliley, Legislative Assistant, January
            1994 to January 1995.

        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. Not Applicable.
        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. Not
    Applicable.
        12. Please list each membership youhavehad 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.
        Member, Knights of Columbus, Arlington VA Chapter, (March 2017 to
    present); membership is based on a male holding the Catholic faith.
        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 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.
        Volunteer: Health, Education, & Crime Policy Staff, 2012 Republican
    Platform Committee.
        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.

      A.  CTIA Wireless Foundation, Mobile Life Award, 2018.

      B.  Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy
            Studies, Jerry B. Duval Public Service Award, 2018.

      C.  Wireless Connect, Spectrum Champion of the Year, 2019.

      D.  Wi-Fi Alliance, Commitment to Wi-Fi Award, 2019.

      E.  Women in Cable Telecommunications, Washington/Baltimore Chapter,
            Touchstones of Leadership Outstanding Public Service Award,
            2019.

      F.  New York State Broadcasters Association, Inc., New Yorker of the
            Year, 2019.

        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.
    Columns
       1.  The Hill, ``FCC's grab for new regulatory power could go beyond
            broadband providers,'' May 6, 2014

       2.  National Review Online, ``Net Neutrality & Cost Benefit
            Analysis'' (with then Rep. Blackbum), July 10, 2014

       3.  Politico, ``FCC's Lifeline Program Ripe for Fraud, Abuse'' (with
            then Rep. Blackburn), July 12, 2015

       4.  WSJ, ``The Consequences of a Washington Internet Power Grab,''
            (with then FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen, August 8, 2015

       5.  The Hill, ``Improving the 5.9 GHz band to enhance unlicensed and
            Wi-Fi networks'' (with Rep. Latta), March 2, 2016

       6.  National Review Online, ``The Path to protecting Americans
            Online,'' April 7, 2017

       7.  Roll Call, ``Opinion: Stop the Next Internet Power Grab'' (with
            Sen. Cruz), November 21, 2017

       8.  The Hill, ``States are stealing funds from 9-1-1 emergency
            services now they'll be punished'' (with FCC Commissioner
            Rosenworcel), February 9, 2018

       9.  WSJ, ``A Smarter Approach to Saturday Morning Cartoons,'' June
            20, 2018

      10.  National Review Online, ``A Solid Process and Proposal to Update
            Kid Vid,'' July 5, 2018

      11.  The Hill, ``Reining in UN's little known International
            Telecommunication Union,'' August 8, 2018

      12.  Morning Consult, ``Empowering U.S. 5G by Fixing the CBRS
            Rules,'' October 2, 2018

      13.  The Hill, `` `Kid Vid' TV rules are growing up,'' July 19, 2019
    Official FCC Blog (available on FCC Website)
       1.  Blog Introduction and Views on E-Rate Reform, February 12, 2014

       2.  Thoughts on Broadcast Television JSAs and SSAs, February 9, 2014

       3.  Duplication Alert: Broadband Pilot Projects, March 5, 2014

       4.  TCPA: It is Time for Clarity, March 25, 2014

       5.  On the Rise: Regulating Through Pilot Programs, April 10, 2014

       6.  E-Labeling Deserves Serious Consideration, April 25, 2014

       7.  FCC Needs to Improve its 911 and IPv6 Compliance, June 2, 2014

       8.  With an Eye Towards WRC 2015, June 9, 2014

       9.  Introducing the Internet to the FCC's Contest Rules, June 16,
            2014

      10.  Disturbing Trend in USF Funding, July 7, 2014

      11.  Most Definitely: Terminate Dormant Proceedings, July 8, 2014

      12.  Post Text of Meeting Items in Advance, August 7, 2014

      13.  Alaska: Lessons Learned, September 5, 2014

      14.  USF Contribution Factor Over Time, September 11, 2014

      15.  Harmful Consumer Wireless Behavior and Practices, October 14,
            2014

      16.  More Pocket Dialing, October 30, 2014

      17.  Lessons of the 2014 Plenipot, November 17, 2014

      18.  Expanding FCC Use of Electronic Communications, January 14, 2015

      19.  Update on Advanced Posting of Commission Meeting Items, January
            l6, 2015

      20.  Municipal Broadband: A Snapshot, January 30, 2015

      21.  Delegated Authority: Serious Objections and Solutions, February
            2, 2015

      22.  Sound Principles for Lifeline Reform, February 13, 2015

      23.  Embrace the Internet for EEO ``Widely Disseminated Rule,''
            February 20, 2015

      24.  Driving Wi-Fi Ahead: The Upper 5 GHz Band, February 23, 2015
            (with Commissioner Rosenworcel)

      25.  Affirmatively Expand Permissible Foreign Ownership, March 3,
            2015

      26.  Fixing Flawed and Non-Existent ``Editorial Privileges,'' March
            9, 2015

      27.  USF High-Cost Programs: Best and Realistic Timelines, March 24,
            2015

      28.  AWS-3 Auction: Lessons Learned, March 27, 2015

      29.  FCC Pre-Adoption Process Also Needs Work, April 1, 2015

      30.  Consider a New Way to Combat Pirate Radio Stations, April 8,
            2015

      31.  Guest Speakers & Questions at FCC Open Meetings, April 10, 2015

      32.  Problems with FCC Advisory Committees, May 1, 2015

      33.  Accountability for Enforcement Penalties & Fines, May 14, 2015

      34.  Setting Timelines for Revisiting Agency Decisions, July 10, 2015

      35.  Revamping predicative Judgments & Interim Rules, July 27, 2015

      36.  Enacting More ``Sticks'': Spectrum Fees for Government Users,
            September 8, 2015

      37.  Steering into the Future with More Wi-Fi by Sharing the Upper 5
            GHz Band, September 16, 2015

      38.  Team Telecom Needs More Structure, September 18, 2015

      39.  A Draft Pirate Radio Policy and Enforcement Statement, September
            24, 2015

      40.  Improving Broadcasters' Physical Security, September 29, 2015

      41.  Rethinking Outdated Voice Regulations, November 12, 2015

      42.  Fixing a Problem with the Hearing Aid Compatibility Mandate,
            November 30, 2015

      43.  A Starting Point for CAF Post-ROFR Auction, December 10, 2015

      44.  Regulation by Citation, January 5, 2016

      45.  2015 World Radiocommunication Conference: A Troubling Direction,
            January 15, 2016

      46.  Defending Capitalism in Communications, February 12, 2016

      47.  Stop Unfairly Censoring Commissioners, February 24, 2016

      48.  Lifeline Reform: Add a Hard Budget, March 3, 2016

      49.  Improving the FCC Circulation Process, May 31, 2016

      50.  Principles for Media Ownership Reform, June 3, 2016

      51.  Defining Auto Safety of Life in 5.9 GHz, June 8, 2016

      52.  Debunking Anti-App Claims, June 27, 2016

      53.  Snapshot of Process Reform Ideas, July 8, 2016

      54.  A Path for Mobility Fund Phase II? July 25, 2016

      55.  Ending Cable Signal Leakage Rules for Fiber Builds, September
            16, 2016

      56.  Preserving Consumer Privacy Trades, September 21, 2016

      57.  Set Top Box End Game, October 4, 2016

      58.  Federal Broadband Infrastructure Spending: Potential Pitfalls,
            February 1, 2017

      59.  Needed: A Universal FCC Deadline Policy, February 8, 2017

      60.  A Modified Delegated Authority Proposal, February 22, 2017

      61.  States Must Stop Raiding9-l-l Fees, March 1, 2017

      62.  Taking Stock of FCC Paperwork Burdens, March 3, 2017

      63.  New Tower Marking Provision Could Use Tweaks, March 10, 2107

      64.  Improved Staff Openness & New Priorities, March 22, 2017

      65.  International Efforts to Regulate the Internet Continue, April
            21, 2017

      66.  Would Means-Testing Bring More Efficiencies to the High-Cost
            Program? May 31, 2017

      67.  A Mid-Band Spectrum Win in the Making, July 10, 2017

      68.  How to Free Up Government Held Spectrum in the Face of
            Increasing Budgetary Pressure, September 6, 2017

      69.  Thoughtfully Modernizing the Commission's Media Ownership Rules,
            October 20, 2017

      70.  Repairing the Must Vote Timing, January 9, 2018

      71.  Its Time to Reexamine the FCC' s Kid Vid Requirements, January
            26, 2018

      72.  Defining Recoverable Expenses for Rate-of-Return Providers,
            (with former Commissioner Mignon Clyburn), January 31, 2018

      73.  Paper FCC Record: Why in the World? February 2, 2018

      74.  Abusing Section 1, February 21, 2018

      75.  Experienced Advice for New Broadband Program, April 11, 2018

      76.  Debunking the Sinclair Agenda Myth, May 18, 2018

      77.  FCC Regulatory Free Arena, June 1, 2018

      78.  Status Update: Fixing the 9-1-1 Fee Diversion, June 8, 2018

      79.  Status Update: Fixing 9-1-1 Fee Diversion, November 29, 2018

      80.  Muni Broadband's Ominous Threat to the First Amendment, December
            13, 2018

      81.  Further Improving the FCC' s Procedures, December 20, 2018

      82.  A Needed USF Budgetary Cap, April 2, 2019

      83.  Substantive Objections to a Government 5G Wholesale Network, May
            7, 2019

      84.  More Media Modernization: Program Carriage Process& Cable
            Operator Interests Recordkeeping, January 28, 2020

      85.  The 3.5 Auction is Finally a Go!, February 7, 2020
    Speeches (available on FCC website)
        1.  Remarks before the Hudson Institute, January 27, 2014

        2.  Remarks before the Federal Communications Bar Association,
            April 1, 2014

        3.  Remarks before the Media Institute, June 19, 2014

        4.  Remarks before the LinkIDAHO 2014 Broadband Summit, September
            2, 2014

        5.  Remarks before the NTCA Telecom Policy Summit, October 27, 2014

        6.  Remarks before the Free State Foundation, November 14, 2014

        7.  Remarks before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, November 17, 2014

        8.  Remarks before American Enterprise Institute Luncheon, January
            21, 2015

        9.  Remarks before NAB State Leadership Conference, February 24,
            2015

       10.  Remarks before WISPAmerica2015, February 25, 2015

       11.  Remarks before Association of National Advertisers, April 1,
            2015

       12.  Remarks before 2015 NAB Show, April 14, 2015

       13.  Remarks before the 2015 Wireless Infrastructure Show, April 28,
            2015

       14.  Remarks before the WTA-Advocates for Rural Broadband, May 5,
            2015

       15.  Remarks before the Federal Communications Bar Association
            Annual Meeting, June 11, 2015

       16.  Remarks before the NY State Broadcasters Association, June 23,
            2015

       17.  Remarks before the Internet Innovation Alliance, June 25, 2015

       18.  Remarks before the Free State Foundation, July 28, 2015

       19.  Remarks before the Rural Wireless Association, September 11,
            2015

       20.  Remarks before the Prosperity Caucus, September 22, 2015

       21.  Remarks before former Rep. Dave Brat's Spotsylvania, VA Town
            Hall, September 24, 2015

       22.  Remarks before PACE 2015 TCPA Washington Summit, September 28,
            2015

       23.  Remarksbeforethe2015 NAB Radio Show, October 1, 2015

       24.  Remarks before the Competitive Carrier Association, October 7,
            2015

       25.  Remarks before New America, January 12, 2016

       26.  Remarks before the Country Radio Seminar 2016, February 9, 2016

       27.  Remarks before the NAB State Leadership Conference, February
            23, 2016

       28.  Remarks before Faegre Baker Daniels Insights Luncheon, March 8,
            2016

       29.  Remarks before the FCC's Spectrum Frontiers Workshop, March 10,
            2016

       30.  Remarks before American Action Forum, March 29, 2016

       301  Remarks before 2016 NAB Show, April 18, 2016

       32.  Remarks before the FCC's DAS & Small Cell Solutions Workshop,
            May 3, 2016

       33.  Remarks before the Advanced Television Systems Committee, May
            11, 2016

       34.  Remarks before Hogan Lovells' Technology Forum, May 25, 2016

       35.  Remarks before New Jersey Broadcasters Association 2016
            Conference, June 23, 2016

       36.  Remarks before Broadband for All Seminar, June 27,2016

       37.  Remarks before the Communications Consulting Engineers,
            September 16, 2016

       38.  Remarks before the International Bar Association Conference,
            September 20, 2016

       39.  Remarks before the TPRC Research Conference, September 30, 2016

       40.  Remarks before Hudson Institute, October 13, 2016

       41.  Remarks before the International Broadcasters Idea Bank
            Conference, October 19, 2016

       42.  Remarks before Catholic University School of Law, November 3,
            2016

       43.  Remarks before the Free State Foundation, December 7, 2016

       44.  Remarks before the New England Ratepayers Association, December
            7, 2016

       45.  Remarks before the Satellite Industry Association, March 7,
            2017

       46.  Remarks before the Hispanic Radio Conference, March 28, 2017

       47.  Remarks before NG91 l Institute Lunch and Learn: Challenges and
            Opportunities for Funding the Future 9-1-l, April 12, 2017

       48.  Remarks before the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee,
            April 21, 2017

       49.  Remarks before 2017 NAB Show, April 25, 2017

       50.  Remarks before Freedomworks & SBE Council Event, April 26, 2017

       51.  Remarks before ACA International's Washington Insights
            Conference, May 4, 2017

       52.  Remarks before ALEC Task Force Summit, May 5, 2017

       53.  Remarks before the Media Institute Luncheon, May 11, 2017

       54.  Remarks before the Wireless Infrastructure Show, May 23, 2017

       55.  Remarks before CITEL PCC. II Delegation, June 26, 2017

       56.  Remarks before Free State Foundation, July 25, 2017

       57.  Remarks before the CBRS Alliance, August 1, 2017

       58.  Remarks before the Americans for Prosperity Summit, August 2l,
            2017

       59.  Remarks before the 7th Congreso Internacional de Espectro,
            September 6, 2017

       60.  Remarks before Latin America Spectrum Management Conference,
            September 7, 2017

       61.  Remarks before WTA's Fall Conference, September 19, 2017

       62.  Remarks before 5G Americas' Tech Briefing, October 5, 2017

       63.  Remarks before the IIC International Regulators Forum 2017,
            October 10, 2017

       64.  Remarks before the IIC Annual Conference 2017, October 11, 2017

       65.  Remarks before the Americas Spectrum Management Conference,
            October 13, 2017

       66.  Remarks before the New Jersey Wireless Association, October 18,
            2017

       67.  Remarks before the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee,
            November 9, 2017

       68.  Remarks before the Future of the Internet Freedom Event,
            November 28, 1017

       69.  Remarks before the Hudson Institute, February 6, 2018

       70.  Remarks before AT&T 3.5 GHz Future Innovation Showcase,
            February l3, 2018

       71.  Remarks before Rhode Island E911 Summit, March 20, 2018

       72.  Remarks before Diversity-Digital Entertainment Advisory
            Committee, March 27, 2018

       73.  Remarks before Garvey Schubert & Barer Communications Group,
            April 9, 2018

       74.  Remarks before 2018 NAB Show, April 10, 2018

       75.  Remarks before American Enterprise Institute, April 19, 2018

       76.  Remarks before Philadelphia Federalist Society, June 12, 2018

       77.  Remarks before Mackinac Center for Public Policy, June 20, 2018

       78.  Remarks before Cloud Comm Summit, June 27, 2018

       79.  Remarks before Free State Foundation, June 28, 2018

       80.  Remarks before Midwest Next-Gen TV Summit, June 28, 2018

       81.  Remarks before Mobile World Congress Americas, September 13,
            2018

       82.  Remarks before 2018 NAB Radio Show, September 27, 2018

       83.  Remarks before Americas Spectrum Management Conference, October
            2, 2018

       84.  Remarks before Kentucky Broadcasters Association Conference,
            October 10, 2018

       85.  Remarks before Media Institute Free Speech America Gala,
            October 25, 2018

       86.  Remarks before Build Smart Cities of Tomorrow Conference,
            October 30, 2018

       87.  Remarks before NAB State Leadership Conference, February 26,
            2019

       88.  Remarks before ACA Annual Summit, March 20, 2019

       89.  Remarks before Wireless Connect 2019, April 4, 2019

       90.  Remarks before Disability Advisory Committee, April 10, 2019

       91.  Remarks before NTCA Legislative & Policy Conference, April 15,
            2019

       92.  Remarks before Brooklyn 5G Summit 2019, April 25, 2019

       93.  Remarks before CBRS Alliance, April 30, 2019

       94.  Remarks before Daniel Morgan Graduate School of National
            Security, May 16, 2019

       95.  Remarks before ACA International Washington Insights
            Conference, May 16, 2019

       96.  Remarks before Wi-Fi Alliance Annual Member Meeting, June 4,
            2019

       97.  Remarks before American Society of Civil Engineers Conference,
            June 10, 2019

       98.  Remarks before Hudson Institute, June 25, 2019

       99.  Remarks before Arkansas Broadcasters' Annual Conference, July
            19, 2019

      100.  Remarks before Pennsylvania NENA, September 12, 2019

      101.  Remarks before OnGo Commercial Service Launch, September 18,
            2019

      102.  Remarks before Americas Spectrum Management Conference,
            September 24, 2019

      103.  Remarks before FCBA Young Lawyers Committee USF Seminar,
            October 2, 2019

      104.  Remarks before NY State Broadcasters' Broadcast Leadership &
            Hall of Fame Luncheon, October 18, 2019

      105.  Remarks before Mobile World Congress Americas 2019 Everything
            Policy Track, October 24, 2019

      106.  Remarks before Massachusetts Broadcasters' Sound Bites 2019
            Event, November 15, 2019

      107.  Remarks before Silicon Flatirons' Annual Flagship Conference,
            February 10, 2020

      108.  Remarks before the America's Public Television Stations' 2020
            Public Media Summit, February 25, 2020

        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.

      A.  Twitter: mikeofcc, active, https://twitter.com/mikeofcc

      B.  Twitter: mpo44, dormant, https://twitter.com/mpo44

      C.  Facebook: Mike ORielly, active, https://www.facebook.com/
            mike.orielly.50

      D.  LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-o-1ielly-25a8257a/

      E.  Next Door: Mike O'Rielly, Leeway Overlee, active

        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.

      A.  House Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Communications and
            Technology: December 12, 2013; March 19, 2015; April 30, 2015;
            November 17, 2015; March 22, 2016; July 12, 2016; July 25,
            2017; October 25, 2017; July 25, 2018; May 15, 2019; December
            5, 2019

      B.  Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
            September 18, 2013 (nomination); March 18, 2015; March 02,
            2016; September 15, 2016; March 8, 2017; August 16, 2018; June
            12, 2019; January 15, 2020

      C.  Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Financial
            Services and General Government: March 19, 2015, June 20, 2017

        The subject matter of all of these instances was my work on policy
    matters at the FCC.
        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?
        As a current Commissioner, I believe my six-year record provides
    ample evidence that I take the enormous responsibilities seriously. I
    am interested in continuing to serve in order to continue my efforts to
    improve the availability of the communications services and sensible
    regulation of providers, when necessary, on behalf of the American
    people.
        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?
        Individual FCC Commissioners influence over the management and
    accounting control processes is limited but important in a number of
    ways. For instance, Commissioners vote on those selected by the
    Chairperson for management positions within the appropriate bureaus.
    Moreover, I have been aggressive and outspoken in seeking changes and
    accountability within the Universal Service Administrative Company
    (USAC), which implements the bulk of our universal service programs.
        22. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
    department/agency, and why?

      A.  Access to Broadband-By any measure, a portion of Americans are
            without access to broadband at home. These people tend to
            reside in more rural, less population dense locations, and/or
            economically challenged areas. Given our statutory
            responsibilities and recognizing the importance of having
            access to broadband, the Commission has an obligation to find
            ways to get broadband to these families. This has proven to be
            a monumental task as the Commission faces considerable pressure
            to switch attention and resources to address broadband speeds,
            rates and options for those that already have access.

      B.  Midband Spectrum Supply for 5G U.S. wireless providers and
            potential new users, such as the so-called Internet of Things,
            need access to midband spectrum in order to offer advanced
            wireless services, including 5G, domestically and to compete
            globally. Unfortunately, the most likely midband frequencies
            are already occupied, meaning that existing users must cease
            operations, reduce their band use, or relocate to other
            frequencies. I have spent considerable time, with varying
            success, over the last three years to free midband spectrum in
            the 3 GHz range (i.e., C-Band, CBRS, and 3.1 to 3.55 GHz).
            Given the current state of play, this issue will require
            considerable time and effort by the Commission to conclude.

      C.  Modernizing Regulations--The dynamic communications industry is
            facing constant pressure to change and modernize its operations
            and offerings to meet consumer demand. Accordingly, the
            Commission's regulations must adapt and modernize at the same
            time so as to not prevent the development of consumer benefits.
            Continuing to impose obligations and requirements that are no
            longer necessary wastes precious time and raises costs, which
            are passed onto consumers in one form or another.
                       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. None.
        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.
        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.
        The U.S. Office of Government Ethics has deemed my spouse's
    employment as a fixed salary position for the District of Columbia to
    be a potential conflict of interest. I have stipulated, in writing,
    that for as long as my spouse continues to work for the District of
    Columbia Government, I will not participate personally and
    substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in
    which I know the District of Columbia Government is a party or
    represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate.
        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.
        As applicable, I will continue to discuss any issues involving
    potential conflict of interest with the FCC's designated agency ethics
    officials.
        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.
        In various roles while a staff member in the U.S. Senate, I engaged
    directly and indirectly in influencing legislation and affecting the
    administration and execution of law or public policy on behalf of
    Members of the U.S. Senate. Moreover, in my current role at the FCC, I
    have lent support and/or registered concern with various legislative
    measures under discussion or active consideration in the U.S. Senate
    and/or U.S. House of Representatives.
                                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.

        In May 2018, the Office of Special Counsel sent me a letter
    indicating that my comments made while attending and speaking at CPAC
    2018 were in violation of the Hatch Act. The warning letter indicated
    that it declined to pursue disciplinary action. My comments were an
    inadvertent and unintentional effort to answer the question posed by
    the moderator.
        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. None.
                         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, to the extent within 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 extent within 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 extent within 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.
                                     ______

                         Resume of Michael P. O'Rielly
                            Professional Experience
    Federal Communications Commission
    Commissioner--November 2013 to present
       Review, negotiate, revise content, and vote on regulatory
            items before the full Commission.

       Serve as active lead on select substantive issues for
            Commission consideration and adoption, including:

         CBRS spectrum rule reform and authorization

         Children's Television Rules modernization and
                improvement

         Internal Commission operations

         Modernization and elimination of outdated and
                unnecessary Commission rules

       Provide active leadership for advancement of U.S. wireless
            licensed services, including SG, and unlicensed services
            through revisions to spectrum allocations.

       Give policy speeches, participate in public forums, maintain
            active blog, and write newspaper editorials regarding
            substantive Commission issues.

       Participate in international communications forums to extend
            U.S. influence and policy objectives, including WRC-15 & WRC-
            19.

       Participate in monthly Commission Open Meetings and testify
            before the Committees of jurisdiction in Congress.

       Host ex parte meetings and interact with parties that have
            an interest in communications policy or business before the
            Commission.

       Manage an office of five paid employees, including three
            legal advisors, and provide internship opportunities each
            semester for law school students.
    Republican Whip Office--U.S. Senate
    Policy Advisor--January 2013 to November 2013
    Deputy Chief of Staff and Policy Director--April 2012 to January 2013
    Advisor--July 2010 to April 2012
       Managed and provided policy analysis on an expansive
            portfolio of issue areas to the Republican Senate Whip
            operations.

       Helped position Republican Senators on complex policy
            matters, maintained cohesion, and determined necessary changes
            in strategy and message.

       Advocated and negotiated on behalf of the Republican Whip's
            policy positions and goals.

         Served as lead Senate Republican negotiator for Title
                VI-Public Safety Communications and Electromagnetic
                Spectrum Auctions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
                Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96).

         Established and led coalitions involving Senate
                leadership, congressional committees, diverse commercial
                interests, and consumer groups.
    Republican Policy Committee--U.S. Senate
    Banking, Technology, Transportation, Trade & Commerce Analyst--January
            2009 to August 2010
       Provided in-depth policy analysis and counsel to Republican
            Senators on a broad array of issues, including political and
            practical implications of pending legislation.

       Crafted policy alternatives, legislative substitutes, and
            strategic options for the Republican Conference.

       Prepared issue papers and background materials on high
            profile issues and key votes.

       Communicated the Republican message and positions to
            industry and press.
    Former Senator John E. Sununu--U.S. Senate (R-NH)
    Legislative Director--January 2007 to January 2009
    Senior Legislative Assistant--January 2003 to January 2007

       Supervised eleven person staff in preparing and executing
            legislative priorities.

       Responsible for office's Senate floor relations, procedure,
            and strategy.

       Served as the liaison to staffs of Senate leadership and
            Senate Commerce Committee.

       Led the Senator's aggressive technology-focused agenda,
            including:

         Internet Tax Moratorium expansion and extension

         Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) legislation

         Internet video regulatory treatment legislation

         Unlicensed spectrum in TV White Spaces

         Wireless spectrum policy reform
    Committee on Energy and Commerce--U.S. House of Representatives
    Telecom and E-Commerce Professional Staff Member--August 1998 to
            January 2003
    Telecom Legislative Analyst--January 1995 to August 1998
       Managed agendas for telecommunications and electronic
            commerce issues.

       Played an active role on all technology bills and issues
            considered by the Committee during this period, including:

         The Telecommunications Act of 1996

         Electronic signatures and records legislation

         International Satellite Reform

         Electronic Commerce and Privacy

         FCC & NTIA Reform and Reauthorization

       Drafted legislation, prepared for legislative hearings and
            committee mark-ups, and staffed conference committee meetings.
    Former Congressman Tom Bliley (R-VA)--U.S. House of Representatives
    Legislative Assistant--January 1994 to January 1995
       Advised Congressman on a wide range of legislative issues
            important to the Congressional District of Virginia.

       Reviewed pending legislation and amendments for the House
            Floor and provided vote recommendations.
                                   Education
    University of Rochester, Rochester N.Y.
    Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude in political science, May 1993

        The Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner O'Rielly.
        And now, Ms. Beck, you are recognized.

                    STATEMENT OF DR. NANCY B. BECK,

               NOMINEE TO BE A COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN,

                   CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

        Dr. Beck. Good afternoon, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today as you consider my
    nominations to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I would
    also like to thank the President for nominating me. I am
    humbled by this opportunity, and if confirmed, I will look
    forward to working with all of you to advance public health and
    safety and engaging on any issue of particular interest to you.
        While my family is not here with me today due to the COVID
    pandemic, I would like to acknowledge all the love and support
    they have provided to me. They are watching from their homes in
    New York. I have six unique and wonderful nieces and nephews
    and they are with me in spirit as they always are.
        Now more than ever, it is imperative that we ensure that
    the American public is protected from the myriad of consumer
    risks encountered on a daily basis. Our homes and our
    recreational environments must be safe spaces where we can
    relax and not have to worry about encountering harmful risks.
        If confirmed to work at the CPSC, I would continue to
    pursue my lifelong commitment to promoting public safety
    through policies supported by objective and transparent
    science. My career, which has spanned State government, Federal
    Government, and the private sector, has been driven by my
    commitment to public health.
        My career in public health started when I worked at a
    cosmetics company as a microbiologist, ensuring that cosmetics
    were safe for our daily use. While in graduate school at the
    University of Washington, I volunteered for a program run
    through the American Lung Association that helped the residents
    of Seattle identify and address contaminants such as lead,
    mold, and other indoor pollutants in the household. The
    satisfaction that came from working to keep consumers and
    homeowners safe inspired me to devote my career to furthering
    public protection.
        My interest in public health was solidified while I was
    working for the Washington State Department of Health. There, I
    conducted the risk evaluation that led to the closure of a
    paint shop in a low-income residential community. The growth of
    this facility had put the community at risk. This experience
    demonstrated to me the important role that data and analysis
    can play in improving communities throughout our country.
    Additionally, engaging at the community level, protecting
    children and the elderly, was highly motivating.
        I moved to Washington, D.C. to pursue opportunities that
    advanced my interests, knowledge, and experience. I
    participated in a respected science policy fellowship program,
    and through this fellowship program working at the EPA, I
    advanced my knowledge regarding how science informs policy and
    focused on health issues related to protecting those most at
    risk.
        My fellowship was followed by almost a decade at the OMB,
    working under both President Bush and President Obama. As a
    career civil servant, I worked to establish science as a pillar
    of good regulation. At OMB, I honed my experience in risk
    assessment and regulatory policy, and I advanced public health
    by ensuring that regulations were grounded in objective
    science.
        I have also had the privilege of serving in a leadership
    role at EPA in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
    Prevention overseeing the pesticides and chemicals program.
    While there, I worked to implement the bipartisan Frank R.
    Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act as EPA put in place a framework
    to ensure that future chemical assessments are grounded in
    science, accountability, and transparency.
        The mission of the CPSC is to protect the public against
    unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with consumer
    products. This mission continues to be of utmost importance.
    Having dedicated my career to protecting and improving public
    health, I am well equipped to help the CPSC advance its
    essential mission.
        If confirmed, my priorities will include ensuring three
    things.
        One, we must ensure that the CPSC takes appropriate and
    timely action to protect the public from risks, consistent with
    the CPSC statutory mandates.
        Two, we must ensure that CPSC has effective communication
    and outreach tools. In particular, we must address the changing
    ways through which consumers purchase products and receive
    important information.
        And three, it is important that we ensure that the CPSC has
    the full confidence of the American public. This means that the
    CPSC programs must be run as effectively as possible to provide
    the highest level of protection to consumers and families. This
    includes hiring a chief technologist, as recommended by this
    committee, to make certain that CPSC decisions are informed by
    the best available data and information.
        If confirmed, I will look forward to working with each of
    you, as well as CPSC's dedicated staff, to fulfill the
    Commission's essential mission.
        I will be happy to answer any questions you have for me
    today. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement and biographical information of Dr.
    Beck follow:]

                 Prepared Statement of Nancy B. Beck, Nominee,
                    U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
        Good Afternoon Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
    Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you here today as you consider my nominations to the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission. I would like to thank the President for
    nominating me. I am humbled by this opportunity and, if confirmed, I
    look forward to working with all of you to advance public health and
    safety and engaging on any issues of particular interest to you as
    members of this Committee.
        While my family is not here with me today due to the COVID
    pandemic, I would like to acknowledge all the love and support they
    have provided to me. They are watching from their homes in New York. I
    have six unique and wonderful nieces and nephews and they are with me
    in spirit.
        Now more than ever, it is imperative that we ensure that the
    American public is protected from the myriad of consumer risks
    encountered on a daily basis. Our homes and recreational environments
    must be safe spaces where we can relax and not have to worry about
    encountering harmful risks.
        If confirmed to work at the CPSC, I would continue to pursue my
    life-long commitment to promoting public safety through policies
    supported by objective and transparent science. My career, which has
    spanned state government, Federal government, and the private sector,
    has been driven by my commitment to public health.
        My career in public health started when I worked at a cosmetics
    company as a microbiologist, ensuring that cosmetics were safe for
    daily use. While in graduate school at the University of Washington, I
    volunteered for a program run through the American Lung Association
    that helped residents of Seattle identify and address contaminants such
    as lead, mold, and other indoor pollutants in the household. The
    satisfaction that came from working to keep consumers and homeowners
    safe inspired me to devote my career to furthering public protection.
        My interest in public health was solidified while I was working for
    the Washington State Department of Health. There, I conducted the risk
    evaluation that led to the closure of a paint shop located in a low-
    income residential community. The growth of this facility had put the
    community at risk. This experience demonstrated to me the important
    role data and analysis can play in improving communities throughout our
    country. Additionally, engaging at the community level, and protecting
    children and the elderly, was highly motivating.
        I moved to Washington D.C. to pursue opportunities that advanced my
    interests, knowledge, and management experience. I participated in the
    respected American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
    Science and Technology Policy Fellowship program. Through this
    fellowship, at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), I advanced my
    knowledge regarding how science informs policy, and focused on health
    issues related to protecting those most at risk.
        My fellowship was followed by almost a decade at the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB), working under both President Bush and
    President Obama. As a career civil servant, I worked to establish
    science as an integral pillar of good regulation. At OMB, I honed my
    expertise in risk assessment and regulatory policy, and advanced public
    health by ensuring regulations were grounded in objective science.
        I have also had the privilege of serving in a leadership role at
    EPA in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP),
    to help oversee the pesticides and chemicals programs. While there, I
    worked to implement the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety
    for the 21st Century Act, as EPA put in place the framework to ensure
    that future chemical assessments are grounded in science,
    accountability, and transparency.
        The mission of the CPSC is to protect the public against
    unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with consumer
    products. This mission continues to be of utmost importance. Having
    dedicated my career to protecting and improving public health, I am
    well equipped to help the CPSC advance its essential mission.
        If confirmed, my priorities will include ensuring:

      (1)  That CPSC takes appropriate and timely action to protect the
            public from risks, consistent with the CPSC statutory mandates.

      (2)  That CPSC has effective communication and outreach tools. In
            particular, to address the changing ways through which
            consumers purchase products and receive important information.

      (3)  The full confidence of the American public. CSPC programs must
            be run as effectively as possible to provide the highest level
            of protection to consumers and families. This includes hiring a
            Chief Technologist, as recommended by the Senate, to make
            certain that CPSC decisions are informed by the best available
            data and information.

        If confirmed, I will look forward to working with each of you as
    well as CPSC's dedicated staff to fulfill the Commission's essential
    mission. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have for me
    today.
                                     ______

                          a. biographical information
        1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Nancy Beth
    Beck.
        2. Position to which nominated: Chair and Commissioner, Consumer
    Product Safety Commission.
        3. Date of Nomination: March 16, 2020.
        4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

            Residence: Information not released to the public.
            Office: US EPA, 3101-M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.,
            Washington, DC 20460.

        5. Date and Place of Birth: May 5, 1966; New York, NY.
        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).
        Not applicable.
        7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
    attended.

       Ph.D. Environmental Health, University of Washington, 1998

       M.S. Environmental Health, University of Washington, 1992

       B.S. Microbiology, Cornell University, 1988

        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.

       National Economic Council, Executive Office of the
            President, June 2019 to present.

            Policy Advisor, on detail under the leadership of NEC Director
            Larry Kudlow.

       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2017 to present.
            Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of
            Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

       American Chemistry Council, Jan. 2012-April 2017.
            Senior Director of Regulatory Science Policy.

       Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
            Regulatory Affairs, Executive Office of the President, Aug.
            2002-Jan. 2012.
            Toxicologist/Risk Assessor/Policy Analyst.

       AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
            Science and Technology Policy Fellow, Sept. 2000-Aug. 2002.
            Fellow, U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment.

       Washington State Department of Health, Office of
            Environmental Assessments, Feb. 1999-July 2000.
            Toxicologist/Public Health Advisor.

       Estee Lauder Companies, Aug. 1988-Sept. 1990.
            Microbiologist/Research scientist.

        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.

       Board of Trustees, Evidence Based Toxicology Collaboration,
            May 2015-July 2017.

       Trustee, Toxicology Education Foundation, 2014-May 2017.

       Elected Treasurer, Society of Toxicology, National Capital
            Area Chapter, Apr 2014-2017.

       Elected Chair, Society of Risk Analysis, Risk Policy and Law
            Specialty Group, 2015-2016.

       Elected Councilor, Society of Toxicology, Risk Assessment
            Specialty Section, Mar 2012-Mar 2014.

       Elected Councilor, Society of Toxicology, Regulatory Safety
            Evaluation Specialty Section, Mar 2009-Mar 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.

       For the last 10 years I have been a member of the following
            scientific organizations: Society of Toxicology; American
            Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Society of
            Risk Analysis; American Board of Toxicology; Association of
            Government Toxicologists (until 2012).

       None of the organizations listed above restrict membership
            on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin,
            age, or disability.

       Additional positions held are listed in response to question
            11 (see above).

        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, I have never been a candidate for and/or held a 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.
        None, not applicable.
        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, not applicable.
        16. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
    society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
    for outstanding service or achievements.

       Fellow, Society of Risk Analysis, Dec. 2018

         Selected as a Fellow for substantial achievements in
                science or public policy relating to risk analysis and
                substantial service to the Society.

       American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
            Science and Technology Policy Fellow, Sept. 2000-Aug. 2002

         Selected and served at the U.S. EPA Office of Research
                and Development

       OMB Cross-Cutting Group Award, July 2011

         Award given ``For extraordinary efforts to develop and
                implement responses to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.''

       OMB Special Achievement Award, July 2009

         Award given ``For continuing well-grounded scientific
                analyses that guide policy, initiatives to increase
                transparency in the presentation of risk values, and
                leadership of U.S. contributions to the international risk
                dialogue.''

        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.
        In my capacity as a Federal employee and in the private sector, I
    have spoken at many scientific conferences and have spoken to many
    outside parties about science policy and regulatory issues domestically
    and internationally. Many of these speaking events, as a federal
    employee, are listed on my attached resume. In addition, scientific
    publications are also listed on my resume. This list is complete to the
    best of my knowledge.
        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: https://www.facebook.com/
            nancy.beck.3154?ref=bookmarks

       Twitter: @NancyB61

       Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nancybbeck/

       Instagram: nancyb477

        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 testified before congress once. The date was March 9, 2017,
    in front of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
    Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal
    Management. The topic was ``Regarding a Hearing on the Agency Use of
    Science in the Rulemaking Process: Proposals for Improving Transparency
    and Accountability''
        A link to my testimony can be found here: https://
    www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BECK%20TESTIMONY.pdf

        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 have spent the majority of my career in government service
    helping to improve safety and public health. I have focused not just on
    the general public, but also in ensuring the protection of susceptible
    populations, those who may have the greatest risks. The mission of the
    CPSC is to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury or
    death from consumer products through education, safety standards
    activities, regulation, and enforcement. My educational training and
    work experiences make me an exceptional candidate for a leadership
    position at the CPSC. In addition to my scientific expertise in
    toxicology, I am a recognized leader in risk assessment--not only in
    understanding the principles and methodologies, but in implementing
    risk based programs that are designed to evaluate and regulate
    unreasonable risks. Having spent 10 years in the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB), I have a depth and breadth of understanding of the
    regulatory process that is unmatched by most scientific experts.
    Coupling my strong understanding of the regulatory process, with my
    deep understanding of risk evaluation and toxicology, provides me with
    a strong ability to be an effective leader at the CPSC.
        I wish to serve as Chairman/Commissioner of the CPSC because I know
    I can contribute greatly to meeting the mission of the CPSC. I have the
    skills not only to identify unreasonable risks, but to also help ensure
    that appropriate and permanent regulations are put in place to ensure
    public health protection. A leader of the CPSC must be able to ensure
    that the best available science and information are used to inform a
    science-based evaluation of unreasonable risks. These evaluations must
    include consideration of our most vulnerable populations, including our
    children and the elderly. In addition, a CPSC leader needs to be able
    to take appropriate risk management actions to ensure that unreasonable
    risks are prevented. The agency must be able to act quickly and
    deliberatively to protect public health. Finally, a CPSC leader must
    also be able to communicate both the risks and the preventative
    solutions to the public. My years of service in state and Federal
    government have provided me with the background, skills, and
    experiences necessary to be a highly effective leader of the CPSC. I
    would be honored to serve as chairman and commissioner of the CPSC.
        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, I will be responsible for ensuring the proper
    management and accounting controls for the CPSC. My 10 years at OMB,
    the preeminent budget authority within the government, have afforded me
    the opportunity to understand not only the budget process but also the
    importance of stong accounting controls throughout an agency. This
    includes ensuring that the leadership team of CPSC is properly trained,
    acting in accordance with all statutory and regulatory requirements,
    and leading with highest levels of ethical conduct. In my capacity as
    Deputy Assistant Administrator and Principal Deputy Assistant
    Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
    Prevention (OCSPP) within EPA, I led a team of over 1,200 FTE with a
    program budget of 240 million in appropriated dollars. The full OCSPP
    budget is greater than the appropriated funds as OCSPP also has fee
    programs associated with statutory programs (PRIA and FIFRA) that
    provide additional funds. For 20 months, I was the highest level
    political appointee overseeing the program and as such was also
    responsible for insuring the integrity of our financial systems and
    budgeting processes, including but not limited to grants, contracts,
    hiring, travel, and other program expenses.
        22. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
    department/agency, and why?
        Three challenges include:

      (1)  Taking appropriate and timely action to protect the public
            against unreasonable risks associated with consumer products
            within the CPSC statutory framework;

      (2)  ensuring that CPSC has the risk communication and outreach tools
            to guarantee protection to our most vulnerable populations
            considering the changing ways through which consumers purchase
            and receive important information regarding consumer products;
            and

      (3)  ensuring that CPSC programs are running as effectively and
            efficiently as possible so that CPSC can provide the highest
            level of protection to consumers and families. This includes
            ensuring that CPSC has the tools to assess and manage all the
            data that are used to inform safety determinations.
                       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.
        I do have a personal Roth IRA and a contributory IRA.
        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.
        Not applicable I have no existing commitments or agreements, 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.
        During the nomination process, I consulted with the Office of
    Government Ethics and the CPSC's Designated Agency Ethics Official to
    identify potential conflicts of interest. Any conflicts will be
    resolved in accordance with the terms of the Ethics Agreement that I
    have entered into with CPSC's Ethics Official (a copy of which has been
    provided to the Committee). I am not aware of any other conflicts of
    interest.
        Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance
    with the terms of the Ethics Agreement that I have entered into with
    CPSC's Ethics Official (a copy of which has been provided to the
    Committee). If any other potential conflict arises, I will seek the
    advice and counsel of the CPSC's Designated Ethics Official and, if
    faced with a legitimate conflict of interest, I will recuse myself and/
    or divest if necessary.
        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.
        During the nomination process, I consulted with the Office of
    Gove111ment Ethics and the CPSC's Designated Agency Ethics Official to
    identify potential conflicts of interest. Any conflicts will be
    resolved in accordance with the terms of the Ethics Agreement that I
    have entered into with CPSC's Ethics Official (a copy of which has been
    provided to the Committee). I am not aware of any other conflicts of
    interest.
        Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance
    with the terms of the Ethics Agreement that I have entered into with
    CPSC's Ethics Official (a copy of which has been provided to the
    Committee). If any other potential conflict arises, I will seek the
    advice and counsel of the CPSC's Designated Ethics Official and, if
    faced with a legitimate conflict of interest, I will recuse myself and/
    or divest if necessary.
        5. Identify any other potential conflicts of interest, and explain
    how you will resolve each potential conflict of interest.
        During the nomination process, I consulted with the Office of
    Government Ethics and the CPSC's Designated Agency Ethics Official to
    identify potential conflicts of interest. Any conflicts will be
    resolved in accordance with the terms of the Ethics Agreement that I
    have entered into with CPSC's Ethics Official (a copy of which has been
    provided to the Committee). I am not aware of any other conflicts of
    interest.
        Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance
    with the terms of the Ethics Agreement that I have entered into with
    CPSC's Ethics Official (a copy of which has been provided to the
    Committee). If any other potential conflict arises, I will seek the
    advice and counsel of the CPSC's Designated Ethics Official and, if
    faced with a legitimate conflict of interest, I will recuse myself and/
    or divest if necessary.
        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.
        From 2012-2017 I was employed at the American Chemistry Council
    (ACC) a 50l(c)(6). At ACC, I was not a lobbyist. As a technical expert,
    I did provide technical assistance and background information to inform
    legislative proposals regarding chemical safety.
        From 2009-2012 I was at OMB and since May 2017, I have been at EPA.
    While serving in the government, I have been involved in providing
    technical assistance on numerous legislative proposals. While serving
    at EPA I have had responsibility for programs which develop and
    imple1nent Federal regulations.
                                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 to all the items above.
        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 to all the items above.
        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 to all the items above.
        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 I have never been convicted of any criminal violation.
        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, 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.
        No further information to disclose.
                         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.
                                     ______

                      Resume of Nancy Beth Beck PhD, DABT
                       SCIENCE & REGULATORY POLICY EXPERT
        Ph.D. Toxicologist with over twenty years of applied public health
    experience. Recognized leader of large Federal program/workforce.
    Played a critical role in implementing bipartisan legislation to
    improve how the Federal Government ensures the safety of chemicals in
    commerce. Guided by the science, and focused on transparency and
    clarity, Dr. Beck has a deep understanding of scientific issues, risk
    assessment, and the U.S. regulatory process. Always brings a scientific
    dialogue to the policy discussions to inform critical decision-making
    to protect public health. Successful collaborations have involved
    partnerships with senior staff and policy officials throughout the
    Executive Office of the President and Federal agencies.
    Education & Certification
    Diplomat American Board of Toxicology (DABT), November 2002,
    recertified Aug 2016
    Ph.D. Environmental Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1998
    M.S.
    Environmental Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1992
    B.S. Microbiology (minor economics), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY,
    1988
                 APPLIED PUBLIC HEALTH & TOXICOLOGY EXPERIENCE
    National Economic Council (NEC), Executive Office of the President,
            Washington DC
    Policy Advisor, on detail under the leadership of NEC Director Larry
            Kudlow
    June 2019-present

       Provide technical and policy advice to the Special Assistant
            to the President and the Deputy Assistant to the President and
            Deputy Director of the NEC on diverse environmental and energy
            issues.

       Assist with the drafting and implementation of energy and
            environmental executive orders.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC
    Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical
            Safety and Pollution Prevention
    Dec 2018-present
    Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and
            Pollution Prevention
    May 2017-Dec 2018

       Serving as principal policy advisor to the EPA Administrator
            in the management, operation, decision-making, planning,
            programming, policy development and implementation of the
            Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).
            Program has over 1,200 FTE with a budget of over $240 Million.

       Responsible for managing and establishing strategies to
            implement EPA's programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act
            (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
            (FIFRA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the
            Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and for promoting and
            coordinating programs engaged in chemical safety and pollution
            prevention.

       Successfully met all statutory deadlines for the first two
            years of implementation of the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg
            Amendments to the TSCA statute.

       Represent the EPA Administrator in communications with
            Congress, OMB, White House Offices, other Federal agencies,
            states, regional and local governments, public interest
            organizations, private industry, professional groups and the
            general public.

       Provide policy and program guidance to Regional
            Administrators and EPA Assistant Administrators in their
            relationships with other entities in establishing and
            implementing chemical safety and pollution prevention policies.

       Represent, explain, and defend the policies and programs of
            OCSPP to other agency, Federal, Congressional, and private
            sector groups.
    American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington DC
    Senior Director of Regulatory Science Policy
    January 2012-April 2017

       Leading expert for ensuring sound implementation of risk
            assessment practices within the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
            Safety for the 21st Century Act (signed into law June 2016).

       Develop technical and policy materials to develop sound
            scientific policies on science and health critical for the
            government assessment of chemicals.

       Oversee funding and development of projects to advance risk
            assessment methodologies and practices.

       Serve as an expert technical and strategy resource to
            committees and self-funded groups on the development and
            improvement of scientific documents.

       Analyze scientific documents to identify critical scientific
            issues relating to improving the scientific basis to support
            decisions making. Provide technical assistance in protocol
            development, monitoring, auditing and communication of results.

       Co-lead ACC panel on advancing risk assessment and science
            policy regarding issues related to characterizing uncertainty,
            systematic review, and weight of evidence evaluations.

       Work to resolve member company concerns and problems related
            to chemical assessments and their interpretation.

       Monitor, analyze, and track emerging issues, developments
            and trends on science policy and chemical assessment and
            management.

       Serve as spokesperson on behalf of ACC in front of Federal
            agencies, congressional staff, press, international groups,
            scientific societies and other organizations.
    Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget,
            Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC
    TOXICOLOGIST/RISK ASSESSOR/POLICY ANALYST
    AUG. 2002-January 2012

       Utilized toxicology expertise to bridge the science and
            policy gap by framing and identifying scientific issues for an
            active policy debate.

       Lead expert for international regulatory discussions with
            the EU, Canada and Mexico on risk assessment and nanotechnology
            policy.

       Managed and led the scientific review of the toxicological/
            scientific analyses and risk assessments upon which
            rulemakings, proposals, notices, guidance documents, and
            information collection requests rely as part of the review and
            approval by the Executive Office of the President (EOP).
            Included review of IRIS assessments.

       Supervised the oversight of Federal agency implementation of
            the Information Quality Law and OMB Information Quality
            Guidelines.

       Coordinated and led OMB risk assessment initiatives,
            including oversight, authorship, coordination of working group,
            shepherding of draft documents through peer review and public
            comment, and culmination into a final OMB/OSTP Memorandum on
            Risk Analysis.

       Monitored and analyzed human health, environmental and
            safety information which appears in legislative testimony
            through the legislative review clearance process within the
            EOP.

       Provided direct scientific, risk assessment, toxicological,
            and environmental health assistance and interpretation to White
            House political appointees and senior leaders. Prepared and
            conducted various briefing papers and talks.
    US EPA CAREER DEVELOPMENT DETAIL
    US EPA, Office of the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
            Research and Development, Washington DC
    Feb. 2006-May 2006

       Reviewed and provided comments on strategies and draft
            documents for the EPA Assistant Administrator (Dr. George
            Gray).

       Assessed differences and similarities of risk assessment
            procedures among different EPA program offices, with a specific
            emphasis on pesticides and the IRIS processes.

       Gained critical understanding of the Office of Research and
            Development and its role in regulations.
    AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Science and
            Technology Policy Fellow, Washington DC
    FELLOW--US EPA, National Center for Environmental Assessment
    Sept. 2000-Aug. 2002

       Worked on toxicology projects focused on identifying health
            issues related to childhood susceptibilities, human
            variability, childrens toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics, and
            susceptible populations.
    Washington State Department of Health, Office of Environmental
            Assessments, Olympia, WA
    Toxicologist/Public Health Advisor
    Feb. 1999-July 2000

       Prepared health and exposure assessments, including site
            specific risk assessments, for ATSDR and the Washington State
            Department of Health.

       Evaluated and analyzed human health risks using
            comprehensive toxicology knowledge, risk assessment tools, air
            modeling programs, hydrogeology knowledge, and a strong
            understanding of the fate and transport of compounds in the
            environment and the body.

       Interacted regularly and participated with other regulators
            and the general public at availability sessions, community
            meetings, and public meetings.

       Provided comments and technical support to local, state, and
            Federal agencies on Remedial Investigations, Feasibility
            Studies, sampling workplans, and adverse health outcomes
            associated with exposures to chemicals and hazardous
            substances.
    Estee Lauder Companies
    Microbiologist/Research Scientist
    Aug. 1988-Sept. 1990

       Initiated, coordinated, and assumed full responsibility for
            adaptation and in-house validation of two in vitro toxicity
            tests.

       Worked with chemists to develop preservative systems for
            products for human use.
            RECENT PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AND LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES
       Society Memberships: American Board of Toxicology;
            Association of Government Toxicologists; Society of Toxicology;
            American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS);
            Society of Risk Analysis

       Board of Trustees--Evidence Based Toxicology Collaboration,
            May 2015-July 2017

       Trustee--Toxicology Education Foundation, 2014-May 2017

       Elected Treasurer--Society of Toxicology, National Capital
            Area Chapter, Apr 2014-2017

       Elected Chair--Society of Risk Analysis, Risk Policy and Law
            Specialty Group, 2015-2016

       Elected Councilor--Society of Toxicology, Risk Assessment
            Specialty Section, Mar 2012-Mar 2014

       Elected Councilor--Society of Toxicology, Regulatory Safety
            Evaluation Specialty Section, Mar 2009-Mar 2012

       Elected President--Association of Government Toxicologists,
            Mar. 2007-Mar. 2008

       Elected President-Elect, Councilor--Association of
            Government Toxicologists, Mar. 2004-Mar. 2007
                 ADDITIONAL LEADERSHIP AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES
    Internal Revenue Service, Volunteer Income Tax Assistant, certified
    2004-2017
    Prepare tax returns for low-income DC residents during tax season

    ACC Management Training Program, completed August 2016

    European Union Visitors Program, November 2009, selected to participate
    in a six day program in Brussels visiting EU offices and experts
    including official visits to the Belgium Food Safety Authority, DG-
    SANCO, DG-Environment, DG-Research, DG-Agriculture, the European
    Parliament, and the U.S. Mission to the EU.

    OPM, Executive Development Seminar: Leading Change, two week course
    completed May 2009

    OPM, Conflict Resolution Skills Seminar, three day course completed
    August 2007
                                AWARDS & HONORS
    Fellow, Society of Risk Analysis, December 2018
    Selected as a Fellow for substantial achievements in science or public
    policy relating to risk analysis and substantial service to the
    Society.

    OMB Cross-Cutting Group Award, July 2011
    OMB Awards Ceremony, award given ``For extraordinary efforts to develop
    and implement responses to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.''

    OMB Special Achievement Award, July 2009
    Award given ``For continuing well-grounded scientific analyses that
    guide policy, initiatives to increase transparency in the presentation
    of risk values, and leadership of U.S. contributions to the
    international risk dialogue.''

    OMB Quality Step Increase Award, July 2008
    Award recognizes employees whose performance is consistently at a high
    level in terms of quality and quantity, and appears likely to continue
    to be so indefinitely into the future.

    OMB Professional Achievement Award, July 2007
    Award given ``For creative efforts in the uncharted territory of
    implementing the Information Quality Act, outstanding work in
    shepherding OMB's Proposed Bulletin on Risk Assessment, and important
    contributions to building support for scientific expertise in policy
    decisions.''

    OMB Special Achievement Award, July 2006
    Award given ``For sound judgment, creativity, and groundbreaking work
    to develop the Proposed Bulletin on Risk Assessment.''

    OMB Cross-Cutting Group Award, July 2005
    OMB Awards Ceremony, award given ``For working with EPA to develop an
    innovative cap-and-trade program to limit mercury emissions from coal-
    fired plants.''

    OMB Professional Achievement Award, July 2004
    OMB Awards Ceremony, award given ``For contributions that have informed
    and improved numerous public health policy decisions and have fostered
    solid support for the critical importance of scientific expertise.''

    Graduate Student Travel Award, Dec. 1998
    Society of Toxicology 38th Annual Meeting

    Graduate Student Platform Presentation Award, Sept. 1998
    Pacific Northwest Association of Toxicologists, 15th Annual Mtg.

    Excellent Question Award, Sept. 1998
    Pacific Northwest Association of Toxicologists, 15th Annual Mtg.

    Environmental Pathology/Toxicology Training Grant, 1993-1998
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)

    Research Assistantship, Oct. 1990-Jan. 1993
    Department of Environmental Health, University of Washington, Seattle,
    WA

    Deans List, Aug. 1987-May 1988
    Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
                                  PUBLICATIONS
    Hoffmann S, de Vries RBM, Stephens ML, Beck NB, Dirven HAAM, Fowle JR
    3rd, Goodman JE, Hartung T, Kimber I, Lalu MM, Thayer K, Whaley P,
    Wikoff D, Tsaioun K. A Primer on Systematic Review in Toxicology, Arch
    Toxicol. Jul;91(7):2551-2575, 2017

    Juberg DR, Knudsen TB, Sander M, Beck NB, Faustman EM, Mendrick DL,
    Fowle JR 3rd, Hartung T, Tice RR, Lemazurier E, Becker RA, Fitzpatrick
    SC, Daston GP, Harrill A, Hines RN, Keller DA, Lipscomb JC, Watson D,
    Bahadori T, Crofton KM., Future Tox III: Bridges for Translation,
    Toxicol Sci, Oct 25, 2016 epub ahead of print

    Simon TW, Zhu Y, Dourson ML, Beck NB, Bayesian methods for uncertainty
    factor application for derivation of reference values, Regul Toxicol
    Pharmacol, Oct;80:9-24, 2016

    Stephens ML, Betts K, Beck NB, Cogliano V, Dickersin K, Fitzpatrick S,
    Freeman J, Gray G, Hartung T, McPartland J, Rooney AA, Scherer RW,
    Verloo D, Hoffmann S., The emergence of systematic reviews in
    toxicology, Toxicol Sci. Jul;152(1):10-6, 2016.

    Beck NB, Becker RA, Erraguntla N, Farland WH, Grant RL, Gray G, Kirman
    C, LaKind JS, Jeffrey Lewis R, Nance P, Pottenger LH, Santos SL,
    Shirley S, Simon T, Dourson ML., Approaches for describing and
    communicating overall uncertainty in toxicity characterizations: U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System
    (IRIS) as a case study, Environ Int. Apr-May;89-90:110-28, 2016.

    Beck NB, Becker RA, Boobis A, Fergusson D, Fowle JR, Goodman J,
    Hoffmann S, Lalu M, Leist M, Stephens ML. Instruments for assessing
    risk of bias and other methodological criteria of animal studies:
    omission of well-established methods, Environ Health Perspect.
    Mar;122(3):A66-7, 2014.

    Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE, Bailey LA, Prueitt RL, Beck NB, Bevan C,
    Honeycutt M, Kaminski NE, Paoli G, Pottenger LH, Scherer RW, Wise KC,
    Becker RA., A survey of frameworks for best practices in weight-of-
    evidence analyses, Crit Rev Toxicol. 2013 Oct;43(9):753-84, 2013.

    Ylitalo GM, Krahn MM, Dickhoff WW, Stein JE, Walker CC, Lassitter CL,
    Garrett ES, Desfosse LL, Mitchell KM, Noble BT, Wilson S, Beck NB,
    Benner RA, Koufopoulos PN, Dickey RW., Federal Seafood Safety Response
    to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, Dec
    11;109(50):20274-9, 2012.

    Sonawane, B., Beck, N.B., Threats to Children's Environmental Health In
    Developing Countries: An Overview of the Problem, book chapter in: The
    Handbook of Pediatric Environmental Health 2nd Edition. Amer. Academy
    of Pediatrics 2003.

    Beck, N.B., Sidhu, J.S., Omiecinski, C.J. Baculovirus Vectors Repress
    Phenobarbital-Mediated Gene Induction and Stimulate Cytokine Expression
    in Primary Cultures of Rat Hepatocytes. Gene Therapy 7: 1274-1283,
    2000.

    Beck, N.B., Omiecinski, C.J. Lack of Involvement of cAMP/PKA Pathways
    in the Phenobarbital Mediated Induction of the Rat CYP2B Genes in
    Primary Hepatocyte Cultures. Biochemical Pharmacology 58:1109-1114,
    1999.

    Ramsden, R., Beck, N.B., Sommer, K.M., Omiecinski, C.J. Phenobarbital
    Responsiveness Conferred by the 5'-Flanking Region of the Rat CYP2B2
    Gene in Transgenic Mice. Gene 228:169-179, 1999.

    Beck, N.B. Phenobarbital Mediated Induction of the Cytochrome P450 2B
    Genes: Mechanistic Investigations. Doctoral Dissertation. 1998.

    Hassett, C, Robinson, K.B., Beck, N.B., Omiecinski, C.J. The Human
    Microsomal Epoxide Hydrolase Gene (EPHX1): Complete Nucleotide Sequence
    and Structural Characterization. Genomics 23:433-442, 1994.

    Beck, N.B., Koenig, J.Q., Luchtel, D.L., Altman, L.C., Orsborn, M.T.,
    Kenney, J.S. Ozone Can Increase the Expression of Intercellular
    Adhesion Molecule-1 and the Synthesis of Cytokines by Human Nasal
    Epithelial Cells. Inhalation Toxicology 6:345-357, 1994.

    Beck, N.B. The Effects of Ozone on Intercellular Adhesion Molecule 1
    Expression in Human Nasal Epithelial cells. Masters Thesis. 1992.
        PUBLISHED ABSTRACTS, PRESENTATIONS, POSTERS, AND OTHER REPORTS:
    Beck, N.B., Pottenger, L, Workshop: Understanding and Communicating
    Uncertainty in Hazard Assessment and Dose Response. March 2015 Society
    of Toxicology Annual Meeting, serving as workshop organizer and
    chairperson.

    Beck, N.B., Symposium: Understanding the Elements of Systematic Review
    and Evidence Integration. December 2014 Society of Risk Analysis Annual
    Meeting.

    Lewis, R.J., Beck, N.B., Symposium: EPA's Framework for Human Health
    Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making: An Industry Perspective.
    December 2014 Society of Risk Analysis Annual Meeting.

    Beck, N.B., Dose-Response: Current Challenges and Opportunities for
    Improvement. Presented at the October 2014 Society of Toxicology
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Annual meeting as part of a
    workshop on Challenges Facing the Next Generation of Risk assessment.

    Beck, N.B., Goodman, J.E., Continuing Education Course: Epidemiology
    for Toxicologists: What the Numbers Really Mean. March 2014 Society of
    Toxicology Annual Meeting, served as course organizer and chairperson.

    Beck, N.B., Goodman, J.E., Workshop: Understanding Weight of Evidence:
    Exploring Different Approaches to Integrating Evidence From Diverse
    Data Streams. Presented at the 2014 Society of Toxicology Annual
    Meeting, served as workshop organizer and chairperson.

    Beck, N.B., Dose-Response: Current Challenges and Opportunities for
    Improvement. Presented at the 2014 Society of Toxicology Annual Meeting
    as part of a workshop on Challenges Facing the Next Generation of Risk
    assessment.

    Beck, N.B., Symposium: Modernizing the Tools & Approaches to Improve
    Data Availability & Transparency, 2013 Society of Risk Analysis
    Meeting, symposium chair and organizer.

    Wise K, Beck N.B., Fischer D, Pottenger L.H., Beatty P, Cruzan G,
    Becker R.A., Getting the Science Right on Mode of Action: An Essential
    Element for IRIS Improvement. 2013 Society of Risk Analysis Meeting,
    Symposium on EPA's IRIS. Presentation to be given by Rick Becker.

    Beck, N.B., Discussion: Pulling the Pieces Together. 2013 Society of
    Risk Analysis Meeting, Symposium on Integrating Evidence. Symposium
    Presentation.

    Beck, N.B., Becker, R.A., Twardowski, A, Is there Overlap in U.S.
    Hazard Characterization Programs that Focus on Environmental Exposure?
    An Evaluation of the Data, Presented at the 2013 Society of Toxicology
    Annual Meeting, March 2013. Poster Presentation.

    Beck, N.B., Becker, R.A., Twardowski, A, Is there Overlap in U.S.
    Hazard Characterization Programs that Focus on Environmental Exposure?
    An Evaluation of the Data, Presented at the 2012 Society of Risk
    Analysis Annual Meeting, December 2012. Poster Presentation.

    Mercado-Feliciano, M., Beck, N.B., Refining Your Science Communication
    Skills: The Art of the One Pager; Session Chair and Presenter, Annual
    Society of Toxicology Meeting March 2012. Education Career Development
    Session.

    Memorandum on Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision-Making Concerning
    Regulation and Oversight of Applications of Nanotechnology and
    Nanomaterials, co-lead staff author, released June 9 2011, available
    at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-
    agencies/nanotechnology-regulation-and-oversightprinciples.pdf.

    Beck, N.B., Mercado-Feliciano, M., Bringing Toxicology to the Decision-
    Makers Table: Opportunities for Science Policy Positions in Washington
    DC; Session Chair at the 50th Annual Society of Toxicology Meeting
    March 2011. Education Career Development Session.

    2011 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
    Regulation. OMB report to Congress. lead author of Chapter 3 on
    Information Quality, released June 2011: available at: http://
    www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2011_cb/
    2011_cba_report.pdf

    2010 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
    Regulation. OMB report to Congress. lead author of Chapter 3 on
    Information Quality, released January 2009: available at: http://
    www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/
    2010_Benefit_Cost_Report.pdf

    2009 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
    Regulation. OMB report to Congress. lead author of Chapter 4 on
    Information Quality, released January 2009: available at: http://
    www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/
    2009_final_BC_Report_01272010.pdf

    2008 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
    Regulation. OMB report to Congress. lead author of Chapter 3 on
    Information Quality, released January 2009: available at: http://
    www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/information_and_regu
    latory_affairs/2008_cb_final.pdf

    2007 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
    Regulation. OMB report to Congress. lead author of Chapter 3 on
    Information Quality, released June 2008: available at: http://
    www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2007_cb/
    2007_cb_final_report.pdf.

    OMB/OSTP Principles for Risk Analysis, M-07-24, lead author, released
    September 19, 2007, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/
    regulatory_matters
    _pdf/m07-24.pdf.

    2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
    Regulation. OMB report to Congress. lead author of Chapter 4 on
    Information Quality, released January 2007: available at: http://
    www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final
    _report.pdf.

    OMB Proposed Bulletin on Risk Assessment. lead staff author, released
    January 2006: available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/
    proposed_risk_assess
    ment_bulletin_010906.pdf.

    2005 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
    Regulation. OMB report to Congress. lead author of Chapter 4 on
    Information Quality, released December 2005: available at: http://
    www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2005_cb/final
    _2005_cb_report.pdf.

    Information Quality: A Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2003. OMB Report
    to congress. lead author, April 2004; available at: http://
    www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/fy03_info_quality_rpt.pdf.

    Beck, N.B., Sonawane B. Chilren's Health Risk Characterization from
    Exposure to Tetrachloroethylene. Presented at the 42nd Annual Society
    of Toxicology Meeting by B. Sonawane, March 2003. Poster Presentation.

    Beck, N.B., Rice, D, Sonawane B. The National Survey of Mercury
    Concentrations in Fish, Fish Consumption Patterns, and Major Sources of
    Mercury Throughout the United States. Presented at the WHO
    International Conference on Environmental Threats to the Health of
    Children, Bangkok, Thailand, March 2002. Session Talk.

    Beck, N.B., Sonawane B. Are the Data Available to Protect the Children:
    Recent U.S. EPA Risk Assessments and Childrens Health. Presented at the
    WHO International Conference on Environmental Threats to the Health of
    Children, Bangkok, Thailand, March 2002. Poster Presentation.

    Beck, N.B., Sonawane B. Children's Health and Air Toxics: How Recent
    Risk Assessments are Addressing the Issues. Presented at 9th
    International Congress of Toxicology Meeting, Brisbane, Australia, July
    2001. Poster presentation.

    Ginsberg G.L., Hattis D.B., Smolenski S., Russ A., Kozlak M., Goble,
    R.L, Beck, N.B., Sonawane B. Assessing Pharmacokinetic Differences
    Between Children and Adults: Implications for Chemical Risk Assessment.
    Presented at 9th International Congress of Toxicology Meeting,
    Brisbane, Australia, July 2001. Poster presentation.

    Sonawane B. Beck, N.B. Health Risk Assessment of Benzene, an Update.
    Presented at 9th International Congress of Toxicology Meeting (by B.
    Sonawane), Brisbane, Australia, July 2001. Poster presentation.

    Sonawane B. Ginsberg G.L., Goldstein, D.A., Beck, N.B. A Conceptual
    Framework to Evaluate the Risks of Environmental Chemical Exposures to
    Children: Issues for Consideration. Presented at 9th International
    Congress of Toxicology Meeting (by D. Goldstein), Brisbane, Australia,
    July 2001. Poster presentation.

    Beck, N.B., Omiecinski, C.J. Lack of Involvement of cAMP and PKA in the
    Phenobarbital (PB) Mediated Induction of the Rat Cytochrome P450 (CYP)
    CYP2B Genes in Primary Hepatocyte Cultures. Toxicological Sciences
    48(1-S) 405 abstr. 1999. Presented at the Society of Toxicology Annual
    Meeting, New Orleans, LA, March, 1999. Poster presentation.

    Beck, N.B., Omiecinski, C.J. Phenobarbital Mediated Induction of the
    Rat CYP2B Genes in Primary Hepatocyte Cultures. Presented at the
    Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Society of Toxicology, 15th Annual
    Meeting, Leavenworth, Washington, September 1998. Platform talk.

    Beck, N.B., Ramsden, R., Sommer, K.M., Omiecinski, C.J. Transcription
    Factor Binding to the Phenobarbital Responsive Element (PBRE) in the
    P450 2B2 Gene. Toxicological Sciences 42(1-S) 22 abstr. 1998. Presented
    at Society of Toxicology Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, 1998.
    Poster session.

    Beck, N.B., Ramsden, R., Sommer, K.M., Omiecinski, C.J.
    Characterization of the Phenobarbital Responsive Element (PBRE) in the
    P450 2B2 Gene. Presented at the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the
    Society of Toxicology, 14th Annual Meeting, Ocean Shores, Washington,
    September 1997. Platform talk.

    Beck, N.B., Omiecinski, C.J. Cooperative Interactions of Nuclear
    Proteins with the 5' Upstream Region of the Rat Cytochrome CYP2B2 Gene.
    International Toxicologist 7(1) abstr. 1995. Presented at the meeting
    of the International Congress of Toxicology, Seattle, WA, 1995. Poster
    Discussion session.

    Beck, N.B., Altman, L.C., Koenig, J.Q., Luchtel, D.L., Orsborn, M.T.,
    Costa, L.G., Reilly, M.T., Kavanagh, T.J. Development of a Quantitative
    Morphometric Approach to Examine the Effects of Ozone on Intercellular
    Adhesion Molecule-1 on Human Nasal Epithelial Cells. Toxicologist.
    13(1):298 abstr. 1993. Presented at Society of Toxicology Annual
    Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 1993. Poster discussion session.

    Beck, N.B., Altman, L.C., Luchtel, D.L., Koenig, J.Q., Orsborn, M.T.,
    Kavanagh, T.J., Baker, C., Welch, M., Kinney, J.S. Ozone Stimulates
    ICAM-1 Expression and Cytokine Release from Cultured Human Nasal
    Epithelial Cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 91:254 abstr. 1993. Presented
    (by L.C. Altman) at Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Annual
    Meeting, Chicago, IL, 1993. Poster session.
                            SELECTED INVITED EVENTS
    2017-2019: Diverse Domestic and International Speaking Engagements on
    behalf of EPA and the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
    Prevention.

    Transatlantic Week, July 23, 2015, Invited speaker at session on
    Transatlantic Dialogue on Science and Public Policy, Washington DC.

    Alliance for Risk Assessment, May 21, 2014, Invited Speaker at workshop
    on problem formulation and dose response, Austin TX.

    US Risk Assessment and Regulatory Policy, 2012-2015, multiple
    presentations to various ACC member companies in the U.S.

    OPM Course on Federal Regulatory Policy, May 22, 2013, Invited Speaker
    on Information Quality and Risk Analysis in the Federal Government,
    Shepardstown, WV.

    OECD/Mexico Workshop `New Ideas for Risk Based Regulation and
    Regulatory Governance in Mexico, July 13, 2011, Invited Speaker on U.S.
    Risk Guidance and International Cooperation in Evaluating and Improving
    the Quality of Domestic Policies and Regulations, Mexico City, Mexico.

    OPM Course on Federal Regulatory Policy, June 29, 2011, Invited Speaker
    on Information Quality and Risk Analysis in the Federal Government,
    Shepardstown, WV.

    2nd International Conference on Risk Assessment, Jan. 25-25, 2011, Lead
    of U.S. delegation, Invited Speaker, Uncertainty Working Group Session
    Chair, Brussels Belgium.

    Treasury Board of Canada Conference on Risk and Transatlantic Risk
    Dialogue meeting, June 2-4, 2010, Invited Speaker on U.S. Risk Analysis
    Guidelines and Session Lead for Working Group on Uncertainty, Ottowa,
    Canada.

    OPM Course on Federal Regulatory Policy, June 17, 2009, Invited Speaker
    on Information Quality and Risk Analysis in the Federal Government.

    Transatlantic Risk Dialogue, July 10-11, 2008, Speaker and Organizer,
    Washington DC; Nov. 12-14, 2008, Speaker and Co-organizer, Brussels,
    Belgium.

    Bertelsmann International Risk Governance Conference, Nov. 16, 2008,
    invited co-chair of session, Berlin, Germany.

    Workshop on the Regulatory Risk Assessment Guidelines for the
    Government of Canada. Feb 20 2008, Invited Participant and Speaker,
    Ottawa, Canada.

    Society of Risk Analysis, Workshop on Quantitative Risk Assessment and
    Cost Benefit Analysis, Dec 9, 2007, Invited Speaker on Updated
    Principles for Risk Analysis and OMB Quality Initiatives, San Antonio,
    Texas.

    Global Approaches to Risk and Regulation: A high level policy seminar.
    Feb 20th and 21st 2007, Invited Participant and Speaker, Ditchley Park,
    Oxfordshire, UK.

    United Kingdom, Better Regulation Executive, Invited Speaker on
    Regulatory Review, Feb 19 2007, Whitehall St., London, UK.

    Toxicology Forum, 32nd Annual Summer Meeting, Aspen, Colorado, July 10-
    13, 2006 Invited Speaker on Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin.
    Sponsored by the Toxicology Forum.

    House Science Briefing on the Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin,
    Invited Lead Speaker, June 23, 2006, Washington DC.

    Society of Risk Analysis Symposium, May 23, 2006, Invited Speaker on
    Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin, representing OMB. 90 minute talk.
    Washington DC.

    National Academy of Sciences, May 22, 2006, Invited Speaker on Proposed
    Risk Assessment Bulletin, representing OMB. Washington DC.

    Society of Toxicology, Risk Assessment Specialty Section Annual
    Meeting, San Diego, California, March 6-9, 2006,

    Invited Speaker on OMB Proposed Bulletin on Risk Assessment. Sponsored
    by the U.S. EPA.

    Toxicology Forum 31st Annual Summer Meeting, Aspen, Colorado, July 10-
    14, 2005, Invited Speaker on Peer Review. Sponsored by the Toxicology
    Forum.

    EPA National Conference on Managing Environmental Quality Systems, San
    Diego, California, April 11-13, 2004, Invited Speaker on Information
    Quality at plenary panel. Sponsored by the U.S. EPA.

    University of Washington, School of Public Health and Community
    Medicine, Seattle, Washington October 14, 2004, Invited Speaker for
    Departmental Seminar Series. Sponsored by the University of Washington.

    WHO IPCS Uncertainty in Exposure Assessment Working Group and Scoping
    Discussion on Data Quality, Geneva Switzerland, Aug 19-20 2004, Invited
    Participant and document preparer, Sponsored by the World Health
    Organization.

    European Union-United States Meeting on Precaution, Berlin Germany,
    June 19-21 2003, invited participant, Sponsored by the U.S. State
    Department and the European Policy Center.

    Chemical Control Policy Dialogue Meeting, Stockholm Sweden, Sept 15-17
    2003, Invited participant, Sponsored by the U.S. State Department and
    the European Policy Center.

    Association of Government Toxicologists, Washington DC, Sept 11 2003,
    invited speaker, topic: the Role of Science at OMB: Risk Assessment and
    Regulations.

    National Science Board, National Science Foundation, Oct 16, 2003,
    invited speaker, topic: peer review.

    National Center for Dissemination of Disability Research, Knowledge,
    Dissemination and Utilization Program meeting, Aug 26, 2003, invited
    speaker, topic: Information Quality Guidelines.

    EPA/AFS/AAP/ACOG/AOEC Mercury Medical Symposium, Burlington, Vermont,
    Nov 19-20, 2002. Invited attendee.

    Allegheny-Erie Society of Toxicology (AESOT) Meeting, Pittsburgh PA,
    May 2001. Led interactive lecture/training on toxicology outreach using
    the Tox-in-the-Box Toolkit.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Beck.
        And now Mr. Walsh.

       STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. WALSH, JR., NOMINEE TO BE GENERAL
                  COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

        Mr. Walsh. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
    members of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
    thank you for considering my nomination to be General Counsel
    at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
        It is a privilege to appear before you today.
        Thank you too, to the staff of the Committee for all the
    work that you have done in preparing for this hearing.
        I am especially grateful to President Trump for nominating
    me to this position and for the continued support of Commerce
    Secretary Wilbur Ross.
        And though they are not able to be here, I must also thank
    my wife Emily and my children, Charlotte, Michael, Francis
    Xavier, and Nicholas, who are watching on the Web stream right
    now, for all the sacrifices that they have made during my
    tenure in public service.
        I also want to thank my parents, my sister, her family, and
    all of my family members and friends who are watching from
    Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia.
        Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful colleagues at
    the Department of Commerce with whom I have enjoyed working
    over the past two and a half years.
        Prior to joining the Commerce Department as Deputy General
    Counsel in early 2018, I was a partner at an international law
    firm where I litigated complex class action cases.
        Since my arrival at the Department, I have been involved in
    many of the issues that encompass our agency's broad mission,
    including those associated with NIST, NOAA, trade enforcement,
    the protection of intellectual property, patents, and
    trademarks; and economic and minority business development and
    the Census Bureau, which announced this morning that retail
    sales were up 17.7 percent.
        I have also supported the Bureau of Industry and Security's
    initiatives to secure our nation's defense industrial base and
    to carefully and thoughtfully administer our nation's export
    control laws.
        I understand the importance of compliance with the laws
    that dictate every aspect of the Commerce Department's
    operations. If confirmed, I will ensure that these laws are
    upheld and are being applied with the greatest programmatic
    integrity and transparency.
        I also look forward to working with all of the members of
    this committee on your ideas for new programs and policies
    aimed at rebuilding our industrial base, reshoring essential
    industries, protecting American intellectual property from
    foreign predation, and creating millions of great jobs that
    will provide every American with the opportunity to pursue the
    American dream.
        I look forward to answering any questions and, again, I
    sincerely thank you for your consideration.
        [The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
    Walsh follow:]

      Prepared Statement of Michael J. Walsh, Jr., Nominee to be General
                      Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce
        Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
    Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, thank you for
    considering my nomination to be General Counsel at the U.S. Department
    of Commerce.
        It is a privilege to appear before you today.
        Thank you, too, to the staff of the Committee for all the work you
    have done in preparing for this hearing.
        I am especially grateful to President Trump for nominating me to
    this position, and for the continued support of Commerce Secretary
    Wilbur Ross.
        And though they are not able to be here, I must also thank my wife,
    Emily and my children, Charlotte, Michael, Francis Xavier, and
    Nicholas, who are watching via the live Web stream, for all the
    sacrifices they have made during my tenure in public service.
        I also want to thank my parents, my sister, her family, and all of
    my family members and friends who are watching from Connecticut,
    Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia.
        Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful colleagues at the
    Department of Commerce, with whom I have enjoyed working over the past
    two and a half years.
        Prior to joining the Commerce Department as Deputy General Counsel
    in early 2018, I was a partner at an international law firm, where I
    litigated complex class action cases.
        Since my arrival at the Department, I have been involved in many of
    the issues that encompass our agency's broad mission, including those
    associated with NOAA; NIST; Census; trade enforcement; the protection
    of intellectual property, patents, and trademarks; and economic and
    minority business development.
        I have also supported the Bureau of Industry and Security's
    initiatives to secure our Nation's defense industrial base, and to
    carefully and thoughtfully administer our export-control laws.
        I understand the importance of compliance with the laws that
    dictate every aspect of the Commerce Department's operations.
        If confirmed, I will ensure that these laws are upheld, and are
    being applied with the greatest programmatic integrity and
    transparency.
        I also look forward to working with all members of this Committee
    on your ideas for new programs and policies aimed at rebuilding our
    industrial base, reshoring essential industries, protecting American
    intellectual property from foreign predation, and creating millions of
    great jobs that will provide every American with the ability to pursue
    the American Dream.
        I look forward to answering any questions and, again, I sincerely
    thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

                          a. biographical information
        1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used):

            Michael John Walsh, Jr. (Mike).

        2. Position to which nominated: General Counsel, Department of
    Commerce.
        3. Date of Nomination: May 4, 2020.
        4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

            Residence: Information not released to the public.
            Office: 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.

        5. Date and Place of Birth: September 21, 1977; Waterbury, CT.
        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).

            Emily Walsh, N/A.

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

            Boston College, B.A., 1999.
            Columbia Law School, J.D., 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.

            Brenner Saltzman & Wallman, LLP, Summer Associate (2000, 2001).

            Hale & Dorr, LLP, Summer Associate (2001).

            Hunton & Williams, LLP, Associate (2002).

            O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Associate (2003-2007), Counsel (2008-
            2012), Partner (2012-2018).

            U.S. Department of Commerce, Deputy General Counsel (January
            2018-October 2018).

            U.S. Department of Commerce, Chief of Staff (October 2018-
            August 2019).

            U.S. Department of Commerce, Chief of Staff; Performing the
            Delegated Duties of the General Counsel (August 2019 to
            present).

        Beginning at O'Melveny & Myers and continuing through the present,
    all of my employment involved managing large teams of lawyers. As
    Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Commerce, I, along with the
    then-General Counsel, managed the Office of General Counsel. As Chief
    of Staff at the Department of Commerce, I manage the Office of the
    Secretary and together with the Deputy Secretary, I am responsible for
    overseeing all of the Department's component bureaus on behalf of the
    Secretary of Commerce.
        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. 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.
        I was an equity partner at my former law firm, O'Melveny & Myers
    LLP, from February 1, 2012 through January 7, 2018.
        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.

            Hidden Creek Country Club, Reston, VA (2008-2011).

            Army Navy Country Club, Arlington and Fairfax, VA (2011 to
            present).

            Barefoot Resort & Golf Club, North Myrtle Beach, SC (2013 to
            present).

        These clubs do not restrict 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. No.
        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.
        In 2016, I volunteered to assist the president's campaign with
    vetting potential Vice Presidential candidates. I also provided
    volunteer assistance to the transition team.
        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 not made any political contributions to any individual,
    campaign organization, political party, or similar entity over the past
    10 years. I did contribute $1,120 to my former law firm's political
    action committee between April 2013 and December 2016.
        16. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
    society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
    for outstanding service or achievements.
        I received scholarships from the Waterbury Country Club, the
    Knights of Columbus and the Middlebury Lions Club for my undergraduate
    studies at Boston College. I graduated from Boston College magna cum
    laude. I also received a partial merit scholarship to attend Columbia
    Law School.
        In private law practice, I received the following recognitions and
    awards:

            Super Lawyers, Rising Star, 2013-2018.

            Legal 500, Leading Lawyer, Securities: Shareholder Litigation,
            2015-2018.

            Friend of Children (for pro bono work), Justice for Children,
            2011.

        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.

            Seth Aronson, Robert Stern, and Michael Walsh, ``Courts Deny
            Plaintiffs Over Section 304 Suits,'' International Financial
            Law Review, March 2006.

            Jeffrey Kilduff, Robert Stern, Michael Walsh, and Julia
            Schiller, ``Digimarc: The Final Nail in the SOX 304 Coffin,''
            Securities Law 360, January 2009.

        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.

            LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-walsh-8563ab

            Twitter: @m_j_w_j_r

        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?
        I have served at the Department of Commerce since 2018. As Deputy
    General Counsel, Chief of Staff, and now performing the duties of the
    General Counsel, I oversee all mission critical legal matters within
    the Department, including litigation, export enforcement, AD/CVD and
    other trade compliance issues, GDPR, CFIUS, and supply chain risk
    management. I provide legal and strategic advice to the Secretary,
    Deputy Secretary, and other senior Department leaders. I also
    coordinate closely with other senior lawyers in the Executive Branch
    through the interagency process. I am deeply familiar with the
    operations of the Office of General Counsel and the Department.
        In private practice, I provided clients with strategic legal advice
    on cutting edge legal issues. If confirmed, I look forward to
    continuing to do so at the Department of Commerce.
        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?
        The role of the General Counsel is to provide legal advice to
    support the strategic vision and policies set by the Secretary of
    Commerce as informed by the President's agenda. If confirmed, I will
    ensure that the execution of this strategic vision complies with the
    law. Proper management and accounting controls are critical to the
    health of any large organization, and, if confirmed, I will continue to
    work with the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer
    to ensure those controls are maintained and remain strong.
        I have managed large teams of people for more than a decade, first
    as counsel and partner at my former law firm, and next as Deputy
    General Counsel and Chief of Staff at the Department of Commerce.
        22. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
    department/agency, and why?
        The top challenge facing the Department is conducting a complete
    and accurate 2020 Decennial Census in the face of unprecedented
    attempts to misinform the public and disrupt or otherwise undermine the
    count. The Department must successfully implement and integrate all
    operations and information technology systems and complete non-response
    follow up operations in an uncertain environment as the Federal
    government battles the COVID-19 virus. The Department must also ensure
    data quality, motivate hard to count populations to respond, and
    effectively monitor contracts to validate performance, control costs,
    and achieve 2020 Census goals.
        Second, the Department must continue to pursue free, fair, and
    reciprocal trade policies for the United States. The continued focus on
    anti-dumping and countervailing duties investigations alongside the
    Department's trade promotion efforts will continue to reinvigorate
    domestic industry and provide economic prosperity for all Americans.
        Third, the Department must continue to refine existing processes
    and personnel allocation to continue to ensure protection of economic
    and national security. From the administration of the Section 232
    exclusion process to the implementation of ECRA and FIRRMA, the
    Department must continue to ensure it is well placed to protect our
    Nation's economic and national security.
                       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.
        I do not have any financial arrangements, deferred compensation
    agreements, or other continued dealings with my former law firm. I
    rolled my former employer sponsored Keogh retirement account into an
    IRA in 2018.
        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.
        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 not aware of any investments, obligations, liabilities, or
    other relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest
    in the position to which I have been nominated.
        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.
        Under the Trump Administration Ethics Pledge, I was subject to a
    two-year bar on participating in matters directly involving my former
    law firm and my former clients. That bar expired on January 8, 2020.
        5. Identify any other potential conflicts of interest, and explain
    how you will resolve each potential conflict of interest.
        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
    the Office of Government Ethics and Department of Commerce ethics
    officials to identify any potential conflicts of interest. Any
    potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the
    terms of my ethics agreement. I understand that my ethics agreement has
    been provided to the Committee. I am not aware of any potential
    conflict of interest.
        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. None.
                                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.
        In approximately June 2011, I was charged with violating Virginia
    Code 46.2-862 for traveling 81 mph in a 70 mph zone. The charge was
    reduced to ``defective equipment,'' a non-criminal, non-moving, non-
    point violation on August 2, 2011.
        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. None.
                         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.
                                     ______

                        Resume of Michael J. Walsh, Jr.
                                   EDUCATION
    Columbia Law School, New York, New York
    J.D., May 2002
    Journal: Columbia Business Law Review

    Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
    B.A., magna cum laude, Political Science, May 1999 Minor:
    Faith, Peace, and Justice
                           REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
    Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., August 2019-present
    Chief of Staff, Performing the Delegated Duties of the General Counsel
    (Security Clearance--TS/SCI)
    Oversee the Office of General Counsel; Chief Legal Officer, Department
    of Commerce

       Manage entire legal portfolio at the Department of Commerce,
            with over 600 lawyers reporting through to me.

       Oversee highest impact legal initiatives throughout the
            Department, including export administration, export
            enforcement, emerging technologies supply chain risk
            management, GDPR, and CFIUS.

       Manage critical litigation in Federal district and appellate
            courts throughout the country.

       Coordinate the determination of Department positions on
            Supreme Court cases.

       Provide legal and strategic advice to the Secretary, Deputy
            Secretary, bureau leadership, and other senior Department
            leaders.

       Coordinate with White House counsel and interagency lawyers
            on important legal issues.

    Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., September 2018-August 2019
    Chief of Staff (Security Clearance--TS/SCI)
    Oversee the entire Department of Commerce, a 47,000-employee
    organization divided into twelve bureaus reporting to the Secretary of
    Commerce through me.

       Together with the Office of General Counsel, oversee all
            mission critical legal matters within the Department, including
            litigation, export enforcement, AD/CVD and other trade
            compliance issues, GDPR, CFIUS, supply chain risk management,
            and congressional oversight.

       Interface with CEOs, boards of directors, and other C-suite
            executives with critical business before the Department.

       Interface with foreign heads of state, ministers, and other
            officials on a variety of issues.

       Represent the United States in bilateral trade talks.

       Interface with Cabinet members, their Chiefs of Staff and
            General Counsels, and the White House on important
            administration priorities and execute those priorities through
            bureau heads and other senior Commerce Department leadership.

       Coordinate with senior administration policymakers through
            NSC-led interagency process to determine, implement, and
            execute administration policy.

       Provide legal and strategic advice to the Secretary of
            Commerce.

    Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., January 2018-October 2018
    Deputy General Counsel (Security Clearance--TS/SCI)
    Principal Deputy to General Counsel; oversee all legal and operational
    aspects of Office of General Counsel.

    O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C., January 2003-January 2018
    Partner, Litigation Department, Securities Litigation Practice Group
    and Financial Services Group, February 2012-2018; Managing Partner, Pro
    Bono, Washington, DC Office, 2013-2018
    Securities and Shareholder Derivative Litigation
       Represented government sponsored enterprise in complex,
            Federal multi-district securities class action and parallel
            individual securities and shareholder derivative actions
            arising out of the financial crisis of 2008 and alleging
            upwards of $40 billion in damages.

         Briefed general counsel, head of litigation, C-suite
                executives, and members of the Board of Directors on
                litigation strategy and impact of litigation positions on
                business.

         Successfully dismissed Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims
                under the Securities Act of 1933 on novel exemption
                grounds.

         Successfully dismissed two counts of fraud under
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

         Successfully argued for dismissal of individual
                plaintiff state law claims under Securities Litigation
                Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

         Led successful multi-firm effort before the Judicial
                Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and
                coordinate all actions in Southern District of New York.

         Managed all aspects of electronic document discovery
                and successfully argued against motion to compel production
                of over 60 million pages of documents.

         First chair defense of senior executive and board
                member depositions.

         First chair merits depositions of senior executives
                and board members of plaintiff institutions.

         Negotiated resolution of matter in hotly contested
                mediation.

       Represented government sponsored enterprise in complex
            Federal multi-district securities class action arising out of
            accounting restatement and alleging upwards of $9 billion in
            damages as well as accompanying regulatory and internal
            inquiries.

         Briefed general counsel, head of litigation, and C-
                suite executives on litigation strategy and impact of
                litigation positions on business.

         Authored motions to dismiss and motions for summary
                judgment.

         Managed all aspects of electronic document discovery.
                Coordinated team of twenty attorneys preparing for
                offensive and defensive expert discovery regarding
                accounting standards, corporate governance, and damages.

         First chair merits depositions of senior management
                and outside director witnesses.

         Interfaced daily with accounting and corporate
                governance experts and economists in connection with
                preparation of expert reports.

         First chair expert depositions of plaintiff and
                defense-side experts.

         Coordinated responses to over 75 third-party document
                subpoenas issued to current and former officer and director
                indemnitees.

         Created and implemented crisis management strategies
                in response to government and internal investigations and
                multi-billion dollar private lawsuits.

         Collaborated with client to formulate strategy
                regarding protection of attorney-client and attorney work
                product privilege. Formulated offensive and defensive
                discovery strategy from document retention, collection and
                production through fact development and merits depositions.

         Collaborated with client to create comprehensive
                records retention policy tailored to banking regulatory
                examination, SEC and DOJ investigations, and civil
                litigation.

         Conducted document retention training sessions in
                connection with implementation of records retention policy
                for all client employees, including those in legal,
                finance, and accounting divisions. Monitored employee
                compliance with records retention policy in accordance with
                Zubulake decisions.

         Led team that evaluated electronic vendors, including
                assessing capability to provide full service in-house
                archiving system.

         Managed team of over 75 attorneys for expedited
                privilege review.

       Represented Real Estate Investment Trust in shareholder
            derivative litigation regarding allegedly improper payment of
            management compensation. Motions to dismiss are pending.
    Financial Services and ERISA Litigation
       Represented government sponsored enterprise in all
            litigation stemming from allegations of constitutional takings
            and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act in
            connection with amendment to Treasury's preferred stock
            purchase agreement.

         Secured dismissal of APA case filed in District Court
                for the District of Columbia.

         Numerous dispositive motions pending in other actions.

       Represented health insurer in multiple ERISA class actions
            and individual actions stemming from allegations of improper
            overpayment recovery processes and procedures.

         First chair defense of merits depositions of company
                employees.

         First chair deposition of plaintiff corporate
                representatives and fact witnesses.

         Authored motions to dismiss, motions for summary
                judgment, and motion for class decertification. Motions for
                summary judgment and decertification are pending.

         Successfully argued against motion seeking to
                impermissibly broaden the fiduciary exception to the
                attorney client privilege.

         Attempting to negotiate resolution in court-ordered
                mediation sessions.

       Represented senior officers and directors of government
            sponsored enterprise named as defendants in ERISA class action
            case stemming from financial crisis of 2008.

         Authored motion that resulted in dismissal of one
                count and six defendants.

         First chair defense of merits depositions of senior
                officers.

         Participated in hotly contested mediation that led to
                settlement.

       Represented government sponsored enterprise and senior
            officers and directors named in ERISA class action stemming
            from accounting restatement.

         First chair defense of merits depositions of senior
                officers and members of board of directors.

         Participated in contested mediation that led to
                settlement.
    Congressional Investigations
       Coordinated multi-firm effort to respond to requests for
            documents and other information regarding financial crisis from
            House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on behalf of
            client.

       Led team of over 25 attorneys collecting, reviewing, and
            producing responsive documents. Coordinated with senior client
            officers to formulate responses to committee staff requests for
            information.

       Lead attorney in responding to requests for information from
            the Minority side of the House Committee on Oversight and
            Government Reform regarding allegations of improper
            preferential treatment for senior officers of client by
            customer.
    Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
       Interfaced regularly with Commission Staff in connection
            with all aspects of inquiry into client.

       Represented witnesses as first chair in connection with
            Staff interviews.

       Assisted former officers of client with preparation for
            public hearings.

       Supervised team of ten attorneys responding to requests for
            documents, data and other information from Staff.
    Telecommunications Litigation
       Managed successful representation of incumbent local
            exchange carrier in arbitration before Federal Communications
            Commission; drafted pre-filed direct and rebuttal testimony,
            prepared cross-examination questions, sat as second chair at
            hearing, and drafted initial post-hearing brief and reply
            brief.

       Managed representation of incumbent local exchange carrier
            in litigation of inter-carrier compensation dispute in two
            states; argued summary judgment motion, cross-examined Chief
            Executive Officer of opposing party, first-chaired latter
            portion of multi-week hearing, and drafted all pre-trial and
            post-trial briefs.

       Provided strategic counseling to incumbent local exchange
            carrier; prepared briefing points for Senate Judiciary
            Committee and ``red team'' examination of carrier's general
            counsel.
                             AWARDS AND ACTIVITIES
    Super Lawyers, Rising Star, 2013-2018
    Legal 500, Leading Lawyer, Securities: Shareholder Litigation, 2015-
    2018
    Friend of Children (for pro bono work), Justice for Children, 2011
                                  PUBLICATIONS
    Seth Aronson, Robert Stern, and Michael Walsh, ``Courts Deny Plaintiffs
    Over Section 304 Suits,'' International Financial Law Review, March
    2006.
    Jeffrey Kilduff, Robert Stern, Michael Walsh, and Julia Schiller,
    ``Digimarc: The Final Nail in the SOX 304 Coffin,''
    Securities Law 360, January 2009.
                                BAR MEMBERSHIPS
    New York (2003), District of Columbia (2003), United States District
    Court for the District of Columbia (2004), United States Court of
    Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2004), United States
    District Court for the Southern District of New York (2009), United
    States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (2009),
    United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2012), United
    States Court of Federal Claims (2016), United States Supreme Court
    (2019)

        The Chairman. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Walsh.
        And now remotely by video, the Chair recognizes Mary Toman.

            STATEMENT OF MARY A. TOMAN, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER

              SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,

                      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

        Ms. Toman. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you
    for inviting me today.
        What a great country that someone like me, the first in my
    family to speak English as a native language, could be at a
    hearing in front of such a distinguished Senate Committee. I am
    grateful to President Donald Trump, Secretary of Commerce
    Wilbur Ross, and many others for having the confidence in me to
    nominate me for Under Secretary for Economic Affairs at the
    Department of Commerce. I am deeply humbled and honored.
        I am grateful to my family and friends: my very supportive
    husband of 31 years, Milt Miller; my daughter Mary Ann, whom I
    respect for balancing law school and child care for her young
    daughter; and my mother, energetic at 96.
        One reason for my interest in returning to public service
    is my strong desire to give others the opportunities I have
    had. New prospects for economic growth must be identified and
    communicated to all.
        If confirmed, I would oversee an important constitutional
    responsibility, the 2020 Decennial Census. I will do everything
    in my power to ensure that everyone is counted. I would work
    with Congress and your staffs to ensure that the Census is
    completed fully and accurately. Data security, privacy, and
    confidentiality are paramount.
        The Bureau of Economic Analysis calculates our country's
    GDP and other key economic indicators. This treasure trove of
    data must become increasingly accessible to all users to
    identify new jobs. That is how to expand our manufacturing
    base, services, and exports.
        The Under Secretary is also responsible for macroeconomic
    and fiscal policy analyses. Regaining the momentum that
    prevailed in our economy as recently as February is key. We
    must use our resilient economic engine to restore employment
    through the innovation that drives America's growth.
        The digital data world is upon us and can boost
    productivity. We must reflect innovation in our analyses and
    communications. The Commerce Department is at the forefront of
    these governmentwide efforts, serving as a lead for the Federal
    data strategy and the implementation of the Foundations for
    Evidence-Based Policymaking Act. The Under Secretary's office
    drives this for the Department, using data to do its
    decisionmaking and increase data access for American businesses
    and households.
        In my previous position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
    the Commerce Department, we produced key industrial statistics
    for over 120 industries. Much of this directly complemented the
    data produced by Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. I led
    trade negotiations with the Government of Japan that
    significantly increased U.S. exports and brought more jobs to
    America. Encouraging job growth is a key goal for the Commerce
    Department. If confirmed, I will take that objective to heart
    daily to produce incisive economic information as data opens
    doors.
        In my time as Deputy Treasurer of the State of California,
    we used Commerce data extensively. We managed about $200
    billion, including the CalPERS and CalSTRS pension funds. That
    experience would be relevant as the Under Secretary advises the
    Secretary of Commerce in his role as a member of the Pension
    Benefit Guarantee Corporation board.
        My career has been balanced between government public
    service and the private sector. At Procter & Gamble, we used
    Commerce statistics daily for forecasts and new product
    markets. As a commissioner of the City of Los Angeles, we
    relied on Commerce data too. So I understand the practical side
    of how Commerce data is used.
        If reported favorably by this committee and confirmed by
    the full Senate, I look forward to working with you and your
    staffs. I will always be interested in hearing about your
    priorities and working with you cooperatively. Working
    together, anything is possible in America.
        Thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to
    answering any questions.
        [The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms.
    Toman follow:]

    Prepared Statement of Mary A. Toman, Nominee to be Under Secretary for
                 Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce
        Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
    distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me
    today.
        What a great country that someone like me, the first in my family
    to speak English as a native language, could be at this hearing before
    such a distinguished Senate Committee. I am grateful to President
    Donald Trump, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, and many others for
    having the confidence in me to nominate me for Under Secretary for
    Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce. I am deeply humbled and
    honored.
        I am grateful to my family and friends: my energetic 96 year old
    mother Mary; my very supportive husband of 31 years Milt Miller; and my
    daughter Mary Ann whom I respect for simultaneously balancing law
    school and childcare for her young daughter.
        One reason for my interest in returning to public service is my
    strong desire to give others the opportunities I have had. New
    prospects for economic growth must be identified and communicated to
    all.
        If confirmed, I would oversee an important Constitutional
    responsibility, the 2020 Decennial Census. I will do everything in my
    power to ensure that everyone is counted. I will work with Congress and
    your staffs to ensure that the 2020 Decennial Census is completed fully
    and accurately. Data security, privacy, and confidentiality are also
    paramount.
        The Bureau of Economic Analysis calculates our country's Gross
    Domestic Product (GDP) and other key economic indicators. One of my
    goals is to make this treasure trove of data increasingly accessible to
    all users so new jobs can be identified. That's how to expand our
    manufacturing base, services and exports.
        The Under Secretary is also responsible for macroeconomic and
    fiscal policy analyses. Regaining the momentum that prevailed in our
    economy as recently as February is key. We must use our resilient
    economic engine to restore employment with the innovation and
    adaptability that have traditionally driven America's growth.
        The digital data world is upon us and can boost productivity. We
    must reflect innovation effectively in our analyses and communications.
    The Commerce Department is at the forefront of these government-wide
    efforts, serving as a lead of the Federal Data Strategy and the
    implementation of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act.
    The Under Secretary's Office drives this forward for the Department. I
    understand the importance of the Department using its data to both
    guide its own decision-making, as well as increasing access to data for
    American businesses and households.
        In my previous position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
    Commerce Department, we produced key industry statistics for over 120
    industries. Much of this directly complemented the data produced in
    Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis. I led trade negotiations with
    the Government of Japan that significantly increased U.S. exports and
    brought more jobs to America. Encouraging job growth is a key goal for
    the Commerce Department. If confirmed, I will take that objective to
    heart daily to produce incisive economic information. Data opens doors.
        In my time as Deputy Treasurer of the State of California, we used
    Commerce data extensively. We managed about $200 billion, including the
    CalPERS and CalSTRS pension funds. That experience would become
    directly relevant as the Under Secretary advises the Secretary of
    Commerce in his role as a member of the Pension Benefit Guarantee
    Corporation board.
        My career has been balanced between government public service and
    the private sector. At Procter & Gamble, we used Commerce statistics
    daily for forecasts and new product markets. As a Commissioner of the
    City of Los Angeles, we relied on Commerce data to project growth and
    resource allocation, so I understand the practical side of how Commerce
    data is used.
        If reported favorably by this committee and confirmed by the full
    Senate, I look forward to working with you and your staffs. I will
    always be interested in hearing your priorities and working with you
    cooperatively. Working together, anything is possible in America.
        Thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to answering any
    questions.
                                     ______

                          a. biographical information
        1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Mary A.
    Toman.
        2. Position to which nominated: Under Secretary (Economic Affairs),
    Department of Commerce.
        3. Date of Nomination: May 4, 2020.
        4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):

            Residence: Information not released to the public.
            Office: 604 N. Elm Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90210.

        5. Date and Place of Birth: March 31, 1954; Pasadena, 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).

            Husband: Milton A. Miller, retired partner, Latham & Watkins
            LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
            Daughter: Mary Ann Toman-Miller, 28.

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

            B.A. with honors in Economics, Stanford University, 1976.
            MBA, Harvard Business School, 1981.

        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.
    Government
            *Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, International Trade
            Administration, Trade Development, Automotive Affairs and
            Consumer Goods (1989-1992). Headed U.S. delegations negotiating
            auto parts (the MOSS Talks) and vehicle issues with the
            Government of Japan. Duties included responsibility for export
            expansion and trade policies in I20 industries.

            *Deputy Treasurer of the State of California (1995-1996).
            Responsible for the State of California's treasury management,
            banking, cash management, investments and pensions. Represented
            the State Treasurer on the boards of the State's two public
            pension funds: the California Public Employees' Retirement
            System (CalPERS) and the State Teachers' Retirement System.

            *Chairman and Commissioner, Industrial Development Authority of
            the City of Los Angeles (1993-1995). Responsible for
            development projects and job creation through infrastructure
            and business development with emphasis on underserved urban
            neighborhoods.
            *Presidential Transition Team of President-Elect George H.W.
            Bush: The Export-Import Bank of the United States and Overseas
            Private Investment Corporation (1988-1989)
    Business
            *Bain & Co., Strategic Planning (1976-1977). Research and
            Management Consulting.

            *Procter & Gamble Company (1977-1979). Brand management and
            marketing.

            E.F. Hutton (1980). Corporate Finance Department.

            *The Burton Group PLC (1981-1984). Corporate and Strategic
            Planning Department founder for an international diversified
            company.

            The London Group (1992-1994, 1997-1999, 2003 present). Created
            and manage international stock and real estate portfolio.
        9. Attach a copy of your resume.
        Please see resume attachment.
        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, Advisory Committee on Human Trafficking Subcommittee on
    Training and Awareness, U.S. Department of Transportation (2018-2019)
        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.

            Board of Governors, Bath S. University, Bath, United Kingdom
            (1988-2014).

            Director of a homeowners' association called ''4 Ferncroft
            Freehold'' during the past ten years. A directorship comes with
            ownership of an apartment. I have never worked and do not work
            for the homeowners' association and receive no income or fees
            of any kind from it.

        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.

            Harvard Business School Alumni Association (1981 to present)

            Stanford Alumni Association (lifetime member)

            Board of Governors, Bath S. University, Bath, England (1988-
            2014)

            University Club, Washington, D.C. (2015 to present)

            California Republican Party (2010-2014, 2016)

            Heritage Foundation (2017-2019)

            CPAC (2018-2019)

            Incline Village Crystal Bay Republican Women (2016-2017)

            Jonathan Club, Los Angeles (2004 to present)

            Harvard Club of New York (over 25 years)

        To the best of my knowledge, none of these organizations restricts
    membership on any of the stated grounds.
        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.
        Yes. No debt was ever incurred, and no debt is outstanding.
        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.
        Member, California Republican Party (2010-2014, 2016), no services
    rendered.
        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.

    11-05-2018                Marsha Blackburn                        1,000
    09-27-2017                Ed Royce                                  900
    12-31-2016                Ed Royce                                2,700
    09-17-2016                Ed Royce                                  300
    09-22-2014                Ed Royce                                  500
    10-26-2012                Tommy Thompson                          1,000
    12-30-2011                Ed Royce                                2,500

        16. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
    society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
    for outstanding service or achievements.
        Honorary Fellowship awarded by Bath S. University in 2014 in
    recognition of service on the Board of Governors of the University.
        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.
        None.
        18. List digital platforms (inc1uding 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, active, https://www.facebook.com/mary.toman.125
            2002 campaign website, dormant, http://marytoman.org/

        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.
        Testimony, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Innovation,
    Technology and Productivity of the Committee on Small Business, U.S.
    Senate, on U.S./Japan Auto Parts Trade, April 20, 1990. This testimony
    was in my capacity as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce.
        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?
        My background demonstrates deep experience in federal, state and
    local government as well as extensive and successful involvement in the
    private sector in both large and small businesses. In my government and
    private sector roles, I have been both a producer and consumer of
    Commerce Department data, experiences that will facilitate the making
    and implementation of policies to promote jobs, growth and continued
    prosperity.
        As Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, International Trade
    Administration, Trade Development for Automotive Affairs and Consumer
    Goods in President George H. W. Bush's Administration, I gained
    experience in the areas for which the Under Secretary is now
    responsible. My group produced statistics for analyses and forecasts
    for the automotive and 120 consumer goods industries that were
    published in the Department's annual U.S. Industrial Outlook. Many of
    these analyses now take place in Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). We
    used Census Bureau data, inflation data and GDP statistics along with
    private sector sources to produce and analyze key information about the
    economy.
        As Deputy Assistant Secretary, I led quarterly International Trade
    Advisory Committee meetings of industry experts to consult with the
    private sector on economic issues and sectoral developments including
    trade and tariffs. I am very familiar with how the Commerce Department
    works not only on a data and statistical basis, but also through
    synergistic interaction with other parts of the government such as the
    Council of Economic Advisors, with which the Under Secretary
    interfaces. I established and led an interagency group to communicate
    and coordinate trade and economic policies regarding the auto sector
    (USTR, Treasury, State, Labor and Agriculture). Interagency
    coordination is an integral part of this Under Secretary position.
        My responsibility for heading U.S. delegations negotiating auto
    parts (the MOSS Talks) and vehicle trade issues with the government of
    Japan provided an extensive and relevant understanding of international
    trade, an important data area of BEA. I have observed the Commerce
    Department activities since I was a DAS, so would hit the ground
    running.
        My Stanford University degree in Economics (with Honors) and my
    Harvard University MBA gave me relevant economic, management and data
    skills to lead this area. At Stanford I studied under Michael Spence,
    recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics, whose specialty was
    information flows and market development. The appropriate data and
    information flows in BEA and for the Census Bureau must be constantly
    improved to best serve our country, while taking appropriate measures
    to maintain the accuracy, security and integrity of the data.
        As Deputy Treasurer of the State of California, I was responsible
    for the State's treasury management, banking, cash management and
    investments. This required extensive knowledge of fiscal and monetary
    policy, national and state macroeconomic policy and forecasts,
    inflationary trends and regulatory issues, which is also necessary to
    oversee and lead BEA. Working with state data agencies provided
    experience directly relevant to BEA. The Treasurer's office used the
    data produced by BEA and the Census Bureau on a regular basis, as the
    State and localities made key decisions based on its statistics. In any
    treasury function, the accuracy of numbers is paramount.
        I represented the State Treasurer on the boards of the State's two
    public pension funds: the California Public Employees' Retirement
    System (CalPERS) and the State Teacher's Retirement System (CalSTRS)
    which had combined pension assets of $150 billion and over two million
    beneficiaries. This deep experience with pension funds will be useful
    as the Under Secretary represents the Commerce Secretary on the U.S.
    Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation.
        BEA is also involved with government policy development, which I
    have performed as a DAS, Deputy Treasurer, and as a member of a
    Presidential transition team focusing on the Export-Import Bank of the
    United States and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
    Moreover, as a Commissioner and Chair of the Los Angeles Industrial
    Development Authority, I focused on economic policies that would create
    jobs with an emphasis on underserved urban areas.
        Having spent roughly half of my career in the private sector, I
    have been an extensive user of BEA and Census Bureau data and
    statistics. At Procter & Gamble, I analyzed and applied these
    statistics daily, with many strategies driven by Census demographic
    data. I planned million dollar marketing plans and chose test markets
    based on Census data. We relied fully on the accuracy of this data, so
    I clearly understand how BEA and Census data drives industry growth and
    jobs.
        Strategic planning was my specialty at Bain & Company, where every
    day we used data produced by BEA and the Census Bureau (overall
    economic information, sector specific data, demographic data) to
    prepare long term forecasts for company and industry growth strategies.
    Sectors included high tech (silicon chip manufacturers, LED producers
    and other electronics), chemicals, financial service and mining.
        I wish to serve in this position because I believe deeply in this
    country and our Constitution. Conducting an accurate decennial census
    is a vital constitutional responsibility, and it would be a great honor
    to help fulfill these duties that strengthen our democracy, recognize
    and enhance economic and job growth and help society as a whole.
        This country has given me unparalleled opportunities to experience
    firsthand the blessings of liberty and achievement. I want to do my
    part to keep our country strong through economic growth and strength so
    that more and more people can prosper and achieve their potential.
        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?
        As Deputy Treasurer of the State of California, I managed and
    oversaw nearly $200 billion of pension and other assets, which required
    strong and effective measures to identify and eliminate risks quickly.
    I have a successful track record of proper management and improving
    accounting controls in large organizations. Having direct
    responsibility for banking for the state required working closely with
    staff in the Treasurer's Office as well as those in the banking sector
    to reduce risks. I made significant improvements in accounting
    controls. My responsibilities included representing the State Treasurer
    on the boards of the CalPERS and CalSTRS pension funds, which provided
    retirement and other benefits for over two million state employees and
    retirees. These roles presented extremely large management issues
    regarding people and funds, and reviews of hundreds of contracts each
    month. I did not approve any without improved scrutiny, due diligence
    and proper assurances. I provided educational opportunities for other
    board members and staff to learn about proper and effective accounting
    controls so that my improvements could be enhanced and sustained.
        My training at Harvard Business School (MBA) in advanced accounting
    has served taxpayers well in discovering problems and finding
    solutions. My extensive people management skills and experience are
    also critical to achieving this mission.
        As a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce
    as well as in my service on a presidential transition team, my
    management skills were applied to the Federal government to recommend
    ways to reduce risks and apply cost-effective strategies. I sought to
    ensure that the country would receive optimal benefits from our budgets
    and the taxpayers would be proud of our work. Regarding staff, my
    approach was to work with those around me to motivate and empower them
    to prioritize proper management and accounting controls for the present
    and future.
        My experience in the private sector, such as with Procter & Gamble,
    trained me well in the very best of management and accounting skills.
    Accuracy, timeliness, integrity and good planning are hallmarks of the
    culture of Procter & Gamble. My budgeting and expenditure
    responsibilities in numerous industries and government entities have
    given me a broad base of judgment to carry out effectively these
    responsibilities.
        22. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
    department/agency, and why?
        The top three challenges are:

      (1)  To conduct a full, fair, accurate and efficient decennial
            census, with subsequent accurate analyses of the data to
            fulfill essential functions including reapportionment of
            representation in the Congress and states in a timely and
            transparent manner. Supporting the hardworking staff is
            critical.

      (2)  To provide accurate and relevant data to support economic
            activity in the United States and disseminate it clearly to all
            potential users. There are always ways to improve the
            timeliness, accuracy and relevance of data, its analyses and
            forecasting so that job creation can be enhanced through policy
            development As the U.S. economy evolves, new and more modem
            ways of structuring the architecture of U.S. economic data and
            analyses must be considered, developed, implemented and
            communicated. It is important to increase consultations with
            the private sector on new sectoral developments and to be
            responsive to Congress and users of the information.

      (3)  To continue actively supporting the hardworking staff in the
            Bureau of Economic Analysis as we constantly seek to assist
            growth and job creation in the U.S. economy. The workload is
            heavy and their invaluable efforts to monitor and analyze an
            evolving and innovative economy must be facilitated.
                       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.
        457(b) Plan with the State of California. I have not received any
    distributions from this Plan to date.
        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.
        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 wil1
    resolve each potential conflict of interest.
        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
    the Office of Government Ethics and Department of Commerce agency
    ethics officials to identify any potential conflicts of interest. Any
    potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the
    terms of my ethics agreement. I understand that my ethics agreement has
    been provided to the Committee. I am not aware of any potential
    conflict of interest other than those that are the subject of my ethics
    agreement.
        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.
        Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance
    with the terms of my ethics agreement. I understand that my ethics
    agreement has been provided to the Committee.
        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. None.
                                c. legal maiters
        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 civi1 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. None.
                         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.
                                     ______

                            Resume of Mary A. Toman

    Education and Degrees

    1979-1981             HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
                          Awarded Master of Business Administration (MBA).

    1972-1976             STANFORD UNIVERSITY
                          Awarded Bachelor of Arts degree, in Economics,
                           with honors. Studied under Michael Spence,
                           recipient of Nobel Prize in Economics, 2001
                           (information flows and market development).

    Government/Political Experience

    1989-1992             UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE--WASHINGTON,
                           D.C.
                          Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce,
                           International Trade Administration, Trade
                           Development, Automotive Affairs and Consumer
                           Goods
                          Headed U.S. delegations negotiating auto parts
                           (the MOSS Talks) and vehicle trade issues with
                           the Government of Japan. Achieved significant
                           increases in U.S. industry exports through trade
                           negotiations and intensive compliance monitoring.
                           Portfolio included responsibility for export
                           expansion, trade policies and economic forecasts
                           for 120 industries. Developed strategies to open
                           global market access for U.S. companies small and
                           large. Established and led interagency
                           coordination on auto parts with White House and
                           State, USTR, Treasury and Labor. Successfully
                           resolved numerous trade disputes. Administrative
                           achievements included budget reductions. Led
                           quarterly International Trade Advisory Committee
                           meetings of industry experts to consult with
                           private sector on economic issues, sectoral
                           developments and tariffs. Trade missions to
                           increase exports to Asia (Japan, Korea), Europe
                           and the Middle East. Produced and analyzed
                           international and domestic economic data and
                           statistics for Commerce Department publications,
                           including the U.S. Industrial Outlook. Handled
                           national security oceanic border dispute as well
                           as sensitive agricultural and fishing issues.

    1995-1996             STATE OF CALIFORNIA--SACRAMENTO
                          Deputy Treasurer of California
                          Responsible for the State of California's treasury
                           management, banking, cash management, investments
                           and pensions. California's investments totaled
                           nearly $200 billion and included: domestic and
                           international equity of developed and emerging
                           economies; domestic and international fixed
                           income (U.S. Government Treasury bonds and
                           bills); and domestic and international real
                           estate. Position required firm grasp of monetary
                           and fiscal policies, national and state
                           macroeconomic policy and forecasts, inflationary
                           trends and regulatory issues. Represented the
                           State Treasurer on the boards of the State's two
                           public pension funds: the California Public
                           Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the
                           State Teachers' Retirement System, with combined
                           assets of $150 billion. Responsible for analyses
                           and voting decisions on CalPERS, including
                           investments, general administration and personnel
                           responsibilities, long-term care insurance,
                           mortgage programs, healthcare appellate reviews
                           and healthcare for over 2 million CalPERS
                           beneficiaries. Reviewed thousands of
                           international and domestic investment proposals
                           requiring complex statistical analyses. Dealt
                           with contentious labor and environmental
                           investment issues. Refused to support investing
                           in risky derivatives and mortgage-backed
                           securities long before such instruments were
                           recognized as too speculative for pension funds
                           and fiduciary institutions.

    2018-2019             U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION--WASHINGTON,
                           D.C.
                          Member, Advisory Committee on Human Trafficking
                           Subcommittee on Training and Awareness

    2002                  REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR CALIFORNIA STATE
                           TREASURER

    1999-2003             REPUBLICAN PARTY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY--LOS
                           ANGELES
                          Chairman
                          Elected and re-elected Chairman of the Nation's
                           largest county with approximately IO million
                           people and 18 Congressional seats--larger than 42
                           states. Speaker at Republican National Convention
                           2000 in Philadelphia. To be elected Chairman, one
                           must first run for public office (the position of
                           County Central Committee member) and be elected
                           by the voters in a California State Assembly
                           district (approximately 475,000 people). Ran
                           successfully for eight successive terms on County
                           Central Committee.

    1988 to present       BATHS. UNIVERSITY--BATH, ENGLAND
                          Fellow; Former Governor
                          Privatized university from government control.
                           Board's governance includes strategic planning,
                           financial results, academic quality,
                           international students and exchange programs,
                           investments, treasury and banking functions,
                           budget. growth, policy, labor management, land
                           use, community relations and commercial
                           operations for 8,000 students. As a Fellow, was
                           graduation keynote speaker.

    1993-1995             CITY OF LOS ANGELES--LOS ANGELES
                          Chairman and Commissioner, Industrial Development
                           Authority
                          Appointed by Mayor Richard Riordan and confirmed
                           by the City Council in a unanimous vote. Focused
                           on job creation through infrastructure and
                           business development with emphasis on underserved
                           urban neighborhoods. Authorized to issue
                           industrial development bonds. Keynote speaker at
                           convocation of city commissioners.

    1988-1989             PRESIDENT-ELECT GEORGE H.W. BUSH--WASHINGTON, D.C.
                          PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TEAM
                          The Export-Import Bank of the United States
                          Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
                          Focused on economic growth, strategic trade, trade
                           finance, and international trade exports
                           strategy.

    1998-1999             CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SERVICE BOARDS--SACRAMENTO
                          California State Jobs Training Coordinating
                           Council, implementing the Federal Workforce
                           Investment Act of 1998 in California to increase
                           the employment, retention and earnings of
                           workers. Labor market policies and jobs training
                           to increase occupational skill attainment.

    1994-1995             California State Economic Advisory Council

    Key Business Experience

    2003 to present

    1997-1999             THE LONDON GROUP--LOS ANGELES

    1992-1994             Created and manage successful stock and real
                           estate portfolio.

    1981-1984             THE BURTON GROUP PLC--LONDON
                          Corporate and Strategic Planning Department
                           founder, Finance Department, for an international
                           diversified company, including manufacturing,
                           finance, data analyses, trucking, and property
                           management of over 1,000 key properties and 600
                           retail stores. Trebled stock price in three
                           years. Achieved profitable turnaround. Worldwide
                           supply chains from over 50 countries, with India,
                           Turkey and Hong Kong being the largest suppliers.
                           Complex international exchange rates, economic
                           analyses and forecasts.

    1980                  E.F. HUTTON--NEW YORK
                          Corporate Finance Department Paid intern assigned
                           to mergers and acquisitions including Gulfstream/
                           Rockwell.

    1977-1979             THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY--CINCINNATI
                          Brand Management and Marketing. Coordinated
                           product development, market research, statistical
                           analyses, focus groups, economic forecasts,
                           communications, polling, finance, sales,
                           production and engineering. Used census and other
                           data to plan multimillion-dollar marketing
                           campaigns. Implemented bar coding. Improved
                           efficiency of factory production lines for
                           environmental improvements (chlorofluorocarbon
                           eradication).

    1976-1977             BAIN & COMPANY, Strategic Planning--BOSTON
                          Research and management consulting. Prepared
                           economic forecasts and statistical analyses to
                           plan company growth strategies. Integrated
                           finance, marketing, manufacturing policy and
                           competitive analyses to identify growth
                           opportunities for silicon chip manufacturer,
                           chemical company, high tech companies, mining and
                           service companies.

        The Chairman. Well, thank you very, very much. And the
    remote testimony went very nicely.
        We now begin questions under the 5-minute rule.
        Mr. Szabat, the U.S. Department of Transportation is
    expected to release a detailed reauthorization plan in the near
    future. Do you have an update on the reauthorization of the
    surface transportation programs? We need to act on this, and I
    am hoping that the Department's plan will be released soon.
    What can you tell us about that?
        Mr. Szabat. Thank you, Senator. I believe if not for COVID-
    19, I believe the Administration's plan, the entire $1 billion
    10-year plan, would have been released in full by now.
    Currently, my hope is that we will have the plan out before the
    members of this committee have an opportunity to ask me
    questions for the record, and I am confident that we will have
    the plan out before I have an opportunity to answer those
    questions for the record.
        The Chairman. OK, all right. So, well, thank you very much.
        Let me move on then to the Consumer Product Safety
    Commission. Dr. Beck, thank you for being with us.
        Let me ask about an investigation last June. The Committee
    conducted an investigation into unauthorized disclosure of the
    confidential manufacturer information in violation of section
    6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act. The investigation
    found that a lack of formal training, ineffective management,
    and poor information technology implementation at the CPSC
    contributed to the disclosures. If confirmed, how will you work
    to address these issues to improve the functioning of the
    Commission and ensure that incidents like the unauthorized
    disclosures do not happen again?
        Dr. Beck. Senator, thank you for that question.
        I am aware of the report and the investigation from this
    committee.
        First and foremost, it is important that CPSC follow all
    the statutory requirements, and one of those includes
    protecting important confidential business information. If
    confirmed to the CPSC, I will make it a priority to ensure that
    that part of the statute is followed to make sure that everyone
    at the CPSC, including myself, is appropriately trained on a
    regular basis so that releases such as this will not happen
    again.
        The Chairman. OK. Well, let us see. But they also found
    that lack of formal training was a problem and ineffective
    management. Could you comment on those findings, since you are
    familiar with the report? What about the ineffective management
    aspect of it?
        Dr. Beck. So not being at the CPSC, it is hard for me to
    comment on that aspect. I believe it was related to the
    managers and the training and the oversight of the training and
    the processes and procedures. So it is really important that
    every manager, including the Commissioners, be trained on the
    appropriate statutory requirements, be trained on the processes
    and procedures throughout the organization. Everyone needs to
    be aware of the appropriate practices.
        The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank the witnesses. I have a lot of questions and
    not probably enough time to go through all of them. So if you
    could be succinct on your answers, I would certainly appreciate
    it.
        I want to start with you, Dr. Beck. Obviously, the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission and its important responsibility is
    to protect the public. I mean, literally these rules are about
    life and death.
        And overwhelmingly bipartisan 2016 Toxic Substances Control
    Act reform, TSCA, requires the EPA to study the risk of
    chemicals and then step up to protect people against those
    risks. One of those chemicals being studied is TCE, a chemical
    used for decades as a grease remover and dry cleaning solvent.
    It was found at hundreds of Super Fund sites in every single
    state and drinking water all across America. It was poisonous.
        Documents and other Trump reports show that the Trump
    administration EPA rejected industry science designed to
    downplay the risk of birth defects and those chemical causes
    and the White House overruled EPA's own scientists.
        So, Dr. Beck, yes or no. Were you involved or responsible
    for the direction of the White House that it gave EPA to edit
    the risks of TCE to remove the cardiac birth defects from those
    documents?
        Dr. Beck. Senator Cantwell, I think you are referring to an
    interagency review process, which is standard practice. During
    that process, the lead agency has the authority and they have
    the pen. They decide which comments are accepted, which
    comments are rejected, and whether or not any changes are made
    to the assessment. So the draft assessment that was released is
    a reflection of the EPA.
        Senator Cantwell. So did you advocate for removal of
    cardiac birth defect risk from those documents? Did you
    advocate for that?
        Dr. Beck. So the interagency review process, which I
    participated in for many years, 15 years now, is a very
    important process that allows for frank and candid and
    deliberative discussion within an agency and across an agency.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes or no. Did you advocate? Yes or no.
    That is all I am asking.
        Dr. Beck. Senator, what you are asking for is deliberative
    information.
        Senator Cantwell. So you are saying at this point you do
    not know whether you believe that TCE information about cardiac
    birth defects is important?
        Dr. Beck. Information about cardiac birth defects with TCE
    or with any chemical is very, very important.
        Senator Cantwell. And so did you participate, you
    personally, in asking for that to be removed?
        Dr. Beck. So the interagency process is designed to protect
    deliberative information----
        Senator Cantwell. OK. We are going to go on to the next
    question.
        Senator Carper has been a lead obviously in his EPA role.
    In 2015, the Obama administration proposed a rule that was
    designed to restrict the use of the most dangerous PFAS
    chemicals in consumer products. And Senator Carper has
    indicated that you personally tried to delay and weaken a
    proposed rule. Senator Carper--as part of the White House
    review, when you left EPA, you tried repeatedly to weaken the
    rule by allowing companies that continued to include PFAS
    chemicals in consumer products have a safe harbor from
    enforcement if they said they did not know they were supposed
    to have ensured that PFAS was removed. So yes or no. Did you
    participate in that process?
        Dr. Beck. Senator, I can assure you that I did not weaken
    or delay any PFAS rules. The PFAS--I think it is the SNUR that
    you are referring to, is a draft document that was released by
    EPA. EPA has the pen on that document, and EPA decides what is
    in and what is not in that draft document.
        Senator Cantwell. So do you believe that the company should
    have a safe harbor?
        Dr. Beck. I am not prepared to answer that question.
        Senator Cantwell. OK. Well, here is what my constituents
    are prepared for, this report, this report that basically is
    from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. And
    it is about the assessment in the Spokane community about the
    unacceptable levels of PFAS. That is what is beyond acceptable.
    I cannot support your nomination when you cannot answer these
    questions. When I go to this report and I look on page 4 of the
    report and it says PFAS levels in tap water, collected and
    tested water samples from participating households, the PFAS
    levels for all 19 tap water samples were below all Federal and
    applicable State guidelines for PFAS in drinking water. I
    cannot tell my constituents that I supported you because you
    cannot tell me about this important thing did not have a safe
    harbor for these people. So, listen, this issue is well known
    in Spokane. It is well known at Fairchild Air Force Base. I
    know our colleagues have tried to deal with this issue.
        But I have to just bring up the Ligado issue, if I could,
    really quickly because it is such an important issue. And we
    have three people here that also could say something about it.
        Obviously, the Ligado issue--you know, with the FCC's
    recent approval, you are putting into competition, in my mind
    this GPS system, which threatens the safety and security from
    civil aviation and military operations to weather forecasting.
    And I just want to know what the witnesses, Mr. Szabat, Walsh,
    and Toman, whether you have any comments about that, and Mr.
    O'Rielly, if I have a minute left or have a few comments. I
    guess I could wait another round.
        Mr. Szabat. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        The Ligado issue and its predecessor, the LightSquared
    issue, was in fact a very difficult issue to grasp with.
        The Department of Transportation--I think we have an easier
    way forward than our colleagues do at the FCC. Our mandate is
    to look out for the interests of the GPS system, as you have
    pointed out. Our testing has indicated that the Ligado system,
    if deployed, would interfere with GPS, and therefore we have
    been remaining opposed to its deployment.
        Senator Cantwell. OK. My time has run out, Mr. Chairman. So
    I will put in for the record, if I could, to let the rest of
    the witnesses answer that question.
        But I am also going to put into the record a question to
    Ms. Beck about COVID-19 guidelines for the White House. There
    are also questions about your role in basically trying to deny
    the release of information that would have been helpful in a
    horrific accident in Washington as people conveyed in Skagit
    County to sing in a choir, and so many people from that event
    got COVID. So I want to understand whether you participated in
    anything in suppressing information that would have been
    helpful in that.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Moran.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

        Senator Moran. Let me turn my attention first to Ms. Beck.
    Ms. Beck, I chair the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection with
    jurisdiction over the CPSC, and I want to see that that agency
    is managed in a way and that there is camaraderie and good will
    among the members. And I would love to hear your assurance that
    as we have hearings in our Subcommittee that deal with the
    Commissioners, that you move the Commission in the direction of
    transparency, fair process, bipartisanship in every way
    possible. Can you assure me of that?
        Dr. Beck. Yes, Senator, I can. There is no place for
    bipartisanship when it comes to public health and consumer
    protection.
        I have already spoken with all the sitting Commissioners,
    both Democratic and Republican, and if confirmed, I would look
    forward to working with all of them. Each one brings a unique
    background and experience to the Commission, and we can only
    really truly be effective if we work together toward a common
    goal.
        Senator Moran. Do you see impediments toward that
    happening?
        Dr. Beck. I certainly hope not, no.
        Senator Moran. Ms. Beck, Chairman Wicker asked you about
    this topic, about the release of information that was
    inappropriately released. He asked you about management. I just
    want to also reiterate the importance of that issue. Senator
    Wicker and I wrote inquiring about this topic. I want to make
    sure you will use your chairmanship to address those concerns
    and make certain that the individuals are educated, trained,
    and have the right approach and attitude toward protecting the
    privacy as required by law. Is that something you can assure me
    of?
        Dr. Beck. Yes, Senator. I would be happy to make that a
    priority, and if confirmed, I will look into it and I would be
    happy to report back to you.
        Senator Moran. Thank you very much.
        Let me turn to Commissioner O'Rielly. Commissioner, it is
    nice to see you again. This morning I was with Chairman Pai in
    an Appropriations subcommittee hearing.
        You wrote an interesting blog, a post on an issue related
    to prohibiting presale or conditional sale radio frequency
    devices that caught my attention. And are there other similar
    consumer good marketing prohibitions that you are aware of
    outside this issue of radio frequency devices that we ought to
    be paying attention to?
        Mr. O'Rielly. None off the top of my head that come to
    mind. I spent a good deal of time working on the presale issue
    and the importation issue that I both wrote about. But I am
    happy to review to make sure that we have not missed anything.
        Senator Moran. Do you think that the FCC has the ability to
    change what you find flawed?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I do, yes. We do have within our rights to
    change our process. We always look to Congress, to your
    leadership if you so would choose.
        Senator Moran. Let me ask you a question that I asked
    Chairman Pai this morning. Keep America Connected Pledge. The
    result of that pledge, abiding by that pledge would have caused
    a number of companies, providers, to lose income related to
    those who are unable and have not paid their bills or unable to
    pay late charges. So as we try to make certain that those
    companies remain in existence to provide broadband services to
    Americans, particularly rural Americans, what is in the works
    to see that there is the actual capability of doing so,
    sufficient revenue in light of the fact that people are not or
    cannot pay bills? I asked the Chairman this morning if the FCC
    has any numbers about lost revenue, which I was informed does
    not exist. But do you have any understanding of what the
    magnitude of this problem is?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I do not have any better data. I would have
    to defer to the Chairman on his program in terms of its
    establishment.
        But your point is well taken. I am concerned about the lost
    revenue and the potential--it would not just be the late fees
    but also the underlying revenue from the service. And it is a
    one thing to pledge if it is a month or 2 months, but now we
    are talking 6 months or 9 months. And that is going to be
    problematic for a lot of small providers.
        Now, when I talk to providers and representatives of them,
    their interest is to keep people connected and do everything
    they need to make sure. Whether it be deferral payments or to
    try and work out payment plans, I would certainly appreciate
    that. And then Congress itself has a number of programs that
    may be applicable, already in the CARES Act depending on the
    size of the company. But I certainly would look to the guidance
    of the Committee or the Congress in terms of if it decides to
    allocate additional resources or funding for this purpose.
        Senator Moran. If you have suggestions in that regard,
    please let me know.
        Mr. Szabat, I have 22 seconds in my allocation. I
    appreciate the time you spent with me by phone considering
    essential air service and the response under the CARES Act. I
    would ask you for airports, the EAS and non-essential air
    service airports--they continue to feel the impact of COVID-
    19--what else can we be doing to support them?
        Mr. Szabat. Senator, thank you for the question and for
    your interest and concern for essential air service because
    they are, in fact, essential for the rural communities that
    they serve.
        Right now, the single most important thing you have already
    done, which is through the CARES Act, that you have ensured
    funding to keep all of those services operating through the end
    of this fiscal year, well into next fiscal year. I would ask
    only that we are able to continue to have contact with you,
    your staff, the other members of this committee as we identify
    going into next year what the overall effects of the
    coronavirus will be and what alterations and changes we have to
    make in policy and funding to keep EAS performing.
        Senator Moran. Mr. Szabat, thank you for your answer and
    thank you for working with me earlier this year in this regard.
    Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Moran.
        Senator Udall.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Beck, I think members of this committee should oppose
    your nomination. You have taken actions that demonstrate a real
    disregard for public health and safety. And we are talking
    about a position that is supposed to be one of our nation's
    preeminent consumer watchdogs.
        Why should members of this committee place their trust in
    you when your record has been one of constantly blocking,
    weakening, and delaying public health protections proposed by
    our nation's top scientists and regulators? I think if they
    hear from people like Wendy Hartley, they will have trouble
    putting their trust in you. Wendy's son, Kevin, lost his life
    using a dangerous chemical in paint strippers--methylene
    chloride, while you stalled the effort to remove this chemical
    from store shelves. Drew Wynne lost his life as well and many
    others that we know of.
        As you know, I was the lead author of the chemical safety
    reform effort in the Senate. We worked very hard to move
    forward with a very protective law. But your implementation of
    the law has been anything but protective. Shortly before your
    arrival at the EPA, the agency proposed regulating methylene
    chloride in paint strippers. EPA had been reviewing this
    chemical for many years, and our legislation explicitly
    protected that work. But after your arrival, we saw nothing but
    blocking, weakening, and delaying, and that resulted in the
    loss of Kevin's life, Drew's life and several others.
        According to the ``New York Times,'' you questioned the
    proposed ban on methylene chloride, suggesting that only a
    small number of users are harmed by it. It is 1 percent. You
    purportedly asked an EPA colleague, is that report true or
    false, and is the 1 percent an acceptable rate of injury when
    those injuries include a risk of death?
        Dr. Beck. Senator Udall, thank you for your question.
        My heart goes out to the Hartley family and the Wynne
    family. The acute fatalities were tragic that we saw with
    methylene chloride. This is why there is now a ban in place so
    that methylene chloride can no longer be manufactured,
    processed, distributed to retailers or by retailers to
    consumers. It is effectively removed from the big box stores
    and from the local hardware stores, and I am confident that we
    have effectively blocked any further acute fatalities.
    Protection of public health is first and foremost.
        Senator Udall. You are not answering my question. I asked
    you specifically is the report true and is this 1 percent
    figure an acceptable rate of injury? What is the answer to
    those two questions?
        Dr. Beck. Senator, before answering a specific question
    like that, I would like to see the report that you are
    referring to. But I do not believe that we can put a number or
    a percentage on the value of a life.
        Senator Udall. This was an esteemed EPA Deputy
    Administrator, longtime career employee, that says that you
    made that quote. And I think Wendy Hartley and Brian Wynne
    would strongly object if their loved ones are just a minor
    statistic. It is unacceptable that it took 2 years and a
    lawsuit for you to finalize this regulation, and you still
    managed to put out a less protective rule which allows the use
    of methylene chloride in paint strippers for commercial use by
    workers. This is despite the EPA's own conclusions that workers
    are at much greater risk from exposure than consumers. And in
    fact, its use by workers also endangers bystanders. EPA had
    already considered and rejected the extra training as
    insufficient to protect workers and bystanders from the
    unreasonable risk, including a quick death posed by methylene
    chloride.
        Did you know that Kevin Hartley was professionally trained
    to use this product and he wore gloves and a ventilator mask
    and still this chemical infiltrated his mask and the heavy
    fumes killed him? Did you know those facts? It is a yes or no
    question.
        Dr. Beck. Senator, I was aware of the tragic circumstances
    that surrounded his death. I was not aware of the particular
    type of respirator that he was wearing.
        But the evaluation that was done----
        Senator Udall. OK.
        Had you and the EPA not delayed banning methylene chloride,
    Kevin would be alive today. Drew would be alive today, and
    others would still be alive. For a scientist charged with
    protecting public health, we should expect better. Your
    training gave you the tools to fully assess risk and exposure
    to toxic chemicals. Instead, you go against peer-reviewed
    science and consistently favor industry without a solid
    scientific basis. Your entire career has been less like a
    toxicologist conducting rigorous, unbiased science and more
    like a defense attorney zealously defending guilty chemical
    clients.
        Mr. Chairman, in my work to reform the chemical safety law,
    I spent years working hard to reform a badly broken law, but
    with Nancy Beck at the EPA, we have seen chemical safety reform
    fail us time and time again. In the 4 years since it passed,
    Nancy Beck and the EPA have blocked, weakened, and delayed
    protections from PFAS, from lead, from TCE, and so many other
    dangerous chemicals. In these 4 years, the only ones who have
    been protected by her leadership have been chemical companies,
    not workers exposed to dangerous toxins at work, not the public
    who purchases dangerous products at the store.
        That is why I am so concerned to see her nomination to
    chair the very organization charged with protecting consumers.
    The American consumer is entitled to leadership at the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission that will protect their health,
    safety, and lives. This nominee fails this test, and I urge
    this committee to oppose.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask to enter into the record a list
    of dangerous and unprotected measures that Nancy Beck has taken
    during her tenure at EPA, along with a letter from over 100
    national and state organizations that have joined to oppose
    this nomination, and a statement from Brian Wynne, Chairman of
    the Drew Wynne Foundation. In his statement, it starts, this
    nominee delayed a ban on the toxic chemical that killed my
    brother.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Udall. Without objection,
    those will be entered into the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                                                          June 10, 2020
    Via Electronic Mail
    Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant Administrator
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
    Washington, DC.

    E-mail: dunn.alexandra@epa.gov

    Re: Urgent Request to Prevent Federal Register Publication of Final
                Rule, ``Implementing Statutory Addition of Certain Per- and
                Polyfluoroalkyl Substances; Toxic Chemical Release
                Reporting'' (Docket# EPA-HQ-TRI-2020-0142) Due to Legal
                Violations

    Dear Assistant Administrator Dunn:

        The undersigned organizations and coalition of communities impacted
    by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (``PFAS'') urgently request that
    you prevent publication in the Federal Register of the final rule
    entitled ``Implementing Statutory Addition of Certain Per- And
    Polyfluoroalkyl Substances; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting,'' Docket#
    EPA-HQ-TRI-2020-0142 (``TRI reporting rule'').\1\ The TRI reporting
    rule suffers from three major flaws: First, the public was not given
    notice of a proposed rule and the opportunity to comment on it, in
    violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''). EPA's
    invocation of the ``good cause exception'' is unsustainable; notice and
    comment is practicable, necessary, and in accord with the public
    interest. Second, the TRI reporting rule violates section 7321 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Pub. L. 116-
    92, Sec. 7321, 133 Stat. 1198, 2277-81 (``NDAA TRI mandate'') because
    it allows exemptions to the reporting mandate not contemplated by
    Congress or permitted by the statute's plain terms. Finally, the TRI
    reporting rule reflects a dramatic departure from prior EPA policy
    without explanation, rendering it arbitrary and capricious. It is
    imperative that EPA withdraw the prepublication version of the TRI
    reporting rule from EPA's website and from the Office of the Federal
    Register, and publish a proposed version of the rule so that the
    concerns of the undersigned groups, as well as others with a direct
    interest in enforcement of the NDAA TRI mandate, can be considered
    before EPA adopts a final rule.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The pre-publication version of the TRI reporting rule was
    signed by you on May 18, 2020, and is posted on the website of the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''). See Pre Publication Version
    of Final Rule: Implementing Statutory Addition of Certain Per- and
    Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to the TRI Chemical List, EPA (May 18,
    2020), https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/pre-
    publication-version-final-rule-implementing-statutory (``Pre-pub
    lication version'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A. The APA requires EPA to publish a proposed rule implementing the
            NDAA TRI mandate.
        It is critical that the TRI reporting rule not be officially
    published as a final rule because the public has not received proper
    notice and sufficient time to comment on a proposed version, in
    violation of a fundamental tenet of rulemaking required by the APA. See
    5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b) (c). This requirement may be skipped only when the
    agency finds good cause that notice and comment are ``impracticable,
    unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Id.
    Sec. 553(b)(3)(B). The ``good cause'' exception, however, is to ``be
    narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced.'' Petry v. Block,
    737 F.2d 1193, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quotations and citation omitted).
    Indeed, the exception is applied only in emergency situations or where
    there is an imminent threat of serious harm. Jifry v. Fed. Aviation
    Admin., 370 F.3d 1174, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (``The exception excuses
    notice and comment in emergency situations . . . or where delay could
    result in serious harm.'') (citation omitted).
        There is no emergency or serious threat that requires EPA to deny
    the public its right to comment on the Agency's proposed approach for
    incorporating the NDAA TRI mandate into its regulations. Companies are
    already conducting the data collection that the rule purports to
    require because they are already required to do so by the NDAA. Given
    the self-executing nature of the NDAA TRI mandate, EPA cannot claim any
    emergency justification for forgoing notice-and-comment rulemaking
    here.
        Moreover, EPA is simply wrong to contend that notice and comment is
    ``unnecessary'' because the TRI reporting rule was adopted ``to comply
    with an Act of Congress.'' \2\ Prepublication version at 6. Although
    Congress did not specify where in the Code of Federal Regulations EPA
    would codify the addition of PFAS to the TRI, by mandating a 100-pound
    reporting threshold, Pub. L. 116-92, Sec. 7321(b)(2), Congress
    contemplated that PFAS would be listed without being subject to a de
    minimis concentration exemption, as is the case for all other TRI
    chemicals with a 100-pound reporting threshold. See 40 C.F.R.
    Sec. Sec. 372.28 (lower threshold chemical listing), 372.38(a) (carving
    out chemicals listed inSec. 372.28 from de minimis concentration
    exemption). In defiance of clear congressional intent (which is
    discussed below in section B, and calls for further elaboration in a
    public comment period), EPA codified the addition of 172 PFAS to the
    TRI in a manner that incorporates the de minimis concentration
    exemption. See Pre-Publication Version of Final Rule: Implementing
    Statutory Addition of Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to
    the TRI Chemical List at 11-12 ((failing to incorporate newly listed
    PFAS chemicals into Sec. 372.28 de minimis exemption carve-out). As
    this approach has significant consequences for how much information the
    public will receive, and was not specified by Congress, notice and
    comment is ``[]necessary'' and in ``the public interest.'' 5 U.S.C.
    Sec. 553(b)(3)(B).\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ EPA does not contest that notice and comment is practicable and
    it says nothing about public interest.
        \3\ For this same reason, EPA lacks ``good cause'' for ordering an
    immediate effective date for purposes of the Congressional Review Act.
    Prepublication version at 10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA's assertion that it ``does not expect the public to object'' to
    the TRI reporting rule, Prepublication version at 6, is not
    credible.\4\ The Agency is well aware that the Attorneys General of
    eighteen states recently filed comments asking EPA to add the newly
    listed PFAS to 40 C.F.R. Sec. 372.28--the path EPA went out of its way
    not to take.\5\ The Agency should expect these states to have strong
    objection to its decision to reject their request. In addition, EPA
    should have expected that communities in the ;icinity of facilities
    that manufacture or process PFAS--such as the members of the National
    PFAS Contamination Coalition,\6\ which is a signatory to this letter--
    among others concerned about PFAS contamination, will have strong
    objection to application of the de minimis concentration exemption to
    PFAS since it will significantly limit the information they receive. As
    just one example, if this exemption applies, a facility could specify
    that it will not purchase any mixture containing any single PFAS at a
    concentration greater than 1 percent, so that it would not have to
    submit a TRI report for these chemicals. Yet, a facility's use of a
    mere 25 drums (or 1,400 gallons) of a mixture that includes a 0.9
    percent concentration of a PFAS could result in the facility releasing
    more than 100 pounds of the PFAS to the environment in a year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ EPA's expectation is also irrelevant, as the APA requires
    notice and comment regardless of whether an agency ``expect[s]'' its
    action will be uncontroversial.
        \5\ Comments of the Attorneys General of the States of New York,
    California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
    Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
    Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin on the Advance Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking, Addition of Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
    Substances; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting,
    84 Fed. Reg. 66,369 (Dec. 4, 2019) (Feb. 3, 2020), https://
    www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HO-TRI-2019-0375-0086 (``State ANPRM
    comments''), at 6.
        \6\ The National PFAS Contamination Coalition is an organization of
    30 grassroots community groups in 21 states around the country whose
    members have been exposed to PFAS and who, collectively, are seeking
    stronger health protections for their families and communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under these circumstances, the APA requires EPA to adhere to the
    standard rulemaking process, including the publication of a proposed
    rule for notice and comment.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ This is also the approach used when an agency issues an
    ``interim'' or ``direct'' final rule that receives substantive adverse
    public comments. See Office of the Fed. Reg., A Guide to the Rulemaking
    Process 9 (Jan. 2011), https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/
    the_rulema
    king_process.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    B. The TRI reporting rule should not be published as a ``final rule''
            in its current form because it violates the NDAA TRI mandate
            and EPA has not explained its departure from a longstanding
            practice.
        EPA should also withdraw the final TRI reporting rule because in
    its current form it runs afoul of the NDAA TRI mandate and contravenes
    EPA's established practice. The proper time to provide a detailed
    accounting of the legal flaws is after EPA has published a proposed
    rule and given the public at least 30 days to comment. 5 U.S.C.
    Sec. 553(d). While we are not attempting to identify all of the legal
    flaws in the TRI reporting rule at this time, without the benefit of
    the required 30-day comment period, we note that when Congress
    specified a 100-pound reporting threshold for releases of the PFAS
    subject to the TRI reporting rule, Pub. L. 116-92, Sec. 7321(b)(2), it
    was well aware that all other TRI chemicals with a 100-pound reporting
    threshold are codified at 40 C.F.R. Sec. 372.28. It was also well aware
    that the de minimis concentration reporting exemption in 40 C.F.R.
    Sec. 372.38(a) does not apply to chemicals listed in in 40 C.F.R.
    Sec. 372.28. Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174, 184-85
    (1988) (``We generally presume that Congress is knowledgeable about
    existing law pertinent to the legislation it enacts.''). Under these
    circumstances, there is no ambiguity that Congress intended releases of
    PFAS to be reported without an exemption for de minimis concentrations,
    as is the case for all other TRI chemicals with a lower reporting
    threshold. Had Congress intended EPA to treat PFAS differently than any
    other lower threshold chemical, it would have said so. EPA cannot adopt
    an exemption that Congress did not authorize. Sierra Club v. EPA, 755
    F.3d 968,980 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (holding that EPA cannot adopt an
    unauthorized regulatory ``carve out'').
        Not only does the TRI reporting rule violate the NDAA TRI mandate,
    it also violates the APA because it reverses longstanding EPA policy
    without a reasoned explanation. The APA prohibits an agency from acting
    in a manner that is ``arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
    otherwise not in accordance with law.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A). Though
    an agency may lawfully reverse its position on a particular policy
    choice, it must ``display awareness that it is changing position,'' Fed
    Commc 'ns Comm'n v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515
    (2009), and it must provide a ``reasoned explanation . . . for
    disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered
    by the prior policy.'' Id at 516. EPA has a longstanding policy that
    the TRI de minimis concentration exemption does not apply to
    persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs). See Persistent
    Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Lowering of Reporting Thresholds
    for Certain PBT Chemicals; Addition of Certain PBT Chemicals; Community
    Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Reporting, 64 Fed. Reg. 58,666, 58,670
    (Oct. 29, 1999). As discussed in the State ANPRM comments, and
    recognized by scientists and governments around the world,\8\ some PFAS
    are PBTs, a fact EPA itself acknowledges.\9\ Accordingly, for EPA to
    codify the addition of 172 PFAS to the TRI so that the de minimis
    concentration reporting exemption applies, without providing a
    ``reasoned explanation'' for this dramatic change, is arbitrary,
    capricious, and unlawful.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ See, e.g., Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
    Pollutants, The 16 New POPs (June 2017), http://chm.pops.int/
    TheConvention/ThePOPs/TheNewPOPs/tabid/2511/Default.aspx; The Madrid
    Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs), 123 Envtl.
    Health Persp. A107 (2015), https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.l289/
    ehp.1509934; Heisinger Statement on Poly- and Perfluorinated Alkyl
    Substances (PFASs), 114 Chemosphere 337 (2014), https://
    www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565351400678X?via%3Dihub;
    Eur. Chems. Agency, Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern
    for Authorisation, https://www.echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table
    (last visited June 9, 2020).
        \9\ See, e.g., EPA, PFAS Research and Development, Presentation at
    Community Engagement in Fayetteville, North Carolina (Aug. 14, 2018),
    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/
    r4_combined_presentations.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the foregoing reasons, we strongly urge you to withdraw the TRI
    reporting rule from the Office of the Federal Register, and to publish
    a proposed version of the rule for notice and comment. We also urge EPA
    to advise the regulated community that its obligations under the NDAA
    TRI mandate went into effect on January 1, 2020 and that any delay in
    codification of EPA's rule does not impact the duty to comply, and to
    publicly affirm that it has done this. If you have any questions,
    please contact Eve Gartner, egartner@earthjustice.org or (212) 845-
    7381.

    Eve C. Gartner
    Managing Attorney, Toxic Exposure & Health Program
    Earthjustice

    Stel Bailey, Brevard County, FL
    Emily Donovan, Brunswick County, NC
    National PFAS Contamination Coalition

    Lynn Thorp
    National Campaigns Director
    Clean Water Action

    Tom Neltner
    Chemicals Policy Director
    Environmental Defense Fund

    Melanie Benesh
    Legislative Attorney
    Environmental Working Group

    Daniel Rosenberg
    Senior Attorney & Director of Federal Toxics Policy
    Natural Resources Defense Council

    cc: Yvette T. Collazo, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and
    Toxics
            [Collazoreyes.yvette@Epa.gov]

            Lawrence A. Reisman, Director, Toxics Release Inventory Program
            Division
            [Reisman.larry@Epa.gov]

            Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel
            [Leopold.matt@Epa.gov]

            Daniel R. Bushman, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division
            [Bushman.daniel@Epa.gov]
                                     ______

                                                   EARTHJUSTICE
                                                           NEW YORK, NY
                                   MEMORANDUM
    EPA's PFAS-related responsibilities under the National Defense
            Authorization Act for FY-2020
                                     ______

        On December 20, 2019, the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2020 (``NDAA 2020'' or the ``Act'') was enacted. NDAA 2020
    requires the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') to add certain
    per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances (``PFAS'') to the Toxic Release
    Inventory (``TRI''), which was established under the Emergency Planning
    and Community Right-to-Know Act to ensure communities know when toxic
    chemicals are released near them. 42 U.S.C. section 11023.
        NOAA 2020 creates three distinct processes for introducing PFAS to
    the TRI: 1) immediate inclusion, 2) inclusion following EPA action, and
    3) inclusion following determination.\1\ These are described below.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Sec. 732l(b)-(d).

      (1)  Immediate Inclusion on the TRI. The NDAA mandated that certain
            PFAS be added to the TRI as of January 1, 2020. Based on this
            mandate, EPA added 172 PFAS to the TRI. https://www.epa.gov/
            toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/list-pfas-added-tri-ndaa
            EPA is in the process of codifying these additions to the TRI.
            However, its approach is deeply flawed because it allows
            exemptions to the reporting mandate not contemplated by
            Congress or permitted by the plain terms of the NDAA 2020. I
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            have shared a letter to EPA outlining the concerns.

      (2)  Inclusion on the TRI Following Certain EPA Action. Certain
            categories of PFAS will be added to the TRI on January 1 of the
            year after EPA takes certain actions. Notably, when a
            significant new use rule (``SNUR'') is issued for a PFAS, it is
            automatically added to the TRI. The NOAA 2020 requires EPA to
            adopt a SNUR for certain PFAS in consumer products this month
            (June 2020), so many more PFAS will be added to the TRI
            shortly.

          The EPA actions that trigger adding PFAS to the TRI are:

            EPA finalizes a toxicity value for a PFAS (or classes
                of PFAS);

            EPA adopts a SNUR for a PFAS (or classes of PFAS);

            EPA adds a PFAS to a list of covered substances subject
                to an existing SNUR; and

            EPA approves a new PFAS for manufacture or processing,
                and it is added to the TSCA Inventory and designated as an
                active chemical under either subsections 5(A) or (5)(B) of
                TSCA Section 8(b).
                                     ______

                                                          June 10, 2020

    Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

        We write this letter--supported by over 90 scientists--to express
    our opposition to the White House nomination of Nancy Beck to Chair the
    U.S: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ White House Press Release. President Donald J. Trump Announces
    Intent to Nominate and Appoint Individuals to Key Administration Posts.
    Issued on: March 2, 2020. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/
    presidential-actions/president-donald-j-trump-announces-intent-
    nominate-appoint-individuals-key-administration-posts-32/
        A New Face at the CPSC? White House to Nominate Dr. Nancy Beck as
    Chair. The National law Review, March 3, 2020 https://
    www.natlawreview.com/article/new-face-cpsc-white-house-to-nominate-dr-
    nancy-beck-chair
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Nancy Beck is currently detailed to the White House, where she is
    empowered to oversee the chemical evaluations that she was in charge of
    developing while serving as the political head of the EPA's Office of
    Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).\2\ In that role she
    led the implementation of the revised Toxics Substances Control Act
    (TSCA), updated in 2016 by Congress to ensure that chemical substances
    and mixtures are evaluated and regulated so as not to present an
    unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, including
    infants, children, pregnant women, workers, and the elderly.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-chemical-safety-and-
    pollution-prevention-ocspp
        \3\ The official text of TSCA as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg
    Chemical Safety Act of the 21st Century is available in the United
    States Code, from the U.S. Government Printing Office. 15 USC Ch. 53:
    TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?
    path=/prelim@title15/chapter53&edition=prelim
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under Beck's leadership, her office issued a TSCA Systematic Review
    document that was strongly criticized by scientists:

            ``The EPA officially calls the method a ``systematic review''
            framework for TSCA, but it is systematic in name only, as it
            falls far short of best practices for systematic reviews.
            Application of the TSCA method will exclude relevant research
            from chemical assessments, leading to underestimation of health
            risks and resulting in inadequate policies that allow unsafe
            chemical exposures, thus harming public health. The TSCA
            systematic review method could be especially detrimental for
            populations more vulnerable to chemical exposures, such as
            pregnant women and children.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Singla VI, Sutton PM, Woodruff TJ. The Environmental Protection
    Agency Toxic Substances Control Act Systematic Review Method May
    Curtail Science Used to Inform Policies, With Profound Implications for
    Public Health. Am J Public Health. 2019 Jul;109(7):982-984. doi:
    10.2105/AJPH.2019.305068.

        Among its many flaws, Beck's notion of a ``systematic review''
    incorporates one of her most harmful policy positions--to discount
    epidemiologic evidence if all the rai,,y data (including information on
    individual study participants) are not made public. Beck argued for
    this in public comments to EPA, while she was still working for the
    American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry trade association,
    immediately prior to her move to EPA.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Public comments submitted by Nancy Beck on behalf of the
    American Chemistry Council. Teleconference of the Science Advisory
    Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review
    of EPA's Draft Ammonia Assessment 12/17/2014. Available at https://
    yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/MeetingCal/
    SAC4AB630077A1B385257D860078EA72?
    OpenDocument. Direct link at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
    sabproduct.nsf/0B80EDF9EA0C407
    D85257DAF00797454/$File/
    ACC+Comments+on+Ammonia+CAACdraft+report+12152014.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beck's dangerous and unscientific policy--to discount relevant
    evidence from human populations--is also at the center of EPA's
    discredited so-called `Science Transparency Rule' that was strongly
    criticized by experts including academic scientists, EPA's own Science
    Advisory Board, and the Bipartisan Policy Center, among others.\6\ In
    fact, ``[E]ditors-in-chief of five major scientific journals in May
    2018, reflected alarm that the proposal's push for `transparency' would
    be used as a mechanism for suppressing the use of relevant scientific
    evidence in policy-making, including public-health regulations.'' \7\
    Even The Economist opposed the rule, in an editorial titled `Swamp
    Science' emphasizing that it would stifle science, and hamstring health
    protective regulations.\8\ In summary, Beck's views are long-standing
    and inconsistent with scientific best practices.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ More than forty medical and environmental health professionals
    with expertise and interest in protecting children and their families
    from exposures to neurotoxic chemicals write to oppose Pruitt's flawed
    ``censored science'' proposed rule. July 16, 2018. Available at https:/
    /www.nrdc
    .org/resources/letter-opposing-pruitts-proposed-rule-restrict-epas-use-
    science
        Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of EPA Proposed Rule:
    Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. EPA-SAB-18-003. June
    28, 2018. Available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
    LookupWebProjectsCurrentBOARD/4ECB44CA28936083852582
    BB004ADES4/$File/EPA-SAB-18-003+Unsigned.pdf
        Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) comments. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0670.
    May, 2018. Available here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-
    HQ-OA-2018-0259-0670
        \7\ Joint statement on EPA proposed rule and public availability of
    data (2019) H. Holden Thorp, Magdalena Skipper, Veronique Kiermer, May
    Berenbaum, Deborah Sweet, Richard Horton. PLoS Med. 2019 Nov; 16(11):
    e1003014. Published online 2019 Nov 26. doi: 10.1371/
    journal.pmed.1003014
        Joint statement on EPA proposed rule and public availability of
    data (2019). H. Holden Thorp, Magdalena Skipper, Veronique Kiermer, May
    Berenbaum, Deborah Sweet, Richard Horton. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S. A.
    2019 Dec 17; 116(51): 25368. Published online 2019 Nov 26. doi:
    10.1073/pnas.1920635117
        J. Berg et al., Nature http://doi.org/crq8; 2018
        \8\ The Economist. Swamp science: Scott Pruitt embarks on a
    campaign to stifle science at the EPA. New policies would hamstring
    clean-air and pesticide standards. April 26, 2018. Available at:
    https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/04/26/scott-pruitt-
    embarks-on-a-campaign-to-stifle-science-at-the-epa
        \9\ For more information and citations on Nancy Beck, see: Six Ways
    Nancy Beck Showed Us She Doesn't Care About Us or Science. Genna Reed,
    Lead Science and Policy Analyst. May 13, 2020. https://blog.ucsusa.org/
    genna-reed/six-ways-nancy-beck-doesnt-care-about-science
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beck's approaches consistently disregarded scientific best
    practices, favor chemical manufacturers, and put vulnerable populations
    in harm's way. As one of her first acts at EPA, Beck refused to
    finalize the 2017 proposed ban on methylene chloride (MC) in paint
    strippers for consumer uses and most commercial uses. Four people died
    of MC asphyxiation between the time the ban was proposed and when EPA
    finally took partial, inadequate action. When Beck's office did
    ultimately finalize the ban, after a two-year delay, it excluded
    commercial products, thus stripping worker protections.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ The deadly omission in EPA's Methylene Chloride rule. Program
    on Reproductive Health and the Environment Program on Reproductive
    Health and the Environment, University of California, San Francisco.
    June 4, 2019. Swati Rayasam. Available at https://prheucsf.blog/2019/
    06/04/the-deadly-omission-in-epas-methylene-chloride-rule/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Nancy Beck's disregard for worker protections runs through all the
    TSCA chemical evaluations that she oversaw. All her TSCA chemical risk
    evaluations--including TCE, methylene chloride, 1,4 dioxane, carbon
    tetrachloride and 1-bromopropane--presume that personal protective
    equipment (PPE) is available, in good working condition, provided to
    all workers that need it, fitted properly, used consistently, and
    adequately protective in all situations of workplace and do-it-yourself
    exposure to chemicals. However, EPA's Scientific Advisory Committee on
    Chemicals (SACC) has repeatedly underscored that an expectation of
    universal and effective PPE use is in fact contrary to the scientific
    evidence of real-world workplace practice and contrary to established
    principles of worker protection:\11\ ``[M]any members of the Committee
    believed EPA should place more emphasis on the limited likelihood that
    respiratory protection will be adopted without specific occupational
    exposure guidelines . . . EPA's characterization of reasonable risk
    relying on use of PPE is not sufficiently supported by the practical
    realities of many workplaces,'' \12\ Yet, EPA has maintained that it
    will continue this unscientific and unprotective approach in its
    upcoming chemical assessments, including for formaldehyde: ``EPA also
    plans to consider the effect(s) that engineering controls (EC) and/or
    personal protective equipment (PPE) have on occupational exposure
    levels as part of the draft risk evaluation.'' \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Information for all the EPA Science Advisory Committee on
    Chemicals (SACC) meetings, including final reports, can be found on
    EPA's webpage at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review/science-advisory-
    committee-chemicals-meetings
        \12\ Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee
    on Chemicals (SACC) meeting, July 2019. Peer Review of the Draft Risk
    Evaluations for HBCD and 1,4-Dioxane. Final Report, October 2019. EPA-
    HQ-OPPT-2019-0237-0064. Available at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-
    review/peer-review-draft-risk-evaluations-hbcd-and-14-dioxane
        \13\ Draft Scope of the Risk Evaluation for Formaldehyde, EPA
    Document# EPA-740-D-20-014, April 2020 (Section 2.3.5, p. 33) Available
    here: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/
    risk-evaluation-formaldehyde
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA's fictitious assumption of 100 percent PPE availability use is
    only one of numerous policy decisions made by Nancy Beck that are
    contrary to scientific practice and undermine protection for children,
    consumers, first responders and other workers. A Federal court
    overturned the decision by Beck's office to unlawfully exclude common
    sources of exposure to lead and asbestos--two of the most notoriously
    dangerous chemicals known to science--from TSCA risk evaluations.\14\
    Beck's approach would have ignored exposures to leaded paint, lead
    water pipes, asbestos insulation, and other toxic consumer products.
    Beck's unwillingness to include a half-century of scientific evidence
    on the health harms of even low levels of lead and asbestos in her
    office's risk evaluations is deeply disturbing.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Court rules Trump EPA unlawfully ignored dangerous chemicals.
    A Federal appeals court says the Trump administration unlawfully
    excluded millions of tons of some of the most dangerous materials in
    public use from a safety review. By Matthew Brown, Associated Press.
    November 14, 2019. Available at https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/
    wireStory/court-rules-trump-epa-unlawfully-dangerous-chemicals-67025256
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The risk evaluations prepared under Beck's leadership have also
    failed to consider the potential impacts of exposure to chemicals from
    drinking water, air pollution, and contaminated soil--justifying this
    exclusion by claiming that other environmental statutes address these
    exposure pathways. Here again, EPA has refused to alter its
    unscientific approach, despite repeated criticism from the Agency's own
    Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals: ``Exposure scenarios that
    include consumers are important given the known presence of 1,4-Dioxane
    in plastics, other commercially available products, surface water,
    drinking water, groundwater, and in sediments. The Committee also had
    concerns that the omission of these multiple routes of exposure puts
    workers who inhale or ingest 1,4-Dioxane outside the workplace at even
    greater risk.'' \15\ The Science Advisory Committee further noted that
    this exclusionary approach, ``strayed from basic risk assessment
    principles by omitting well known exposure routes such as water
    consumption by all occupationally and non-occupationally-exposed humans
    as well as similar exposures to other biological receptors.'' \16\ The
    Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals similarly pushed back on
    Beck's EPA in its review of 1-Bromopropane for failing to include air
    emissions and other environmental releases.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee
    on Chemicals (SACC) meeting, July 2019. P er Review of the Draft Risk
    Evaluations for HBCD and 1,4-Dioxane. Final Report, October 2019. P.
    18. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237-0064. Available at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-
    peer-review/peer-review-draft-risk-evaluations-hbcd-and-14-dioxane
        \16\ Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee
    on Chemicals (SACC) meeting, July 2019. Peer Review ofthe Draft Risk
    Evaluations for HBCD and 1,4-Dioxane. Final Report, October 2019. P.
    18. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0237-0064. Available at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-
    peer-review/peer-review-draft-risk-evaluations-hbcd-and-14-dioxane
        \17\ Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee
    on Chemicals (SACC) meeting, Sept 2019. Peer Review of the Draft Risk
    Evaluations for 1-Bromopropane. Final Report, December 2019. P. 17.
    EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0235-0061. Available at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-
    review/peer-review-draft-risk-evaluation-1-bromopropane
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA's pesticide office also fell under Beck's leadership, where she
    withheld needed protection for children, agricultural workers and rural
    communities by blocking the proposed cancellation of the neurotoxic
    organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos.\18\ Prenatal exposure to
    chlorpyrifos is linked to neurodevelopmental disorders including
    impaired cognition, behavioral problems, and delayed social development
    in children.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ U.S. EPA. EPA Revised Human Health Risk Assessment on
    Chlorpyrifos. December 2014. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0850. Available
    from: http://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/revised-
    human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos
        U.S. EPA. Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for
    Registration Review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington,
    DC; 2016. Document ID: EPA-HQ-2015-0653-0454. Available from: https://
    www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454.
        \19\ Hertz-Picciotto I, Sass JB, Engel S, Bennett DH, Bradman A,
    Eskenazi B, et al., (2018) Organophosphate exposures during pregnancy
    and child neurodevelopment: Recommendations for essential policy
    reforms. PLoS Med 15(10): e1002671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal
    .pmed.1002671
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Under Beck's leadership, EPA delayed children's protections for
    lead by failing to update the hazard standard for lead paint--contrary
    to decades of scientific evidence showing harm, and in violation of a
    Federal court order.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Groups sue over botched lead hazard rule: no level of lead
    exposure is safe for children. Earthjustice press release, August 1,
    2019. https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/groups-sue-over-
    botchedslead-hazard-rule
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And, under Beck's leadership, EPA failed to take meaningful action
    to address the crisis of PFAS chemicals that contaminate our drinking
    water, food, and consumer products. Beck had the authority to take
    numerous steps to gather additional information, inform the public and
    impose restrictions on the use of PFAS--but she did none of those
    things. Congress has been forced to step in and require action by EPA,
    yet even the records released illustrate Beck's attempts to weaken
    those actions mandated by Congress.
        If she was confirmed as Chair of the Consumer Product Safety
    Commission, Nancy Beck would be in a position to rollback important
    consumer protections including the CPSC's planned rulemaking to limit
    toxic flame retardant chemicals in furniture including children's
    products;\21\ and, the CPSC's recently adopted bans on certain
    phthalate chemicals in toys and other children's products.\22\ These
    classes of chemicals are linked to reproductive impairment,
    neurological impacts, and disruption of critical hormones. The CPSC's
    actions are supported by a decade of scientific evidenc:e, expert peer
    review and multiple opportunities for stakeholder and public comment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Guidance Document on Hazardous Additive, Non-Polymeric
    Organohalogen Flame Retardants in Certain Consumer Products. September
    2017. 82 FR 45268. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
    documents/2017/09/28/2017-20733/guidance-document-on-hazardous-
    additive-non-polymeric-organohalogen-flame-retardants-in-certain
        \22\ Final Rule. Children's Products, Children's Toys, and Child
    Care Articles: Determinations Regarding Lead, ASTM F963 Elements, and
    Phthalates for Engineered Wood Products. June 2018. 83 FR 28983.
    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/22/2018-13392/chi1d
    rens-products-childrens-toys-and-child-care-articles-determinations-
    regarding-lead-astm-f963
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Consumer Product Safety Commission must provide important
    public protections from dangers associated with consumer products
    including toys, children's products, home furnishings, cleaning
    supplies, and some building materials. There is no place for Nancy Beck
    in such an Agency.
                Respectfully,
                                            Jennifer Sass, PhD,
     Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council, Professorial
                                                              Lecturer,
                                              George Washington University.
                                     ______

        Academic and government affiliation provided for identification
    purposes only; does not imply institutional support.

    Laura Anderko PhD RN
    Robert and Kathleen Scanlon Endowed Chair in Values Based Health Care &
    Professor
    School of Nursing & Health Studies
    Georgetown University
    Washington, DC

    John R. Balmes, MD
    Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
    Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health
    University of California, Berkeley

    David C. Bellinger, PhD MSc
    Professor of Neurology
    Harvard Medical School
    Boston Children's Hospital

    David Bezanson, PhD
    Clinical Psychologist, retired
    University of California San Francisco

    Linda S. Birnbaum, PhD, DABT, ATS
    Scientist Emeritus and Former Director
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National
    Toxicology Program
    Research Triangle Park, NC

    Asa Bradman, PhD, MS
    Center for Environmental Research and Children's Health (CERCH)
    Associate Adj. Professor of Environmental Health Sciences
    University of California, Berkeley

    Joseph M. Braun, RN, MSPH, PhD
    Associate Professor of Epidemiology
    Director, Center for Environmental Health and Technology
    Brown University School of Public Health
    Providence, RI

    Phil Brown, PhD
    University Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Health Sciences
    Director, Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute
    Northeastern Universjty
    Boston, MA

    Jessie Buckley, PhD, MPH
    Assistant Professor, Environmental Health and Engineering
    Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Maryland

    Thomas A. Burke, PhD, MPH
    Former Deputy Assistant Administrator of Environmental Protection
    Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), and EPA
    Science Advisor.
    Jacob I and Irene B. Fabrikant Professor and Chair in Health Risk and
    Society Director, Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, Johns
    Hopkins University
    Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Baltimore, MD

    Carla Campbell, MD, MS, FAAP
    Retired pediatrican and public health physician
    Las Cruces, NM

    Nicholas Chartres, PhD
    Associate Research Scientist, Science & Policy
    Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE)
    University of California, San Francisco

    Aimin Chen, MD, PhD
    Professor of Epidemiology
    Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics
    Perelman School of Medicine
    University of Pennsylvania

    Margart Chen, MD
    Clinical Professor, emeritus
    Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences
    University of California, San Francisco

    Marie V Coignet, PhD
    Oakland, CA

    Jeanne A. Conry, MD, PhD
    President elect,
    The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics

    Robin Cooper, MD
    Assistant Clinical Professor, Dept of Psychiatry, Langley Porter
    Psychiatric Institute, School of Medicine
    University of California, San Francisco

    Brett Doherty, PhD, MSPH
    Epidemiology Department, Dartmouth College

    Stephanie M. Engel, PhD
    Professor and Associate Chair of Epidemiology
    Gillings School of Global Public Health
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    Barbara C. Erny, MD
    Medical Liaison for International Programs
    ASCRS Foundation

    Brenda Eskenazi, PhD
    Professor, School of Public Health
    Division of Epidemiology
    University of California, Berkeley

    Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp, PhD
    Former Deputy Director and Senior Science Advisor
    Office of Pesticide Programs
    Retired, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Charlottesville, VA

    Adam M Finkel, ScD, MPP, CIH
    Clinical Professor of Environmental Health Sciences
    University of Michigan School of Public Health

    Katherine A Foster, MD, FAAP
    Pediatric Hospitalist, Retired
    Kaiser-Permanent Santa Rosa
    Associate Clinical Professor, Retired
    Dept of Community Medicine
    University of California, San Francisco
    Member, Physicians for Social Responsibility SFBA Environmental Health
    Committee

    Mary Fox, PhD, MPH
    Assistant Professor, Health Policy and Management
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Baltimore, MD

    Victoria Frye, MPH, DrPH
    Associate Medical Professor
    City University of New York School of Medicine
    New York, NY

    Tova Fuller MD PhD
    Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry
    Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute
    University of California San Francisco
    Vice President, Nuclear Abolition Committee Chair
    SF Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Mary Gant, MS
    Policy Analyst
    Retired, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
    Bethesda, MD

    Steven G. Gilbert, PhD, DABT
    INND (Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders)
    Seattle, WA

    Gretchen T. Goldman, PhD
    Research Director, The Center for Science and Democracy (she/her)
    Union of Concerned Scientists

    Robert M. Gould, MD
    Associate Adjunct Professor
    Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment
    Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences
    UCSF School of Medicine
    and Past-President, Physicians for Social Responsibility

    Tracy Gregoire
    Learning Disabilities Association of America
    Healthy Children Project Director
    Tina Grosowsky, MA
    Mass Elder Climate Action
    Hudson, MA

    Tina Grosowsky, MA
    Mass Elder Climate Action
    Hudson, MA

    Dale Hattis, PhD
    Clark University

    Russ Hauser MD, ScD, MPH
    Chair, Department of Environmental Health
    Frederick Lee Hisaw Professor of Reproductive Physiology
    Professor of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology
    Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
    Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
    Harvard Medical School

    Shelley A. Hearne, DrPH
    Inaugural Alfred Sommer and Michael Klag Decanal Professor of the
    Practice for Public Health Advocacy
    Director, Center for Public Health Advocacy
    Department of Health Policy and Management
    Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health

    Yogi Hendlin, MSc, PhD
    Environmental Health Initiative
    University of California, San Francisco

    Irva Hertz-Picciotto, PhD
    Director, Environmental Health Sciences Core Center
    Professor and VC for Research, Department of Public Health Sciences
    MIND Institute Program on Epidemiology of Autism and Neurodevelopment
    University of California, Davis

    Deborah Hirtz, MD
    Professor, Neurological Sciences and Pediatrics
    University of Vermont School of Medicine
    Burlington, VT

    Katie Huffling, 3RN, MS, CNM, FAAN
    Executive Director
    Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

    Richard J Jackson MD MPH
    Professor emeritus, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health
    Former Director, CDC National Center for Environmental Health
    Former State of California Public Health Officer

    Jennifer Jinot, PhD
    Retired, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Camille Jones MD MPH
    Retired, Assistant Health Commissioner

    Margaret R. Karagas, MS, PhD
    Professor and Chair
    Department of Epidemiology
    Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

    Philip J. Landrigan, MD, MSc, FAAP
    Director, Program for Global Public Health and the Common Good
    Director, Global Observatory on Pollution and Health
    Professor of Biology
    Schiller Institute for Integrated Science and Society
    Chestnut Hill, MA

    Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH
    President, International Society for Children's Health & the
    Environment
    Professor, Simon Fraser University,
    Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Arthur Lavin, MD FAAP
    Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
    Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine

    Rainer Lohmann, Ph.D.
    Graduate School of Oceanography
    University of Rhode Island
    Narragansett, RI

    Erin R Lutes, MS, RN, PHN, CNS
    University of California, San Francisco
    San Francisco Department of Public Health
    Samuel Merritt University

    Emily Marquez, Ph.D.
    Staff Scientist
    Pesticide Action Network

    Michael J. Martin, MD, MPH, MBA
    Associate Clinical Professor
    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
    University of California, San Francisco
    Chair, Environment & Health Committee, Physicians for Social
    Responsibility (PSR) National

    Duncan Maru, MD, PhD
    NYC Health & Hospitals/Elmhurst Hospital Center
    Arnhold Institute for Global Health and
    Departments of Global Health, Pediatrics, and General Internal
    Medicine,
    Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
    Queens, NY

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH
    Professor I Department of Environmental and Occupational Health
    Milken Institute School of Public Health I
    The George Washington University
    Former Asst Sec U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Admin

    Mark Miller, MD, MPH
    Associate Clinical Professor
    University California, San Francisco

    Pamela Miller, MEn
    Executive Director
    Alaska Community Action on Toxics

    Mark A. Mitchell MD, MPH, FACPM
    Co-Chair, Commission on Environmental
    Health National Medical Association

    Rachel Morello-Frosch, PhD, MPH
    Professor, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management &
    School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

    J.P. Myers, Ph.D.
    Adjunct Professor of Chemistry
    Carnegie Mellon University
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Chief Scientist, Environmental Health Sciences Charlottesville VA

    Pasky Pascual, PhD
    Retired, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Deborah Passey, PhD
    Division of Epidemiology
    University of Utah

    Heather B Patisaul, PhD
    Associate Dean for Research
    College of Sciences
    Center for Human Health and the Environment
    NC State University
    Raleigh, NC

    Jerome A. Paulson, MD, FAAP
    Professor Emeritus
    of Pediatrics and of Environmental & Occupational Health
    George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences and
    George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health
    Washington, DC

    Devon Payne-Sturges, DrPH
    Associate Professor, Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental
    Health, School of Public Health,
    University of Maryland, College Park, MD

    Frederica Perera, DrPH, PhD
    Professor of Public Health
    Director Translational Research and Founding Director
    Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health
    Mailman School of Public Health
    Columbia University, NY

    Janet Perlman, MD, MPH
    Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
    University of California, San Francisco
    UCB-UCSF Joint Medical Program
    University of CaHfornia San Francisco

    Christopher J. Portier, PhD
    Former Director, National Center for Environmental Health and
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    Adjunct Professor, Emory University
    Visiting Professor, University of Maastricht

    Swati Rayasam, MSc
    Science Associate, Science & Policy
    Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE)
    University of California, San Francisco

    Jeffrey B. Ritterman, M.D.
    Lifelong Medical Care
    San Pablo, CA

    Beate Ritz, MD, PhD
    Professor of Epidemiology, Environmental Health, and Neurology
    Fielding School of Public Health and School of Medicine
    University of California Los Angeles

    Leslie Rubin, MD
    The Rubin Center for Autism and Developmental Pediatrics
    Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics,
    Emory University School of Medicine

    Rupal Sanghvi, MPH
    Founding Principal, HealthxDesign
    Berkeley, CA

    Katherine Schaff, DrPH, MPH
    Public Health Justice Collective
    San Francisco, CA

    Susan L Schantz, PhD
    Professor Emeritus
    Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
    Urbana, IL

    Ted Schettler MD, MPH
    Science Director
    Science and Environmental Health Network

    Rachel M. Shaffer, MPH
    UW Seattle School of Public Health
    Seattle, WA

    Veena Singla, PhD
    Senior Scientist
    Natural Resources Defense Council
    San Francisco, CA

    Emerald Snow, MSPH, MA
    Los Angeles, CA

    Donna M. Staton, MD MPH
    Program Director
    International Community Access to Child Health (ICATCH) Grant Program
    American Academy of Pediatrics' Section on Global Health (SOGH)

    Elizabeth Southerland, Ph.D.
    Former Director of Science and Technology
    Office of Water
    Retired, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Patrice Sutton, MPH
    Research Scientist, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment
    University of California San Francisco

    Maureen Swanson, MPA
    Director, Environmental Risk Reduction & Project TENDR
    The Arc

    Jean-Luc Szpakowski MD
    Gastroenterologist, Highland Hospital
    Oakland CA

    Tanya Khemet Taiwo, MPH, PhD
    Co-Director, Community Engagement Core
    Environmental Health Sciences Center
    University of California, Davis

    Gary Timm, MS
    Former Chief of the Chemical Testing Branch
    Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
    Retired, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Tarlise Townsend, PhD
    Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine
    New York, NY

    Wendy E. Wagner, JD, MES
    Joe A. Worsham Centennial Professor
    University of Texas School of Law
    Austin, TX

    Thomas Webster, PhD
    Professor, Dept Environmental Health
    Boston University School of Public Health

    Robin M. Whyatt, DrPH
    Professor Emeritus
    Department of Environmental Health Sciences
    Mailman School of Public Health
    Columbia University, NY

    Mary L. Williams, M.D.
    Clinical Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics
    University of California San Francisco

    Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH
    Alison S Carlson Endowed Professor & Director
    Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Dept Ob/Gyn
    PRL Institute for Health Policy Studies
    University of California, San Francisco

    R. Thomas Zoeller, PhD
    Professor Emeritus
    Biology Department
    University of Massachusetts Amherst

    Ami R. Zota, ScD, MS
    Associate Professor
    Department of Environmental and Occupational Health
    George Washington University School of Public Health and Health
    Services
    Washington, DC
                                     ______

                               American Association for Justice
                                                          June 11, 2020

    Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senator Wicker and Senator Cantwell:

        The American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly the
    Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), is writing to express
    our opposition to the nomination of Nancy Beck as Chair of the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission (CPSC). AAJ, with members in the United
    States, Canada, and abroad, is the world's largest plaintiff trial bar
    and works to preserve access to justice. AAJ speaks for individuals who
    have been exposed to and harmed by toxic substances. We work to ensure
    that all impacted individuals retain their ability to hold the
    responsible party accountable under the law.
        The CPSC is a small agency with big responsibilities. The agency is
    responsible for protecting children and families by overseeing the
    safety of over 15,000 consumer products, including toys, cribs, home
    furnishings, power tools and cleaning supplies. Its jurisdiction is
    broad and critically important to the health and well-being of every
    American. The commitment by the Chair of CPSC to fulfilling the life-
    saving mission of the agency is critical to its success or failure. We
    believe Nancy Beck is absolutely the wrong person for the job.
        Throughout her career, Ms. Beck has worked to weaken, delay and
    undermine important health protections from toxic chemicals in the
    environment and household products. She served for over five years as a
    senior director at the American Chemistry Council, the trade
    association that lobbies on behalf of the Nation's largest chemical
    manufacturers. In her position at ACC, she repeatedly advocated
    positions harmful to consumers and workers. For example, she argued
    against strong regulation of inorganic arsenic, a highly toxic
    carcinogen; she urged EPA to adopt procedures that would limit the
    effectiveness of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, a bipartisan bill
    intended to improve EPA's oversight of toxic chemicals; and she
    advocated for EPA to delay a regulation for two toxic chemicals in
    particular--NMP and Methylene Chloride. In her current position in the
    Trump Administration, Ms. Beck continued to delay these protections,
    and in the meantime, at least four people have died from exposures to
    methylene chloride, exposures that could have been prevented if EPA had
    acted.
        Ms. Beck joined the Trump Administration in 2017 as director of
    EPA's Chemical Safety office, and was detailed to the White House in
    2019. During her time as a government official, she has been able to
    implement many of the policies she advocated for on behalf of the
    chemical industry. Her record of harm to the American people includes
    blocking a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that can cause
    brain damage; stopping proposed regulations of TCE, which is linked to
    cancer, fetal heart defects and other serious health issues; delaying
    important changes to the lead paint standard that would have helped to
    prevent childhood lead poisoning; and pushing an interpretation of
    Federal chemical safety laws that ignore legacy exposures to harmful
    substances such as asbestos.
        Of great concern to many of AAJ's members, who represent
    communities harmed by the toxic chemicals called PFAS (per- and poly-
    fluoroalkyl substances), Ms. Beck has led efforts within the Trump
    Administration to block stronger protections from these very dangerous
    chemicals. PFAS exposures have been linked to cancer, birth defects and
    immune system disorders. They are called ``forever chemicals'' because
    they never break down in the environment and remain in our bodies for
    years. Studies show that almost every American has PFAS in their blood.
    PFAS contaminated drinking water has been found on military bases and
    in communities across the United States. Firefighters, in particular,
    have elevated blood levels because PFAS is found in firefighting foams.
    Despite all the evidence and a bipartisan consensus that we need to
    strengthen protections against PFAS, Ms. Beck has used her position at
    EPA and the White House to block needed reforms.
        Ms. Beck's record of aggressive advocacy in favor of the chemical
    industry and against the health and safety of consumers and workers
    makes her particularly unsuited to lead the CPSC. The Commission has
    jurisdiction over a wide variety of consumer products that contain
    hazardous substances, such as phthalates, lead, asbestos, PFAS and
    toxic flame retardants. In fact, the agency has an active rulemaking to
    ban the use of toxic organohalogen flame retardants in toys,
    mattresses, children's products and electronic casings. We are very
    concerned that Ms. Beck would undermine and block needed action to
    protect the public from these harmful substances.
        But our concern is not limited to chemical hazards. Ms. Beck's
    record of favoring industry interests over public health indicates that
    she will not provide the leadership necessary to.carry out CPSC's
    mission to protect children and families from unreasonably dangerous
    consumer products, from lead in toys to cribs that strangle to unsafe
    table saws. In fact, we are concerned that Ms. Beck will actively
    undermine that mission by blocking, delaying and weakening needed
    protections, as she has done throughout her career. For the foregoing
    reasons, AAJ strongly urges you to oppose the nomination of Nancy Beck
    as Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Linda Lipsen,
                                               Chief Executive Officer,
                                           American Association of Justice.
                                     ______

                   Learning Disabilities Association of America
                                          June 12, 2020, Pittsburgh, PA

    Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science. and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee, on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

        The Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), is a
    national nonprofit organization representing individuals with learning
    disabilities and their families and has 29 state affiliates and members
    in nearly every state and territory. One in 5 American children have a
    learning or attention disability and over 7 million children, including
    more than 2 million with specific learning disabilities, rely on IDEA
    and Section 504 to receive necessary special education supports,
    services, instruction and protections. The autism rate continues to
    rise now affecting 1 in 54 children, which nearly tripled since
    2000\1\. The incidence of these types of disabilities is rising every
    year at an alarming pace, especially for autism and ADHD.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health https://
    www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2020/us-autism-rates-up-10-percent-in-
    new-cdc-report.html and Center for Disease Control https://www.cdc.gov/
    ncbddd/autism/data.html, March 2020
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are writing to express our opposition to the White House
    nomination of Dr. Nancy Beck to Chair the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
    Commission (CPSC) and to urge you to oppose this nomination.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ White House Press Release. President Donald J. Trump Announces
    Intent to Nominate and Appoint Individuals to Key Administration Posts.
    Issued on: March 2, 2020, https://www
    .whitehouse.gov/presidential-actlons/president-donald-j-trump-
    announces-intent-nominate-appoint-individuals-key-administration-posts-
    32/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Academy of Sciences estimates that environmental
    factors, including toxic chemicals, cause or contribute to 28 percent
    of learning and developmental disabilities in American children.\3\
    Scientists have learned that the developing human brain is much more
    susceptible to toxic substances than the adult brain, and that even
    tiny amounts of certain chemicals can do lasting harm to the developing
    brain, at levels that were once thought to be safe.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk
    Assessment, Executive Summary, http://www.nap.edu/
    openbook.php?record_id=987l&page=1, National Academy of Sciences
    Committee on Developmental Toxicology
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        LDA's Healthy Children Project was established in 2002 to eliminate
    the preventable causes of neurological disabilities, particularly
    chemical exposures, and reduce the incidence of neurological
    disabilities in future generations.
        The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is the key
    Federal agency that is charged with protecting the public from consumer
    products that pose dangers, including from chemical, fire, electrical,
    and mechanical hazards.\4\ They regulate over 15,000 different consumer
    products, including most products in our homes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CPSC is governed by a bipartisan commission of five
    commissioners with staggered terms. The Chair is currently vacant, and
    Nancy Beck has been nominated to be the Chair. She now serves at the
    Office of Management & Budget after spending years in the chemical
    safety office of the Environmental Protection Agency. Prior to that,
    she was a high-ranking senior executive for the American Chemical
    Council.
        Sadly, Nancy Beck has a history of not protecting our health, and
    even worse, has used her positions to prevent other public officials
    from doing more to protect children and adults with learning
    disabilities from harm.

       While at the EPA, Beck overrode the agency staff and rewrote
            rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TCSA) \5\ to
            ignore exposures to lead from pipes and paint because they are
            no longer used in new products, and other chemicals when
            deciding whether they pose an ``unreasonable risk'' to health.
            Her approach was rejected\6\ by a Federal Court of Appeals\7\--
            in a case brought by the LDA and other environmental and health
            organizations--for violating the health protective requirements
            of the law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/trump-epa-chemicals-
    regulations.html
        \6\ https://www.nrdc.org/experts/trump-epas-industry-friendly-tsca-
    policy-starts-unravel
        \7\ httos://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/tsca-opinion-
    20191114.pdf

       Beck also directed EPA staff to ignore that people are
            exposed \8\ to neurotoxic chemicals from polluted drinking
            water, air and soil when evaluating whether the containment
            chemicals pose an unreasonable risk to health. That approach
            dramatically underestimates the impacts of exposure to those
            chemicals--particularly for infants, children and vulnerable
            communities. The agency refused to change the approach, despite
            criticism from the EPA's own Science Advisory Committee which
            noted that consumer exposures including drinking water, air
            pollution, and other environmental releases exposures should be
            included.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/politics/epa-toxic-
    chemicals.html?action=click&
    module=Relatedlinks&pgtype=Article and https://www.documentcloud.org/
    documents/4495888-Problem-Forumulations.html
        \9\ Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee
    on Chemicals (SACC) meeting, July 2019. Peer Review of the Draft Risk
    Evaluations for HBCD and 1,4-Dioxane October 2019, https://www.epa.gov/
    tsca-peer-review/peer-review-draft-risk-evaluations-hbcd-and-14-dioxane

       Beck has withheld needed protections for children \10\,
            workers \11\, and rural communities \12\ by blocking the
            proposed ban\13\ on brain-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos.\14\
            EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said EPA blocked the ban
            because it questioned the link between chlorpyrifos and brain
            damage, despite the strong scientific evidence cited by EPA's
            own scientists. EPA's failure to ban chlorpyrifos is currently
            undergoing legal challenge by health groups including the
            Learning Disabilities Association of America and some of our
            state affiliates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ https://www.nrdc.org/experts/miriam-rotkin-ellman/epa-toxic-
    pesticide-fruitsveggies-puts-kids-risk
        \11\ https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/
    democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/
    Giev%20Kashkooli%20TestimonyPESTICIDES031319.pdf
        \12\ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/opinion/chlorpyrifos-
    pesticide.html
        \13\ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/climate/epa-chlorpyrifos-
    pesticide-ban.html
        \14\ http://www.panna.org/resources/chlorpyrifos-facts

       Beck has rejected protection for children by refusing to ban
            the use of a brain-damaging pesticide (TCVP) \15\ in pet
            products, including flea collars and shampoos. A Federal court
            recently ordered \16\ EPA to respond to a petition to ban the
            use of TCVP in pet products.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://www.nrdc.org/experts/miriam-rotkin-ellman/no-more-
    poisons-pets-epa-must-act
        \16\ https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/court-opinion-tcvp-
    20200422.pdf

       Beck delayed children's protections for lead by failing to
            update the hazard standard for lead paint\17\--contrary to
            Federal court order.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ https://earthjustlce.org/news/press/2019/groups-sue-over-
    botched-lead-hazard-rule

        The pattern of decisions demonstrates that Nancy Beck has a clear
    history of not protecting the health of families. If confirmed by the
    U.S. Senate for a position of much greater authority, Nancy Beck will
    Chair the CPSC for seven years, and be able to not only block our
    efforts to protect our members, but to repeal existing protections as
    well.
        For all the above reasons we ask you to oppose Nancy Beck's
    nomination to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
                Respectfully,
    Tracy Gregoire,
    Healthy Children Project Director
    Learning Disabilities Association of America

    Matthew Talley, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Alaska

    Tamara Massey, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Alabama

    Brittany Franklin, MSE ECSE, Healthy Children Project Coordinator
    Learning Disabilities Association of Arkansas

    Gregg French, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Connecticut

    Cathy Einhorn, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Florida

    Carolyn Kingsley, Healthy Children Project Volunteer
    Learning Disabilities Association of Georgia

    Bev Johns, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Illinois

    Penny Richards, President
    LDA of Illinois Kane/Kendall Chapter

    Patty Useem, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Indiana

    Paula Hamp, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Iowa

    Ann Johnson, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Maine

    Jaime Brown, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Maryland

    Amy Barto, Healthy Children Project Coordinator
    Learning Disabilities Association of Michigan

    Martha Moriarity, Executive Director
    LDA Minnesota

    Clarice Jackson, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Nebraska

    Sollie Pinkston, Healthy Children Project Coordinator
    Learning Disabilities Association of New Jersey

    Kathryn Cappella, Treasurer
    Learning Disabilities Association of New York

    JoAnna J. Barnes, Esq., President
    Learning Disabilities Association of North Carolina

    Evie Lindberg, Executive Director
    Learning Disabilities Association of Oklahoma

    Analisa Smith, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of South Carolina

    Dr. Joy S. Marsh, State President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Tennessee

    Pam Smith, Healthy Children Project Coordinator
    Learning Disabilities Association of Texas

    Gaylia Tanner, Healthy Children Project Coordinator
    Learning Disabilities Association of Utah

    Dr. Louis Allen MD, FAAP, MPH
    Able Differently

    Diane Sixel, President
    Learning Disabilities Association of Wisconsin
                                     ______

                                                          June 15, 2020

    Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee, on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

        We write to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of
    Nancy Beck to be Chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
    (CPSC).\1\ Throughout her career, Ms. Beck has opposed and weakened
    standards that impact our health, safety, and environment, particularly
    with respect to toxic chemicals. If confirmed to lead the CPSC, she
    will be empowered to do even more damage to public health and consumer
    protection for many years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The term ``chairman'' is codified in statute and states that
    the chair is the ``principal executive officer of the Commission'' and
    exercises ``all of the executive and administrative functions of the
    Commission.'' 15 U.S. Code Sec. 2053.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The CPSC is responsible for protecting consumers from hazards posed
    by consumer products.\2\ The agency has the responsibility for ensuring
    that more than 15,000 products are safe, including toys, household
    products, furniture, cribs, and recreation equipment including all-
    terrain vehicles. Robust product safety protects not only consumers,
    but also workers including those involved in product manufacturing and
    disposal, as well as fire fighters who face high risk of illness when
    exposed to smoke from consumer products containing toxic chemicals.
    From lead paint to flame retardants to toxic per- and poly-fluoroalkyl
    substances (PFAS) to asbestos, Ms. Beck has fought for years to weaken
    safeguards designed to protect public health.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ About CPSC, U.S. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, https://
    www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC (last visited December 19, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over
    the past three years, Beck has been the architect of numerous policies
    to undermine health protection from toxic chemicals, increasing risk to
    first responders, children, and vulnerable communities.
    Beck's Record on PFAS Is Troubling
        Per and polyfluroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of toxic
    chemicals that have been linked to testicular and kidney cancer,
    thyroid disease, decreased fertility, decreased response to vaccines,
    birth defects, immune system disorders and other health effects.\3\
    PFAS are found in many consumer products as well as firefighting foam
    that is used at military bases. PFAS chemicals, which are highly
    persistent and mobile, have contaminated drinking water throughout the
    United States. Nearly 99 percent of people have PFAS in their
    bodies.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health,
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, https://
    www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/PFAS-health-effects.html (last visited Jan. 13,
    2020) and Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS),
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, https://
    www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/
    perfluoroalkyl_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances_508.pdf (last visited
    Jan. 13, 2020).
        \4\ Calafat, A. M., Wong, L. Y., Kuklenyik, Z., Reidy, J. A., &
    Needham, L. L. (2007). Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals in the U.S.
    Population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination
    Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004 and Comparisons with NHANES 1999-2000.
    Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(11), 1596-1602, https://doi.org/
    10.1289/ehp.10598.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While at EPA, Beck assisted in delaying the release of a government
    study which found that EPA's current health standard for PFAS is too
    weak to protect the public. The White House deemed the report a
    ``public relations nightmare.'' \5\ The final report is still stuck at
    the White House, where Beck is currently working on PFAS policies. Beck
    also failed to take measures to protect drinking water from PFAS
    contamination, to limit people's exposure to PFAS in consumer products,
    or to provide information to communities about discharges into the
    local environment--all measures that have been urged by a bipartisan
    group of Senators, Representatives, Governors, local officials, EPA
    staff, and the public. Congress finally stepped in with last year's
    National Defense Authorization Act to direct EPA to take some of the
    protective actions that Beck had resisted for years. Despite this
    congressional intervention, Beck has worked to weaken the measures that
    Congress directed.\6\ With such a troubling track record, if Beck is
    confirmed to chair the CPSC, it is foreseeable that she will continue
    to undermine efforts to protect consumers from PFAS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Annie Snider, White House, EPA Headed Off Chemical Pollution
    Study, Politico (May 14, 2018), https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/
    14/e-mails-white-house-interfered-with-science-study-536950.
        \6\ Press Release, Carper: New Evidence and Leaked Documents Reveal
    White House Official Worked to Weaken PFAS Protections (April 17,
    2020).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beck's Implementation of TSCA Has Been Rejected by Federal Courts and
            Scientific Peer Reviewers
        Beck has played the leading role in EPA's implementation of the
    Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), revised in 2016 by Congress to
    require evaluation of chemicals, and protection of the public--
    including susceptible populations--from unreasonable risks. One of
    Beck's first actions at EPA was to block a proposed ban on the use of
    the dangerous solvent methylene chloride in paint strippers. It is
    known to pose a lethal risk to workers and consumers. In the two years
    that followed, four people died using the paint strippers. After
    several organizations sued EPA, it finalized a ban on consumer sales,
    but not commercial use--meaning workers and consumers are still
    unprotected. Beck also blocked proposed bans on some workplace and
    consumer uses of trichloroethylene (TCE) a cancer-causing solvent that
    has also been associated with structural cardiac defects in newborns
    resulting from in utero exposures. And she pressured EPA scientists not
    to focus on the cardiac hazards when they evaluated whether the
    chemical presents unreasonable risk.
        But Beck was just getting started: she overrode agency science and
    legal staff to re-write EPA's policies for evaluating toxic chemicals--
    directing staff to ignore potential exposure from drinking water, air
    pollution, and contaminated soil--a policy that will exclude the most
    vulnerable communities from protection. Another Beck policy would have
    ignored potential exposure to asbestos and lead in homes, buildings,
    and schools across the country when evaluating how much of a danger
    they pose to public health. A Federal appeals court recently rejected
    that approach. Beck has also blocked EPA from prohibiting the use of
    the brain damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos, which several states have
    since banned, and is under review by a Federal court. And she has
    blocked the ban of a related pesticide commonly used in pet collars and
    other products, endangering children. A Federal court recently ordered
    the agency to respond to a rulemaking petition to ban it.
    Beck's Work Has Been Criticized for Distorting Science and Undermining
            Health Protections
        While Beck's supporters tout her scientific education and training,
    her background as a scientist adds little value to the CPSC because her
    scientific work has repeatedly been criticized by independent experts.
    A peer review panel appointed by the Trump administration found that
    chemical evaluations produced under Beck's oversight ``strayed from
    basic risk assessment principles,'' resulting in draft evaluations that
    were. ``unscientific,'' ``misleading,'' riddled with ``mistakes and
    inconsistencies,'' and ``generally lacking in [their] ability to
    present a coherent picture of' worker risks. This assessment is
    consistent with previous reviews of Beck's work. In 2006, the non-
    partisan National Academy of Sciences noted in a report that a document
    Beck wrote during her time at 0MB was ``fundamentally flawed,''
    ``simplistic'' and ``of serious concern,'' and unanimously recommended
    that .it be withdrawn. It was. Beck has also advocated for policies
    embodied in the administration's proposed rule to limit the use of
    human exposure studies, which has been widely criticized by scientific
    bodies and organizations, including EPA's own Science Advisory Board.
    Nancy Beck's professional training as a scientist is not a sufficient
    reason to confirm her to lead the CPSC, and her record of advocacy far
    outside mainstream public policy or science underscores her lack of
    fitness for this important position.
    Beck Played a Role in Suppressing CDC Guidelines, Continuing a Career-
            Long Trend
        The Associated Press reported that as an official on detail to the
    White House, Beck recently contributed to suppressing detailed
    guidelines that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    sought to release to help the country reopen in the midst of the COVID-
    19 pandemic. Beck is neither a public health official, a medical
    doctor, nor a virologist, and there is a great deal of uncertainty as
    to what her current responsibilities are within this administration.\7\
    Although her role in this recent matter has not been fully explained,
    it appears to be consistent with other incidents--including blocking or
    slow-walking the release of the government report on PFAS noted above,
    and administration efforts to suppress the release of hazard
    assessments of formaldehyde and other chemicals by EPA's IRIS
    Program.\8\ If the CPSC is to be led by someone who follows the
    science, it is clear that Nancy Beck is the wrong choice for the
    position.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Ms. Beck currently works at the White House, though her title
    and position are not clear; indeed, the website of the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) reports that she holds a senior position there.
        \8\ Annie Snider, Sources: EPA Blocks Warnings on Cancer-Causing
    Chemical https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/06/epa-fonnaldehyde-
    warnings-blocked-696628
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CPSC Will Be Beck's Biggest Perch to Weaken Safety Standards and
            Undermine Science
        Immediately prior to joining EPA, Beck was the Senior Director of
    Regulatory & Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council, a
    powerful chemical industry lobbying group. Understanding her role there
    is important because the CPSC has jurisdiction--and the statutory
    obligation--to safeguard consumers from products that contain hazardous
    levels chemicals. For example, the CPSC has issued a rule, as directed
    by Congress, limiting the use of phthalates in children's products, and
    is currently considering a rule limiting the use of toxic flame
    retardants in certain consumer products. The chemical industry has
    ardently opposed these protections, which have significant impacts for
    the health and safety of consumers and is even challenging the
    phthalates ban in Federal court. It is foreseeable that Nancy Beck will
    thwart the CPSC's ability to protect consumers from the well-documented
    harms that these chemicals pose.
        Confirming Nancy Beck would leave a seasoned and aggressive fox
    guarding the henhouse--and responsible for the protection of children
    and consumers--for the next seven years. The CPSC is already hamstrung
    by laws that make it difficult for the agency to robustly protect
    families from injury and death. For example, recent reports have shown
    how a little-known provision of the law prevented the CPSC from
    informing the public that inclined sleep products were linked to the
    deaths of more than 90 infants.\9\ The agency has also come under fire
    for working with a stroller company to evade undergoing a recall for
    faulty parts that contributed to injuries of more than a hundred
    children and adults.\10\ Consumers and children cannot afford a further
    erosion of the CPSC's commitment to protect the public from dangerous
    products.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Public Citizen, Delay and Secrecy: How Section 6(b) of the
    Consumer Product Safety Act Keeps Consumers in the Dark, available at
    https://www.citizen.org/article/delay-and-secrecy/ (last visited Dec.
    19, 2019) and Rachel Rabkin Peachman, When Recalls Fail, Consumer
    Reports (Oct. 31, 2019), https://www.consumerreports.org/recalls/when-
    recalls-fail/.
        \10\ All Things Considered, How a Stroller Company Avoided a Recall
    with the Help from the CPSC, NPR (April 3, 2019), https://www.npr.org/
    2019/04/03/709573914/how-a-stroller-company-avoided-a-recall-with-help-
    from-the- chair-of-the-cpsc.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        After examining her very troubling track record, only briefly
    summarized here, there is no reason to doubt that if confirmed, Nancy
    Beck would continue to block and oppose needed safety standards, but
    with even more power to do so. Confirming her into a position of such
    public trust where she would slow down, weaken, or thwart safety
    standards will be to the lasting detriment of families and communities
    across the country. We urge you to make clear that you stand with our
    families, our children, and our first responders and oppose Nancy
    Beck's nomination. With questions, please contact: Eve Gartner, at
    egartner@earthjustice.org, Remington A. Gregg, at rgregg@citizen.org,
    Daniel Rosenberg, at drosenberg@nrdc.org, Pamitha Weerasinghe, at
    pweerasinghe@ucsusa.org, and Rachel Weintraub, at rweintraub
    @consumerfed.org
                Sincerely,

    AFL-CIO
    Alaska Community Action on Toxics
    American Association for Justice
    AKPIRG (Alaska)
    Arizona PIRG
    Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
    Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
    Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (Rabun Gap Chapter)
    Breast Cancer Action
    Breast Cancer Prevention Partners
    CALPIRG
    Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund
    Center for Biological Diversity
    Center for Economic Justice
    Center for Environmental Health
    Center for Environmental Policy and Management
    Center for Justice & Democracy
    Center for Science in the Public Interest
    Chapel Hill Organization for Clean Energy
    Charlie's House
    Chicago Consumer Coalition
    Citizens' Environmental Coalition
    Clean and Healthy New York
    Clean Production Action
    Clean Water Action
    Collaborative on Health and the Environment
    Columbia Consumer Education Council
    Coming Clean
    Consumer Action
    Consumer Advocates Against Reverse Mortgage Abuse
    Consumer Assistance Council, Inc.
    Consumer Federation of America
    Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
    CoPIRG (Colorado)
    ConnPIRG
    Data for Justice
    Earthjustice
    Earthworks
    Ecology Center
    Endangered Species Coalition
    Environmental Defense Fund
    Environmental Health Strategy Center
    Environmental Working Group
    Fannworker Association of Florida
    Florida PIRG
    Florida Silver Haired Legislature Inc
    Food & Water Action
    Georgia PIRG
    Green Inside and Out
    Green Science Policy Institute
    HarperSmiles
    Healthy Babies Bright Futures
    Illinois PIRG
    Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
    International Center For Technology Assessment
    International Union, UAW
    Iowa PIRG
    KidsAndCars.org
    Kids In Danger
    League of Conservation Voters
    Maryland PIRG
    Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition
    MASSPIRG
    Meghan's Hope
    Mid-Pinellas Coalition of Neighborhood Associations
    Moms Clean Air Force
    MoPIRG (Missouri)
    NC Child
    NCPIRG
    NHPIRG
    NJPIRG
    NMPIRG
    National Consumers League
    National Employment Law Project
    National PFAS Contamination Coalition
    National Women's Health Network
    Natural Resources Defense Council
    NC Conservation Network
    Nontoxic Certified
    Ohio PIRG
    Oregon Environmental Council
    OSPIRG (Oregon)
    Parents Against Tip-Overs
    PennPIRG
    PIRGIM (Michigan)
    Public Citizen
    Protect All Children's Environment
    RIPIRG
    Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
    Safer States
    Shanes Foundation
    TexPIRG
    Toxic-Free Future
    Toxic Free NC
    Union of Concerned Scientists
    Union Veterans Council
    UPSTREAM
    U.S. Public Interest Research Group
    WashPIRG
    WISPIRG (Wisconsin)
    Women's Voices for the Earth
    Vermont Conservation Voters
    Zero Waste Washington

    cc: Members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
    Committee
                                     ______

                            NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH
                                                          June 15, 2020

    Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee, on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
    Committee:

        On behalf of the National Center for Health Research, I am writing
    to express our opposition to the confirmation of Nancy Beck to be Chair
    of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
        The mission of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is to protect
    consumers, and especially children, from exposure to harmful products.
    Their work saves thousands of lives every year. When Congress confirms
    a CPSC Chair, the lives of all their constituents are at stake.
    Unfortunately, while at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
    Nancy Beck has consistently worked to oppose and weaken standards
    designed to protect the health and safety of children and adults. Her
    track record makes it clear that if she is confirmed, it will damage
    public health, and would put the safety of our children and
    grandchildren at risk.
        The National Center for Health Research is a nonprofit research
    center that focuses on bridging the gap between scientific evidence and
    public policy, in order to improve the health and safety of all
    Americans. Our scientific staff review the same evidence that EPA and
    CPSC scientists and decision-makers review. We can say with confidence
    that Nancy Beck's scientific work has:frequently been criticized by
    independent experts, including a peer review panel appointed by the
    Trump administration found that chemical evaluations under Beck's
    oversight were ``unscientific,'' and filled with ``mistakes and
    inconsistencies.'' And as an official recently on detail to the White
    House, Beck was partly responsible for delaying the detailed guidelines
    that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had planned to
    release to provide safety recommendations for enable businesses and
    schools to reopen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
        We can't emphasize strongly enough how important it is to American
    families that the CPSC Chair be committed to protecting the health and
    safety of our citizens. Nancy Beck's track records has demonstrated
    that she is not. Please do not hesitate to contact me at
    dz@center4research.org with any questions.
                Sincerely,
                                        Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.,
                                                             President.
    cc: Members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
    Committee
                                     ______

                   Learning Disabilities Association of America
                                                         Pittsburgh, PA

    Subject: Nancy Beck Articles (2)--June 16, 2020
    Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 1:27:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
    From: Fletcher, Jack (Commerce)
    To: Strickland, David (Commerce)
    CC: Burgess, Jami (Cantwell), Porter, Melissa (Commerce), Lacitis,
    Ansley (Cantwell), True, Peter (Commerce), Marvin-Vanderryn, Ben
    (Cantwell), Savin, Naomi (Cantwell), Day, Christopher (Commerce),
    Wildgoose, Laurence (Commerce), Marten, David (Cantwell), Mehyar,
    Naseem (Cantwell), Hale, Jonathan (Cantwell), Almond, Rance (Commerce),
    Stout, David (Commerce), Hurt, Louisa (Commerce)

    [LINK] Environmental Working Group--How Trump's Consumer Safety Nominee
            Weakened Regulation of `Forever Chemicals' in Consumer Products
        There are many reasons for the Senate to oppose President Trump's
    nominee to chair the Consumer Products Safety Commission, Nancy Beck.
        Since 1980, the use of methylene chloride in paint strippers has
    killed scores of people. But while in a top position at the
    Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Chemical Safety, Beck
    delayed a proposed ban of methylene chloride in paint strippers. People
    died.
        Beck also stymied a proposed ban of some uses of the known
    carcinogen TCE, which contaminates hundreds of military bases, and
    played down the impact of TCE on fetal hearts. Beck twisted Federal law
    to frustrate EPA's efforts to finally ban asbestos--an interpretation
    recently deemed illegal.
        But it's Beck's efforts to weaken consumer protections from the
    toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS--also called ``forever''
    chemicals because they never break down and build up in our blood--that
    should give senators the most serious pause.
        Records released by the Senate Environment and Public Works
    Committee show that Beck succeeded in weakening a regulation that
    requires companies to notify and get permission from the EPA before
    they start using so-called long-chain PFAS like PFOA--the most
    notorious of the PFAS chemicals, linked to cancer and other serious
    health effects--in consumer products ranging from carpets to wiring to
    clothing.
        In 2015, the EPA proposed a Significant New Use Rule, or SNUR, for
    long-chain PFAS that applied to many products. What that means is that
    manufacturers of everyday products would not only have to let the EPA
    know they were planning to use PFOA or other long-chain PFAS but would
    also have to seek the agency's approval.
        In 2017, when Beck took a senior position in the EPA's chemical
    safety office, she sought to exploit a provision in a new toxic
    chemical law to weaken the SNUR for PFAS. After she left the EPA to
    work at the White House, records show, Beck continued her crusade
    against PFAS regulation.
        Earlier this year, Beck succeeded in her quest to narrow the scope
    of the rule by limiting it to the surface coatings of products. As a
    result of her efforts, a company could use PFOA inside a product
    without getting the EPA's permission--even though many products degrade
    over time or wind up being disposed of in a landfill or incinerator.
    [LINK] Union of Concerned Scientists--How Safe Are Children's Products?
            It Might Depend on Trump's Next Nominee to the Consumer Product
            Safety Commission
        Today the Senate holds a hearing on the nomination of Dr Nancy Beck
    to chair the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). I doubt you
    spend much time thinking about the CPSC, but the little-known agency
    plays a crucial role in ensuring that the products in our homes are
    safe. And when things go wrong, that's when you do hear about it--from
    lunchboxes contaminated with lead, to faulty jogging strollers that
    have injured children, to crib recalls due to infant deaths.
        The Trump administration has already made harmful picks for
    commissioners at the CPSC, and under this administration's tenure, the
    agency has had the lowest number of child product recalls in more than
    a decade. Nancy Beck is more bad news. For the full scoop on the risks
    to public health imposed by Beck's problematic and conflicted history
    of interfering in science, see my colleague Genna Reed's posts here and
    here.
        Yesterday, at a Senate briefing hosted by Senator Richard
    Blumenthal and Senator Tom Udall, I spoke alongside advocates and
    parents who told powerful stories about lost loved ones and the dangers
    of having someone like Nancy Beck in charge at the CPSC. You can watch
    the full recording of the event here, and my comments are below.
    Finally, please contact your Senators and tell them that Nancy Beck is
    a dangerous choice for the CPSC.
                                     ______

                          National PFAS Contamination Coalition
                                                          June 16, 2020
    Via electronic mail

    Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee, on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    RE: National PFAS Contamination Coalition OPPOSES Nancy Beck Nomination
                To Chair Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell:

        We, the undersigned community group leaders, are writing to express
    our strong opposition to the nomination of Nancy Beck to Chair the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). We are members of the
    National PFAS Contamination Coalition \1\. Our membership represents
    over 30 grassroots community groups in 21 states fighting PFAS chemical
    pollution in our air, soil, water, food, and from occupational
    exposures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://pfasproject.net/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For decades, many residents in our communities have been
    overexposed to PFAS chemicals. We call PFAS ``forever chemicals''
    because that's what they do--they live forever, never breaking down.
    This dangerous forever chemistry bioaccumulates in our bodies \2\ and
    in our environment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Calafat, A. M., Wong, L. Y., Kuklenyik, Z., Reidy, J. A., &
    Needham, L. L. (2007). Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals in the U.S.
    Population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination
    Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004 and Comparisons with NHANES 1999-2000.
    Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(11), 1596-1602, https://doi.org/
    10.1289/ehp.10598.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For too long, the health and safety of our families have been
    disregarded. We are seeing major diseases and illnesses in people far
    too young in our communities. Many in our group have visited Congress
    on numerous occasions testifying about our personal heartaches, our
    illnesses, and our fears because of these forever chemical exposures.
        As you know, the CPSC is the Federal agency responsible for
    protecting the public against dangers associated with consumer products
    including toys, children's products, home furnishings, cleaning
    supplies, cookware, and some tools and building materials. We rely on
    this agency to protect our health and our children's health from
    unnecessary toxic exposures. That's why it concerned us to learn Nancy
    Beck is best known for her long career of opposing health protections
    from dangerous toxic chemicals, including her time as an official for
    the largest trade association of chemical manufacturers. For the past
    three years, Beck has headed EPA's ``Chemical Safety'' office, and she
    is currently leading the Trump administration's policies on PFAS.
        As organizations and individuals whose families and communities
    have been directly harmed by PFAS chemicals in our drinking water, food
    supply, the very air we breathe, occupational exposures and consumer
    products, we judge her suitability as a nominee by her record of action
    (or inaction) to address the Nation's burgeoning PFAS contamination
    crisis. Unfortunately, her record is one of failure rather than one of
    action and urgency.
        While directing EPA's Chemical Safety office, Nancy Beck has failed
    to use her authority to address PFAS contamination and she has
    undermined efforts to strengthen protections from these harmful toxic
    chemicals.

       Nancy Beck's first actions after arriving at EPA were to
            rewrite rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to
            prevent consideration of the harm caused by PFAS in drinking
            water or polluted air.\3\ \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Lipton, E. (2017, October 21). Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on
    Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots. The New York
    Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/us/trump-epa-chemicals-
    regulations.html
        \4\ Lipton, E. (2019, February 12). How the Trump Administration
    Pulled Back on Regulating Toxic Chemicals. Yale Environment 360.
    https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-trump-administration-has-pulled-
    back-on-regulating-toxic-chemicals. (``The changes [Beck] ordered
    reflected arguments, almost word for word, that she pushed as an
    industry advocate. She engineered these changes over the strong
    objection of long-time EPA professional staff.'')

       Beck never required chemical manufacturers to disclose
            information about PFAS, including how much was produced, how
            and where it was disposed of, and how many works and people
            were exposed. Finally, Congress stepped in and ordered the EPA
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            to gather the information.

       Beck never required industry dischargers to report their
            releases of PFAS into our air, water or land. Finally, Congress
            stepped in and ordered EPA gather the information.

       Beck failed to require notice of potential new uses of PFAS
            in consumer products. Finally, Congress stepped in and ordered
            EPA to act. Beck has pressed EPA to adopt the weakest approach
            she could get away with \5\, meaning more of our loved ones
            will be exposed to PFAS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Snider, A. (2018, May 14). White House E.P.A., Headed Off
    Chemical Pollution Study.
    Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/14/emails-white-house-
    interfered-with-science
    -study-536950

       Beck failed to ban, or even temporarily postpone, the
            introduction of any new PFAS into the marketplace (and into the
            environment and our bodies). Instead, when the House was
            considering bipartisan legislation to postpone the approval of
            any new PFAS for five years, Beck helped issue a statement from
            the White House threatening to veto the bill (it passed
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            anyway).

       Beck failed to issue a single order requiring toxicity
            testing of PFAS, despite the Administration's claims that it
            needs more information about PFAS before it can restrict their
            use or set safety standards.

       Beck worked with White House staff to suppress a CDC report
            showing EPA's existing health standards for toxic PFAS
            chemicals are too weak to protect our families. The White House
            was concerned that the report would be a ``public relations
            nightmare.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Annie Snider, White House, EPA Headed Off Chemical Pollution
    Study, POLITICO (May 14, 2018), https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/
    14/e-mails-white-house-interfered-with-science-study-536950.

        The CPSC has jurisdiction over numerous consumer products that may
    contain PFAS, including cookware, carpets, Grainger, and footwear.
    Beck's record at the EPA and the White House amply demonstrates her
    total lack of commitment to addressing the PFAS crisis and should
    disqualify her for consideration to be the next Chair of the CPSC.
        Unfortunately, Nancy Beck's deeply problematic record isn't limited
    to undermining efforts to address the PFAS crisis. She has blocked
    numerous efforts to protect the public from cancer causing and brain-
    damaging chemicals, demonstrating her unfitness to lead an Agency
    charged with protecting our Nation's children.
        Most notably, Nancy Beck has:

       Withheld needed protection for children, workers and rural
            communities by blocking the proposed ban on the brain-damaging
            pesticide chlorpyrifos.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Lipton, E. (2017, March 29). E.P.A. Chief. Rejecting Agency's
    Science, Chooses Not to Ban Insecticide New York Times. https://
    www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/politics/epa-insecticide-
    chlorpyrifos.html

       Rejected needed protection for children by refusing to ban
            the use of a brain damaging pesticide (TCVP) in pet products
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            including flea collars and shampoos.

       Blocked proposed rules \8\ for protecting workers, consumers
            and children from TCE which is linked to cancer, fetal heart
            defects, liver and kidney toxicity and harm to the immune
            system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Tabuchi, H. (2019, January 2). A Trump County Confronts the
    Administration Amid a Rash of Child Cancers. The New York Times.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/climate/tce-cancer-trump-
    environment-deregulation.html

       Refused to consider exposure to contaminated drinking water
            as a factor in determining whether to impose restrictions or
            set safety standards for 1,4 dioxane.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Denison R., (2019, November 4). EPA's scientific peer reviewers
    don't mince words in blasting its 1,4-dioxane and HBCD risk
    evaluations. Environmental Defense Fund blog. http://blogs.edf.org/
    health/2019/11/04/epas-scientific-peer-reviewers-dont-mince-words-in-
    blasting-its-14-dioxane-and-hbcd-risk-evaluations/

       Delayed children's protections for lead by failing to update
            the hazard standard for lead paint--contrary to a Federal court
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            order.

        The last thing that our communities need is Nancy Beck asa Chair of
    the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Our children and family's
    health should be protected, not sacrificed. We strongly urge you to
    oppose her nomination.
                Signed,

    Linda Shosie                         Anthony Spaniola
    Tucson, Arizona                      Oscada, Michigan
    Environmental Justice Task Force--   Need Our Water (NOW)
     Tucson

    Eric Weiner                          Diane and Paul Cotter
    Windsor, Connecticut                 Rindge, New Hampshire
    Clean Water Task Force @ Windsor     Your Turnout Gear and PFOA
    Climate Action

    Stel Bailey                          Laurene Allen
    Cocoa, Florida                       Merrimack, New Hampshire
    Fight For Zero                       Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water

    Lindsey Duhe                         Andrea Amico
    Pensacola, Florida                   Portsmouth, New Hampshire
    Saufley Field Community              Testing for Pease

    Lynn Sprayberry                      Loreen Hackett
    Summerville, Georgia                 Hoosick Falls, New York
    Chattooga County                     PfoaProjectNY

    Susan Phelan                         Jack Caldwell
    West Barnstable, Massachusett        New Windsor, New York
    GreenCAPE                            Quassiack Creek Watershed Alliance

    Ryan Riley                           Emily Donovan
    Salem, Massachusett                  Wilmington, North Carolina
    Your Turnout Gear and PFOA           Clean Cape Four

    Arnie Leirche                        Katie Bryant
    Oscada, Michigan                     Pittsboro, North Carolina
    Wurtsmith Restoration Advisory       Clean Haw River
     Board
    Community Co-chair

    Hope Grosse                          Cheryl Cail
    Joanne Stanton                       Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    Bucks and Montgomery Counties,       SC Idle No More
    Pennsylvania
    Buxmont Coalition for Safer Water

    Kevin Ferrara                        Shaina Kasper
    Lock Haven, Pennsylvania             Montpelier, Vermont
    Retired USAF Firefighter             Toxics Action Center

                                         John Cranmer
                                         Gillette, Wyomihg
                                         USAF Firefighter

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Brian Wynne, Chairman, Drew Wynne Foundation
        This Nominee Delayed a Ban on the Toxic Chemical that Killed my
    Brother. Last year, the chemical that killed my brother, Drew, was
    finally banned from store shelves. My family was relieved when the
    long-sought-after protection--a nationwide ban on the chemical
    methylene chloride in paint strippers for consumer uses--was finally
    adopted. But it was a battle: this ban was first proposed nine months
    before Drew passed away, and it took over two years before it was
    finalized. It was originally stronger too: the proposed ban included
    commercial uses of the paint strippers--to protect workers who are at
    risk when using the products.
        Now, one of the key officials involved in delaying this ban and
    opposing other regulations on chemicals, Nancy Beck, could be nominated
    to lead the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) until 2025. This
    is a small, but critical, agency tasked with protecting Americans from
    dangers associated with consumer products, from cribs and children's
    toys to furniture and cleaning products. Nancy Beck is the absolute
    wrong choice for this role.
        Beck started work for this administration at the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), straight from her posting as a top executive
    at the chemical industry's main trade association. One of her first
    actions at EPA was blocking the proposed ban on methylene chloride in
    paint strippers--a move at the top of the chemical industry's wish
    list.
        In an interview with the New York Times, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett--who
    previously led EPA's toxic chemicals office--cited a conversation in
    which Beck questioned whether the number of deaths from methylene
    chloride paint strippers warranted a ban on the chemical: `` `Is it 1
    percent?' Ms. Hamnett recalled Dr. Beck asking.'' Such callous
    disregard for people's lives would be concerning for any position--but
    it is particularly alarming for someone nominated to protect American's
    health and safety.
        Drew was only 31 when he died while using a methylene chloride
    paint stripper. From that tragedy, my family worked tirelessly to get
    paint strippers containing this chemical off of store shelves--we
    lobbied in Washington, urged retailers to stop selling the products,
    and kept telling Drew's story to draw attention to the problem. We were
    determined to save other parents and families from the pain that we
    have felt.
        But Nancy Beck will put the safety of American families at risk if
    she is confirmed to lead the CPSC. In addition to her interference on
    methylene chloride, she also delayed bans on high-risk uses of another
    toxic chemical, trichloroethylene (TCE); made systemic changes to
    weaken how the country's main chemical safety law is carried out; and
    more. Her record clearly shows that, when making decisions about
    hazardous chemicals, industry interests outweigh the public's health
    and safety.
        I did not want to have to speak out again--to feel the pain of
    sharing Drew's story again--but I knew I needed to do everything
    possible to stop this dangerous nomination from moving forward. The
    stakes are too high. My family and I know all too well that the
    decisions made in Washington about health and safety regulations have
    real life consequences. We cannot afford to have Nancy Beck in charge
    of protecting health for years to come.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

        Senator Blunt. I want to recognize myself for two questions
    before we go to Senator Blumenthal.
        Mr. Szabat, in the FAST Act, I was able to secure a
    provision in the FAST Act where existing railroad right-of-way
    would be treated like we had decided in a previous law to treat
    existing interstate right-of-way as it related to historic
    preservation and the impact an existing railroad would have had
    if you made changes in that existing railroad bed.
        I think the Federal Railroad Administration and the
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have been working
    together to implement this provision. It has not been
    implemented yet, though I think most of them have done what
    they needed to do. I understand there remains a concern about a
    property-based approach included in program guidance.
        So I have written a letter on this issue to both the FRA
    and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in November.
    I recently received a response.
        I want to use this opportunity to raise this issue with you
    since you will be overseeing the Federal Railroad
    Administration. I hear that some of the railroads--there remain
    concerns about the direction you are headed here. Would you
    talk to me a little bit about that? So what we are asking is
    you need to do the historic preservation effort you would need
    to do in an entirely new place if you are working where the
    railroad has always been. We made that decision on interstate
    highways. The Congress made the same decision for railroads,
    but it has not been implemented yet. And I would like to ask
    what you are going to do about that.
        Mr. Szabat. Senator Thune, thank you for the question and
    for your interest in this issue that is important both for
    historic preservation----
        Senator Blunt. It is actually Senator Blunt. I got out of
    the line here when Senator Thune was not here.
        Mr. Szabat. My apologies, Senator. Thank you, Senator
    Blunt.
        This is an issue that is important, both to historical
    preservationists and, as you point out, also to our railroad
    stakeholders.
        My understanding of the challenge is, as you mentioned, on
    the highway side the statutory provisions that were put in the
    regulations make it clear that the historical preservation, the
    section 160 provisions do not apply except for those instances
    that are explicitly spelled out. And the draft proposal that we
    have right now that we are working with the preservationist
    community and with the FRA flips that and says that on the
    railroad side, all the grade crossings would be affected by the
    160's unless they are explicitly exempted.
        So there is clearly some work to do, as you point out, for
    us to square the circle to ensure that we are not doing this
    inconsistently. You have my commitment that I work with the
    stakeholders, also with you, your staff, and the members of
    this committee to hopefully get us to a happy place where the
    interests of all of the stakeholders will be addressed.
        Senator Blunt. Well, that would be good, and I would be
    glad to help with that as I could.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, you have been a vocal and vigorous
    member of the Commission. I admire what you have done there.
        There are a lot of consumers who are looking at the choices
    they have for content now, the competition that is out there.
    Would you share with me some of your goals for working to
    update how the FCC views what competition means in our current
    media marketplace from an antitrust perspective?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I believe that our current rules and
    those of the Department of Justice are problematic to reflect
    what is happening in the marketplace today. There are a number
    of video providers offering services to consumers that are
    regulated by no entity beyond there are just general practices,
    but they are not governed by the FCC. The legacy providers are,
    whether they are broadcasters or cable providers. And the
    dichotomy between the two is incredibly problematic.
        We have done good work at the FCC in my opinion to modify
    our rules to reflect that situation. I have run into a
    roadblock in my interpretation with the Department of Justice
    who refuses to change its perspective on how broadcasters and
    who they compete with. It is very problematic from my viewpoint
    that they believe that broadcasters only compete with
    broadcasters in a select market at a select time for select
    advertising. And I have tried to figure out how best to change
    that. We have done good work at the FCC. As the circumstance
    may be, I was hoping to work with the Department of Justice,
    but we ran into this--the pandemic has certainly changed the
    dynamic.
        Senator Blunt. Well, I think, Commissioner, on ownership
    issues and other issues, not recognizing how big the
    competitive field is, it makes a big mistake as we move into
    the future. And I hope you continue to vigorously pursue that
    discussion.
        Senator Blumenthal.

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

        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        To Nancy Beck, you have been nominated for one of the most
    significant positions in our Federal Government. Fewer people
    have heard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission than maybe
    the Department of Defense or Veterans Affairs or some of the
    others, but this agency makes a life or death difference in the
    lives of literally hundreds of millions, maybe all Americans.
    And there is no better illustration of it than two letters that
    I have here, one from Crystal Ellis, the other from Janet McGee
    who lost children as a result of furniture tipping over on
    them. I ask that they be made part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Crystal Ellis
        Hello, my name is Crystal Ellis. 6 years ago today, I removed my
    son from life support, because of injuries resulting from a furniture
    tip-over. Camden is a casualty of not only a specific manufacturer that
    chose to ignore ``voluntary standards'' that were already weak and
    ineffective at preventing injuries and deaths, his death is the
    consequence of an agency tasked with protecting consumers that has
    their hands tied by a small budget and the 6(b) gag order that prevents
    them from being able to do their job of protecting consumers.
        The CPSC is the agency that has CONSUMER in its title, but has a
    history with struggles in being able to actually represent the voices
    and interests of Americans. This is in great part because of an
    unbalanced influence by industry, since 1981. Industry will always try
    and convince all parties tasked with regulation, that they can do a
    great job with self-regulation and the answer to all problems is de-
    regulation. Self-regulation is impossible, when it will affect the
    bottom line. De-regulation has hurt consumers in innumerable ways.
    Nancy Beck has a strong history of de-regulation and ignoring risk
    assessment data. This would be devastating for an agency that is
    already hurt by a balance of power in favor of industry.
        Americans believe that if a product is in our marketplace, it has
    been vetted and tested by their government and would not be sold if it
    wasn't safe. They don't know which agency has this responsibility and
    they don't know who to report to, when they have problems. This lack of
    visibility favors industry and allows companies, like the one that
    killed my child, to hide their injuries and deaths for decades, without
    recalls or civil penalties of any significant amount or public
    awareness. Looking at Nancy Beck's history, consumers would be at an
    even bigger disadvantage with her at the helm. We need a champion for
    protecting consumers and standing up to big companies that will fight
    hard to hide all of their misdeeds.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Janet McGee, Founding Member,
                           Parents Against Tip-overs
        I'm Janet McGee, a founding member of Parents Against Tip-overs,
    which is a nationwide coalition of parents who have lost their children
    from furniture and TV tip-overs. On average, tip-overs happen every 24
    minutes and a child in the U.S. dies every 2 weeks from a tip-over.
        For about 20 years, the ASTM subcommittee that sets the voluntary
    safety standard for clothing storage units has been painstakingly slow
    to solve the furniture tip-over problem that has unknowingly lurked
    inside U.S. homes for decades. It's a problem that has, and continues
    to kill hundreds of children (my son, Ted, being one of them) and
    injure thousands more. We parents rely heavily on the Agency to use
    every tool available to them to stop production and sales, and push for
    recalls of unstable furniture on the market. While most manufacturers
    may tell parents to simply anchor your furniture, the real problem we
    face as a nation is poorly designed and unstable dressers, a risk that
    cannot be mitigated solely by anchoring. Just last week we watched
    nanny cam footage of a piece of furniture that fell on two children;
    the furniture HAD been anchored to a stud in the wall.
        We need the Commission to lead their charge of protecting
    consumers, not defending businesses. We need the CPSC to push the
    voluntary standard process to result in a robust and effective standard
    that will save lives. The CPSC is currently conducting research on the
    adequacy of the current standard, has issued an ANPR, and is expected
    to issue an NPR this year. Would Nancy Beck support that? Would she
    find that a child dying every 2 weeks from a tip-over is sufficient
    risk for the CPSC to take action and aggressively pursue writing a
    mandatory standard? Nancy Beck's history of deregulation and protecting
    businesses in her position at OMB and EPA is deeply concerning as we
    consider what that might look like for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
    Commission. We depend on this agency to protect our families.
        As parents and families who have lost their children to defective
    products, Parents Against Tip-overs stands against the nomination of
    Nancy Beck for the U.S. CPSC Chairperson. We have significant concerns
    regarding how well consumers will be protected if she were to lead the
    Agency.
        Thank you for allowing me to voice our concern today. I'm now going
    to turn it over to Crystal Ellis.

        Senator Blumenthal. So let me just ask you right from the
    start. All four current CPSC Commissioners have said that the
    furniture stability standard is inadequate. Do you agree? Yes
    or no.
        Dr. Beck. Senator, thank you for your question.
        I agree with you about the essential and important mission
    of the CPSC.
        Regarding the tip over standard, I believe that is
    something that needs to be a priority. I am aware that CPSC is
    doing essential and important research on this now. Not being
    at the CPSC, I do not have access to all the data that the
    other Commissioners have. If confirmed, I would be happy to get
    back to you.
        Senator Blumenthal. You know, I am giving you a chance, in
    effect, to show us that you are on the side of consumers. I
    believe that your record to date is disqualifying for this
    position. And I am really giving you a chance to show that you
    would take vigorous and aggressive action to protect the
    consumers like Ms. McGee and Ms. Ellis and their families and
    children. And that answer is simply inadequate. I am not a
    member of the Commission either.
        Dr. Beck. Senator, my heart goes out to those families.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I know your heart goes out to
    them, and I believe you.
        My time is limited, so I am going to move on. Tell me about
    your role at the CDC in blocking the scientific guidance that
    it wanted to issue regarding COVID-19 standards?
        Dr. Beck. Thank you for that question.
        I can assure I did not block any CDC guidance. At the OMB,
    OMB plays an essential and important role in coordinating
    interagency review of thousands of regulations and guidance
    documents every year. I was helping to coordinate the review of
    the CDC guidance document, and my role was to make sure that
    all the decisionmakers have an opportunity to comment on the
    document----
        Senator Blumenthal. Is it a fact that you blocked the
    issuance of the guidance?
        Dr. Beck. Senator, I coordinated the interagency review to
    ensure that all the comments were received and considered by
    the CDC. That was essentially my only role.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, in coordinating it, you prevented
    it from being released. Correct?
        Dr. Beck. The OMB process requires that all the
    decisionmakers have an opportunity to review and comment on the
    document.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you about a separate issue,
    PFAS. As you know I am sure, a review from the United States
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, outlined a
    host of hazardous health effects associated with PFAS exposure,
    including cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, increased
    risk of asthma, and thyroid disease. Connecticut had a major
    pollutant release of PFAS recently. These chemicals do not
    break down over time. They are forever chemicals. Do you agree
    that PFAS poses a significant health threat and should be
    removed from all household items?
        Dr. Beck. Senator, the Federal Government is working very
    hard to understand the science and to take appropriate
    regulatory action to address PFAS.
        My understanding is that the companies that used the long
    chain PFAS compounds, which were the ones that were going in
    consumer products, have essentially been phased out since, I
    think, 2008 or 2009. The problem is that we have these older
    rugs and carpets that were made before that period of time.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, would you support removing PFAS
    from fire fighting chemicals that endanger the lives of those
    fire fighters?
        Dr. Beck. Senator, I believe the National Defense
    Authorization Act requires the DOD to remove PFAS chemistries--
    --
        Senator Blumenthal. The DOD, yes. And by the way----
        Dr. Beck. And they are working hard.
        Senator Blumenthal.--I was one of the principal
    supporters----
        Dr. Beck. Great.
        Senator Blumenthal.--of that amendment, as you may know.
    But I am talking about the countless fire service departments
    around the nation, including Connecticut, where PFAS flame
    retardants and chemicals are still in use. Would you support
    removing them and substituting other kinds of materials?
        Dr. Beck. Senator, I am sure that once there is an
    appropriate--there is plenty of research going on, FAA, DOE,
    DOD, to help find an effective replacement to the PFAS
    chemistries for fire fighting foam, and I am confident that
    once that replacement is found, there will be a broad
    transition in the marketplace.
        Senator Blumenthal. And you would support a ban.
        Dr. Beck. I support a transition away from the PFAS foams.
    Absolutely.
        Senator Blumenthal. I have no further questions right now
    because my time has expired. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Lee.

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

        Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Szabat, I would like to start with you, if that is OK.
        Navigable airspace is defined as the minimum altitude at
    which safe flight is possible. I understand that to be
    generally 500 feet. Does that sound about right to you?
        Mr. Szabat. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Lee. Drones, of course, create a special set of
    circumstances because they really fall into a different
    category. A drone, if it goes to your house, can hover just
    inches above the blades of grass on your front yard, and that
    is a feature, not a bug. That is considered the safe, effective
    zone for a drone to operate, whereas with an aircraft, that
    would be unsafe. That is not a safe place to operate that. You
    are at that altitude only for a millisecond as you are taking
    off and as you are landing.
        But the FAA believes that because drones can hover inches
    above the blades of grass in the front yard, the agency can,
    therefore, control that airspace in front of your front yard.
        Now, do you agree with the FAA's current legal
    interpretation on that point?
        Mr. Szabat. Well, Senator, what I would agree with is to
    say that the Federal Government has authority over the national
    airspace for obvious reasons. You have to have one overriding
    standard. There are a lot of issues that are playing out right
    now regulatorily over who has what say for drones in that lower
    airspace, and we know that there is an awful lot of room for
    local law enforcement, State and local governments, emergency
    services, for example, to have their say as well.
        So I would say for the higher airspace, yes. The FAA has--
    after a plane has taken off, after you are into the national
    airspace, the overriding consideration, except for the security
    agencies, is FAA. In the lower airspace, we are still frankly
    working out some of those issues.
        Senator Lee. So what would you say to those property owners
    who are struggling to understand where their rights end and
    where they begin and what that means?
        Mr. Szabat. So, Senator, I would say the obvious. This is a
    complicated, difficult issue. This is a new emerging
    technology. And one of the reasons that we have been so
    hesitant to step in with new regulations right off the bat is
    because it is complicated and we want to get it right.
        Senator Lee. Mr. O'Rielly, let us go to you for a moment.
        Spectrum is a finite resource and it is one that is
    extremely valuable. Spectrum access both in the licensed realm
    and in the unlicensed realm is essential for any future U.S.
    efforts there might be to develop IOT devices and lead in the
    race toward 5G and eventually 6G networks or whatever comes
    after that.
        Now, the FCC with your support has taken a number of very
    admirable efforts to find inefficiencies in commercial bands.
    What is the current state of our commercial spectrum pipeline?
        Mr. O'Rielly. So we have a number of auctions that are
    coming up for mid-band spectrum that will be key for 5G
    services. But post those, in both the C band and CBRS, with the
    premier being C-band and CBRS, and then 3.1 to 3.55 has been
    identified as a possibility. Beyond that, the pipeline in my
    opinion is fairly bare.
        Senator Lee. Do we have enough commercial spectrum being
    made available to meet the future needs of the United States,
    and if not, how much time do you think we have?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I would say no.
        Senator Lee. So you described the cupboard as being bare,
    meaning there is just nothing in there.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, we have not identified new bands that
    we should be trying to reallocate for commercial services,
    whether they be from commercial services today or from Federal
    Government agencies. That needs to be done immediately because
    it takes quite a number of years to clear a band. Even C band
    where providers are willing to change, it is still a number of
    years to make that happen.
        Senator Lee. And we talk a lot, of course, about
    reallocating commercial spectrum, which is a good thing. We
    also cannot forget that there are large swaths of spectrum,
    really valuable beachfront spectrum that are in the possession
    of various government agencies. And everything affects
    everything else, and those agencies sitting on that spectrum to
    whatever degree they might not need it has a significant cost
    attached to it.
        Would you agree that part of keeping the United States
    competitive in the tech space is going to require an all-of-
    the-above approach, one that will objectively consider both
    Federal and commercial spectrum allocation for future needs?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Oh, absolutely. I think in terms of acquiring
    or making available new mid-band spectrum for commercial
    services, 5G, 6G, et cetera, we are going to need an all-of-
    the-above strategy, but that certainly means the Federal
    agencies are going to need to shrink their footprint. That is,
    they hold the most ideal bands in mid-band. And it is a very
    difficult challenge, I admit, but that is part of our job.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Baldwin.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

        Senator Baldwin. I want to direct my question first to Mr.
    Szabat.
        In 2018, the Trump administration released an
    infrastructure plan that did not mention Buy America once,
    despite the President's Executive Order to buy American and
    hire American which, by the way, he announced and signed in
    Kenosha, Wisconsin.
        With 21 million people currently unemployed, it is really
    more important than ever that we use taxpayer dollars spent on
    infrastructure to support the American workforce. Will you
    commit that any infrastructure proposal that comes out of the
    Trump administration in your jurisdiction contains strong ``Buy
    America'' language?
        Mr. Szabat. Yes, Senator. I can go beyond that to say that
    all of the proposals that have come out of the Department, at
    least since I have had the honor of serving as the Acting Under
    Secretary, have reinforced the importance of ``Buy America'' or
    ``Buy American.''
        Senator Baldwin. And then President Trump also promised
    bold new steps on ``Buy America'' when he was in Kenosha 3
    years ago. If confirmed as Under Secretary for Transportation
    Policy, what bold, new steps would you be recommending for
    ``Buy America'' at the Department of Transportation?
        Mr. Szabat. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I will
    always continue to support strong efforts for ``Buy America''
    as I did in my previous job as Executive Director of the
    Maritime Administration where those ``Buy America'' provisions
    are so important for the maritime industry. I am not in a
    position to say specifically what I will be able to offer in
    the future because, of course, whatever I offer in the future
    has to be supported by my superiors in the administration.
        Senator Baldwin. I appreciated the chance to speak with you
    by telephone last week, and one of the things we discussed was
    the increasing frequency of flooding and extreme weather
    events. And certainly these events are not going to stop
    because Congress and our state and local partners are focused
    on the COVID-19 pandemic. They are still going to continue.
        So as Congress works on surface transportation
    reauthorization, in my view it is imperative that we invest in
    climate-resilient infrastructure and ensure that State and
    local governments have the resources they need to do the same.
        For example, my bipartisan ``Rebuilding Stronger
    Infrastructure Act'' was included in the EPW Committee's
    reauthorization legislation, and that bill requires the Federal
    Highway Administration to provide states and localities with
    the tools that they need to rebuild infrastructure that can
    withstand the next storm or flood. So I am looking forward to
    working with this committee to ensure that our reauthorization
    legislation similarly includes strong resiliency measures.
        Now, I understand that the administration is working to
    release its own reauthorization proposal, and I will be looking
    closely at how that proposal prioritizes infrastructure
    resilience.
        If confirmed, what would you do to ensure transportation
    infrastructure across DOT is more resilient to climate change
    and extreme weather events?
        Mr. Szabat. Again, Senator, thank you for your question but
    also for your focus on this important issue.
        We will, as you say, be rolling out very shortly the
    administration's surface transportation reauthorization bill.
        My commitment to you is if you find that it falls short in
    the resiliency aspect, that we look forward to working with
    you, the other interested members of this committee, and the
    staff to make sure it reflects those priorities.
        In a different context, General Darren McDew, the former,
    now retired, head of the U.S. Department of Defense's
    Transportation Command, testified that his concern was the
    Nation was sacrificing too much resiliency for the sake of
    efficiency.
        I think the same thing can be said for transportation, and
    to your point, the standards that we have for the next round of
    infrastructure that we build have to be something that can deal
    with the challenges 40 and 50 years from now, not just the
    standards that we had a decade ago.
        Senator Baldwin. And on a closely related topic, what more
    could you do, would you do to ensure that our State and local
    partners receive the technical support and funding that they
    need to build and rebuild more resilient infrastructure?
        Mr. Szabat. Senator, thank you. That is always an issue
    that we have to grapple with anytime that we are posing new
    programs or funding for our current programs is what is that
    right local-Federal match. Certainly right now we are seeing
    this as we go through the COVID-19 period. There are stress
    points for local governments where we cannot expect them to
    pitch in as much as they would have when the economy is in a
    better spot. And that is going to be one of the issues we are
    going to have to work through in consultation with the Congress
    as we discuss the various surface transportation
    reauthorization proposals.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Thune.

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

        Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, welcome back to the Committee. We
    look forward to confirming you to another term of the FCC.
        As we have discussed before in this committee in the past,
    mid-band spectrum is crucial to 5G deployment. My question is
    how important is it that the FCC meet its planned auction in
    December to make C band spectrum available for commercial use?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I think it is critical. It is the only band
    identified that will make such a block available for 5G
    services in mid-band. The 280 megahertz is critically needed.
    The CBRS spectrum, which we are going to auction off in, give
    or take, 6 weeks, is not comparable because of some of the
    power limits and other things to it. This is the only band we
    have in the pipeline that is ready to go, and anything that
    delays that in my opinion would be extremely harmful.
        Senator Thune. I agree, and I hope you guys can expedite
    that process.
        The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the need for
    reliable broadband networks, particularly in the most rural
    areas of the country. If nothing else, what this pandemic has
    taught us is how important the investments we make in that
    infrastructure--how much they pay off particularly at a time
    like this.
        Would you support setting aside a portion of the auction
    proceeds for the build-out of broadband networks in unserved
    areas?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I appreciate anytime Congress dedicates
    additional funding for this purpose. This idea has been out
    there for a little bit and I think it is very favorable.
        The only caveat I would say is sometimes our spectrum
    auctions can be a little--we have some ups and downs in terms
    of when we hold our auctions. So we can flush this year with
    some auctions held, but then we have a dearth. When I got there
    in 2013, it had been awhile. So it is a little bit
    unpredictable, and maybe there is a way to figure out how to
    resolve that issue.
        But in terms of additional funding for building out
    broadband services to the millions of Americans who need it,
    absolutely.
        Senator Thune. Mr. Szabat, I have consistently asked the
    Department to thoroughly consider comments from rural states to
    ensure that these regions are adequately represented in the
    final national multimodal freight network. Can you provide an
    update on the Department's efforts to finalize the national
    multimodal freight network, specifically the evaluation of
    comments from states?
        Mr. Szabat. Senator, I can, and thank you for your interest
    in this issue.
        So we got through a big hurdle at the end of last summer
    when finally we received all 51 of the state plans, which were
    a precursor before we went out for public comment. Those
    comments are now in, and the Department is in the process of
    evaluating and assessing and responding to each of those
    comments. And we are confident that we will, in fact, have the
    plan out this year.
        Senator Thune. Good.
        Another question for you. The Department of Transportation
    has already made important strides toward safely testing and
    deploying automated vehicles, including granting exemption
    petitions and working with other Federal agencies to develop
    the AV 4.0 guidance document.
        Could you speak more to the department's current efforts to
    safely test and deploy automated vehicles, particularly the
    testing partnership announced by NHTSA yesterday?
        Mr. Szabat. Yes, Senator.
        So as I said in my opening statement, safety, both for
    drivers and pedestrians, remains the Department's number one
    priority. The automated driving systems offer significant
    safety enhancement opportunities.
        You mentioned AV 4.0. We did. We rolled that out in
    January. This is consistent with our governmentwide approach
    for AV technologies that we want to support U.S. leadership in
    AV technology research, deployment, and integration. So this
    follows the release of our 2018 AV 3.0, which establishes
    voluntary guidance and outlines our multimodal approach toward
    tackling these issues.
        And also, as you have mentioned, Senator, yesterday we
    rolled out the automatic vehicle transparency and engagements
    for safe testing, which is a mouthful, so we call it AV TEST.
    And this, again, is a voluntary, non-regulatory partnership to
    provide an online public-facing platform for sharing automated
    systems information. So eight states and nine companies are
    participating in this initiative, including some of the largest
    automotive companies and some of the most innovative companies
    that are working in this space.
        Senator Thune. Well, and I thank you for the work you are
    doing. We had hoped, I think as you know, to have legislative
    direction originating in this committee, working with other
    committees and through Congress, that would help advance the
    cause of automated vehicles. But it is, as always, much harder
    to thread that needle than it should be. But I am pleased that
    you and your team are moving forward with that because it is
    critically important. It is a technology that I think will
    offer enormous benefits to people across this country, and we
    want to make sure that it proceeds in a safe way.
        I guess I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I will submit maybe
    another one for the record.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
    Thune.
        Senator Tester.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Cantwell.
        I am going to start with you, Dr. Beck.
        The Chairman. Senator Tester, could you move just a little
    closer to the microphone?
        Senator Tester. OK. I can holler a little louder.
        I will start with you, Dr. Beck.
        Asbestos is a known carcinogen and it was one of the
    drivers behind TSCA. And quite frankly, the people of Libby,
    Montana know just how dangerous asbestos is and what kind of
    legacy it can leave behind.
        Can you shed some light as to why the EPA has not completed
    its evaluation yet of asbestos?
        Dr. Beck. Senator, thank you for that question.
        When the Lautenberg Act was passed, the EPA had to
    prioritize 10 chemicals that would move first through the
    process. Asbestos was one of those chemistries.
        EPA has met all the deadlines so far and has released a
    draft risk evaluation for asbestos. My understanding is that it
    has undergone peer review. I think that was last week, and I
    believe EPA intends to finalize that risk evaluation by the end
    of the year.
        Senator Tester. OK. So, you know, it has been 4 years I
    think since we passed--I mean, Frank has been dead a long time,
    quite frankly. So it has been a number of years since we passed
    it. It takes that long to do a review on a known carcinogen?
        Dr. Beck. The Lautenberg amendments required that EPA do
    the robust risk evaluation before taking risk management
    action, and they gave us very rigorous deadlines considering
    the complexity of the science and the extent of the evaluation
    that EPA is conducting.
        But I will say that EPA has also taken other action under
    this administration to strengthen protections on asbestos. Last
    year, EPA finalized a significant new use rule which
    essentially blocks new uses of asbestos that had not been
    banned in 1989. So the agency is trying to move aggressively.
        Senator Tester. Let me ask you this. Is asbestos banned
    today?
        Dr. Beck. I am sorry. I could not hear your question. Would
    you mind repeating it?
        Senator Tester. Is asbestos banned today?
        The Chairman. He is asking if asbestos is banned today?
        Senator Tester. Thank you.
        Dr. Beck. Certain uses of asbestos are banned today, but in
    1989 when the ban was passed, there were ongoing uses.
        Senator Tester. But stop.
        Dr. Beck. Those ongoing uses are what EPA is evaluating
    now.
        Senator Tester. Ma'am, just for a second. In 1989, they
    were supposed to evaluate on basic cost. The TSCA that we
    passed that Lautenberg pushed out and that Udall had such a big
    role on was supposed to deal with evaluating from health and
    safety standpoints. So the question is, four years later, if my
    math is right--and it could be off six months--is asbestos
    banned today?
        Dr. Beck. There are still existing uses of asbestos today,
    and EPA is working aggressively under the Lautenberg
    requirements to conduct the risk evaluation that are required.
        Senator Tester. I would say this. I do not know what your
    definition of ``aggressive'' is, but with a known carcinogen
    such as asbestos is, it would appear to me that it has not been
    very aggressive from my perspective.
        Dr. Beck, you were given a lot of opportunities, as I have
    been watching this entire hearing, to answer questions when
    people asked you direct questions. Senator Cantwell did on a
    chemical that causes birth defects. I listened to your opening
    statement and I listened to it very carefully because you
    talked about your whole career has been advancing public health
    and safety. You talked about the myriad of consumer risks that
    are out there. You talked about science informing policy. You
    talked about science as a pillar of good regulation.
        I am going to tell you I have studied your record, and it
    does not bear out what you said in your opening statement
    unfortunately. And what is curious to me is not only why anyone
    on this committee would vote for your confirmation, but why you
    would want the job as Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety
    Commission when your career does not bear out anything about
    safety for consumers. And the truth is you could get a great
    job with a corporation doing what you have done your whole
    career, which is protecting those corporations.
        I have one last question. And, by the way, O'Rielly, you
    get off easy this time because I will put some in the record
    for you. This is for Mary Toman.
        Mary, my question deals with the 2020 Census and COVID-19.
    How do you plan to overcome those challenges that COVID-19 has
    presented for an accurate Census, particularly in Indian
    Country, particularly in the areas that are impacted by
    poverty?
        Ms. Toman. Thank you, Senator Tester, for this very
    important question.
        As I said in my opening statement, that is my first
    priority to count everywhere everyone. And I know that this is
    going to be very difficult with COVID in certain areas that you
    have just discussed. When I had some meetings last week with
    some staff, they asked me what the first thing I would do in
    this position. I said the first thing I would do is to go to
    people of consensus and say what can we do to make sure more
    people are counted. That is my first priority and my second
    priority and my third priority.
        There have got to be more creative ways that we can always
    think about if we all put our heads together. I also would look
    forward to talking to your staff and staff for any states that
    face these issues because if there are community organizations
    that we can work with to learn from and work with immediately,
    we would very much like to work with you if you think that
    anything is being missed. This is a very, very serious
    question, very, very important.
        Senator Tester. I am way over time. I just want to say that
    I never heard the plan. And so if you can get that to me in
    writing, I would really appreciate it. Either my staff or I
    would be more than happy to talk with you about what needs to
    be done from our perspective. But we really need to have a plan
    or this thing is going to be a fiasco.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester.
        Senator Rosen.

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

        Senator Rosen. Can everyone hear me? Yes.
        Thank you, Ranking Member Cantwell, of course, to our
    nominees here today.
        I want to talk about consumer confidence in air travel. So,
    Mr. Szabat, I am going to direct my questions to you because in
    Nevada, our economy depends on travel and tourism for motels,
    casinos, restaurants on the Las Vegas strip to outdoor
    recreation businesses near Lake Tahoe and everywhere in
    between. As a state where travel and tourism supports one in
    every three jobs, is $20 billion in wages and salaries
    annually, and generates $75 billion in annual economic output,
    Nevada now, unfortunately, has the highest unemployment rate in
    the nation, 28 percent, as a result of COVID-related slowdown
    in travel.
        So the pandemic has been especially challenging for our
    aviation industry. In 2019, Las Vegas McCarran Airport saw over
    50 million passengers, and in the wake of the pandemic,
    passenger totals have dropped precipitously down to about only
    150,000 people in April, a 96.4 percent drop from last year.
        It is clear that reinstilling confidence in air travel,
    that it is safe, is going to be key to bringing back the
    industries that support Nevada. We have to bring back travel
    and tourism to revive our economy.
        So, Mr. Szabat, in your current position as Assistant
    Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, you are very
    familiar with the devastating impact COVID-19 has had on
    aviation. So if you are confirmed as Under Secretary, you would
    be responsible for developing policies across all modes of
    transportation, including aviation, and I have to imagine that
    mitigating impacts of COVID-19, well, if it is not, it should
    be a top priority.
        So let me ask you this. Is the Department working closely
    with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on science-
    based steps that you can take to protect the health of
    passengers and employees at the airports and in the air? And
    how else might these agencies work together to collaborate to
    protect public health as our travelers venture out again? They
    are not going to go out if they do not have confidence.
        Mr. Szabat. Senator, thank you for the question.
        And this is, indeed, an issue of our time. You are exactly
    correct. If we are going to reinstall a sense of confidence in
    the public for flying, the very first thing that we have to do
    is to demonstrate that it is safe to fly, not to make claims
    but to actually show that.
        But to your specific question, yes. We are working very
    closely with the CDC and with the other public health agencies
    in the administration to develop the guidelines and
    requirements for the air carriers, for the airports, for the
    traveling public, and also in several levels to come up with
    common international standards for the resumption of
    international travel between the United States and other
    countries.
        Senator Rosen. Well, thank you.
        I am going to also ask you, if you are confirmed, what
    other policies, what ideas do you have, what might you
    recommend based on the advice that you have received from
    medical and transportation efforts, particularly because many
    COVID-19 patients are asymptomatic. So what would you do in
    that regard? I think people are worried about the asymptomatic
    carriers.
        Mr. Szabat. Senator, again a great question.
        The first and foremost thing in the transportation sphere
    is wherever you cannot social distance, people should be
    wearing face coverings. Secretary Chao has kind of made this a
    tenet of what we are doing in the Department in our discussions
    with other Federal agencies and also in our public-facing
    comments as well.
        Just yesterday, you saw the association covering the
    largest air carriers in the United States carrying the bulk of
    the passengers. They have all agreed that they will set a
    common industry standard to require all passengers to wear face
    coverings. We encourage that. We encourage all other air
    carriers to follow that. And we will have the back of the air
    carriers, and, of course, their frontline employees, the flight
    attendants, will deliver that message to the passengers and are
    delivering that message both for the safety of the passengers
    and also for the safety of the crew.
        Senator Rosen. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        I think I am just about done with my time, so I will yield
    back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Rosen.
        Let me check with staff just a moment.
        [Pause.]
        The Chairman. Commissioner O'Rielly, this committee on a
    bipartisan basis sent to the Senate and to the House and to the
    President, the BROADBAND DATA Act. It has been signed into law
    by President Trump. This law requires the FCC to collect more
    precise, granular data from broadband providers so it can
    develop more accurate broadband availability maps. Those maps
    are, of course, not developed yet since the law is so new on
    the statute. But the FCC's notice of proposed rulemaking for
    the new 5G Fund raises the possibility that it may begin
    distributing money to support the 5G deployment before the new
    maps are completed.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, if confirmed, will you commit not to
    support moving forward with the 5G Fund until the FCC completes
    the new maps as required by statute?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I looked at the statute closely. I have
    serious concerns and have raised them regarding moving forward
    without new maps and would certainly want to listen to this
    committee and its views on the matter. And I certainly would be
    hesitant to move forward in any capacity without addressing the
    issue of mapping.
        The Chairman. But you stop short of an absolute commitment?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, if you are saying that that was what
    your position is, since you were an author, then I would agree
    with you.
        The Chairman. Well, OK.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Then yes.
        The Chairman. All right. So we have moved from serious
    reservations to you would commit not to support moving forward
    until we get the maps.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        The Chairman. And when do you think we are going to be able
    to see those maps? When do you think this might be completed?
    And is there anything this committee or this Congress can do to
    assist that, Mr. Commissioner?
        Mr. O'Rielly. It is my understanding the Chairman has been
    advocating for additional funding for the issue, some amount of
    money that would help implement the mapping program needed.
    That would certainly be supportive from my viewpoint. I think
    we certainly could do some things in the meantime. We have
    staff that could certainly start work. So we should not be at
    zero right now. But I have to defer to the Chairman exactly
    where we are on the bigger picture.
        The Chairman. OK. Well, it is a concern. I wish the
    Congress could move instantaneously. But we are fulfilling the
    Founders' desires for lawmaking to be slow and cumbersome, and
    we got it done and got it signed by the President. So I guess
    it is unfair for us having taken as long as the Congress takes
    to want to speed up the implementation. But we really do think
    the money should be distributed according to accurate maps, and
    that is why it passed on a bipartisan basis.
        Let us talk about RDOF, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund,
    auction. Phase one of the auction is scheduled for October.
    There are some folks around the country, including in my home
    state of Mississippi, who would certainly like to move that
    auction earlier than October. We have received information from
    Chairman Pai that as much as we might like to do that, it is
    simply unworkable to do so.
        Why is that the case, Commissioner O'Rielly?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I do not know what the Chairman provided you,
    but I would argue that we have difficulty running--I have made
    this case in this committee before. We cannot run two auctions
    at the same time. And so we have a full summer and fall already
    scheduled, CBRS for July. The RDOF is in October, and then we
    have C band for December. And so they are planned out, and
    there is a timing in terms of the short forms and the long
    forms and everything that goes into schedulings.
        I would say part of the difficulty with--and I appreciate
    that people would like to bypass the timing that we are talking
    about and expedite things. But what it does do is put some of
    these companies that would like to do this at the forefront and
    say we would like our money up front, and in doing so, they
    bypass the benefits of the auction process and the efficiencies
    that we get from that.
        And then two, it potentially allows those entities to go
    into areas where there is already an existing competitor. And
    then to me overbuilding would be incredibly problematic given
    that we have such finite resources in this program.
        The Chairman. Does an important part of this RDOF begin
    next month, July 2020?
        Mr. O'Rielly. There are pieces. We just did one in our last
    meeting. There are pieces coming up in terms of the--next week
    I think is the timing of some of the bidding--the final
    payments or payments are due--excuse me--next week. And so we
    will see where that stands.
        The Chairman. If I could snap my fingers and pass a law
    today trying to speed up the auction, would there be notice and
    comment requirements that we would still have to fulfill?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, and there are just so many steps to our
    auction process. If you want to throw the auction process away,
    which I would not recommend at all, that can help do some of
    those things. And that is the thing. There are so many things
    that we go through that are intentionally beneficial to our
    programs that need to take time. And getting to October--and
    the Chairman rushed really hard to get the timing right on
    this. So I appreciate what he has done.
        Could it be expedited with the right incentives? Maybe you
    could pick up some time here, but I do not know. It might be
    more to expedite on the building side versus in terms of the
    auction side.
        The Chairman. OK. Now you have really--I think you have hit
    on something there. Senator Capito has been patient, but I am
    going to come back to this after she and other members who have
    not been recognized take their round. But this point I will
    reserve for round three and recognize my friend from West
    Virginia.

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

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of
    you for being here today and for your willingness to serve.
        Dr. Beck, we had a telephone conversation last week, and I
    found I did not get the clarity really in your answers that I
    was hoping we could get to. So I wanted to talk about your role
    in possible bureaucratic delays when it comes to PFAS. We
    talked about that. As I mentioned to you, this is a priority to
    me both out of respect for my state but also because we face
    challenges both in our industry but also in our military
    installations and for our future generations.
        So I had received assurances--and I mentioned this to you--
    from then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and then acting and
    now Administrator Andrew Wheeler that EPA would be advancing
    its PFAS action plan, and that would include an MCL, or maximum
    containment level, for PFAS in drinking water. The day of Mr.
    Wheeler's confirmation hearing, a politically timed press
    report stated that EPA and the administration actually had no
    plans to regulate PFAS in drinking water, which came as quite a
    shock to me.
        The EPA has belatedly advanced its PFAS action plan and the
    regulatory process to examine MCL for PFOA and PFAS in no small
    part due to my and others' insistence that we get this done.
    But valuable time has been lost, almost a year, due to this
    interagency dithering. At every turn, your name has been
    implicated in the media in the slow walking of the Federal
    response.
        So in the interest of time--and I know you have been asked
    some yes/no questions to this point. I have not been able to
    see the whole hearing, but I did see part of this. I would like
    to ask you some yes or no questions to outline your involvement
    in this area.
        So, yes or no. During your time at the EPA's Office of
    Chemical Safety, were you consulted on the EPA's draft PFAS
    action plan?
        Dr. Beck. Yes, but the Office of Chemical Safety and
    Pollution Prevention had a section in the PFAS action plan.
        Senator Capito. OK. So was it your view then that PFAS
    should be examined for potential regulation when you were in
    that office?
        Dr. Beck. Yes----
        Senator Capito. Yes.
        Dr. Beck.--chemistry across many offices.
        Senator Capito. OK. So in that capacity, were you consulted
    on the promulgation of an MCL for PFAS, including PFOA and
    PFAS?
        Dr. Beck. No. That was the Office of Water. That was not
    something from the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
    Prevention.
        Senator Capito. So those are two separate offices that were
    dealing with the same substance, but Water was dealing with
    the----
        Dr. Beck. MCL.
        Senator Capito.--MCL.
        Once you moved over to the NEC, did you handle oversight of
    interagency coordination on any PFAS policies? Yes or no.
        Dr. Beck. No, I did not handle oversight. I assisted with
    some coordination of information across agencies.
        Senator Capito. So did you work with the PFAS action plan
    in that capacity?
        Dr. Beck. Only in the sense that if EPA had information
    they wanted to share with the interagency, we facilitated those
    discussions.
        Senator Capito. And did that include setting an MCL for
    drinking water out of the Office of Water? Are you familiar
    with that?
        Dr. Beck. Yes. The MCL, since it is a regulatory
    determination, was handled by OMB in the Office of OIRA. So I
    did not coordinate that.
        Senator Capito. So basically kind of what you are telling
    me on the answers to the two questions on MCL is you have not
    had any involvement on setting an MCL for PFAS at all?
        Dr. Beck. I am not a decisionmaker in the Office of Water,
    and that is where those decisions are being made.
        Senator Capito. Did you advocate for slowing or halting the
    interagency review of the EPA's action plan in your role at the
    NEC?
        Dr. Beck. No.
        Senator Capito. Did you oppose setting an MCL for PFAS
    while at the NEC?
        Dr. Beck. I was not a decisionmaker at the NEC. So that was
    not something I commented on.
        Senator Capito. So if you have had no role in this slow
    policy response, which has been your response to this point,
    why do you think your name is continually implicated in this
    slowing of the regulatory agenda even well before your
    consideration before this nomination became public?
        Dr. Beck. I could only speculate. My speculation is that
    because I spent some time in industry, in addition to my time
    in government, they want to--I do not know. I think there is a
    concern that I spent time in industry so they want to say that
    industry is holding things up. But in my case, that has not
    been the case because I am not, for instance, a decisionmaker
    on the MCL. I am not a decision-maker on the Super Fund
    standard.
        Senator Capito. But you were in a position at your Office
    of Chemical Safety to, obviously, have PFAS directly in your
    portfolio. Correct?
        Dr. Beck. Through the new chemical program, yes.
        Senator Capito. And what was your involvement in that?
        Dr. Beck. Making sure that the new chemicals program runs
    effectively to review and evaluate new chemicals before they
    come to the market.
        Senator Capito. So were you reviewing at that point the
    legacy chemicals of these original chemicals?
        Dr. Beck. So currently the new chemicals program reviews
    new chemicals when they come in. So the legacy PFAS are not
    part of the new chemicals review.
        Senator Capito. They are not.
        Dr. Beck. I am sorry. It is confusing.
        Senator Capito. Yes, that is confusing.
        Dr. Beck. There is a new chemicals program and an existing
    chemicals program.
        Senator Capito. So if you have a new chemical that comes
    from a legacy chemical that possibly caused damage, which we
    know these have, they would come in under the existing chemical
    protocol?
        Dr. Beck. Yes, because it would be a breakdown product of
    an existing chemical. Yes.
        Senator Capito. All right. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Sullivan.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And there are so many nominees who have so many important
    issues before them that deal with my state that I could take 50
    minutes here, but I am going to try and be succinct, which is
    not one of my strong suits, but I will try anyway.
        Mr. Walsh, I really appreciated the issues that you and I
    talked about yesterday and just want to get your commitment on
    the record here. I pretty much got it yesterday, but I just
    want to do it for the official record. The NOAA hiring issue,
    the migration of people, scientists who work for NOAA, a great
    agency, but who have Alaska-oriented missions almost
    exclusively and are in other states. Can you work with me on
    that issue and also the issue of 100 vacancies that we have in
    Alaska and we need to get those filled soon?
        Mr. Walsh. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I can make that
    commitment. I look forward to working with you and your staff
    on those issues.
        Senator Sullivan. Excellent.
        And then the fish surveys, as we talked about yesterday, a
    huge issue in my state. I am very disappointed that--you know,
    look, we all got to be careful with regard to the pandemic and
    COVID-19, but it cannot be used by Federal agencies to say we
    are not going to do the work. The surveys are super important
    to my state. I think they are important to most Americans. Can
    I get your commitment to work with me on making sure that we
    have robust surveys for our fishing fleet next year?
        Mr. Walsh. Yes, Senator. I appreciated our conversation
    yesterday. I have already begun making some inquiries, and I
    look forward to getting back to you in the near term.
        Senator Sullivan. Excellent. Thank you.
        And then the home-porting of the NOAA vessel Fairweather in
    Ketchikan. I think my state, my legislature, the people of
    Alaska have bent over backward on that one. We would like to
    close the deal on that finally, working together with NOAA and
    contributing our own resources as a state. Can I get your
    commitment to work with me on that one as well?
        Mr. Walsh. Yes, Senator. I look forward to working with
    you.
        Senator Sullivan. And then finally, the very illegal
    Russian embargo of seafood for not just Alaskan exporters but
    all Americans. The Russians have embargoed any seafood exports
    from America into Russia since 2014, and we let their seafood
    in and it is dominating. It is ridiculous. We got to change it.
    As the President has been focused on promoting and Secretary
    Ross has been promoting American seafood exports, can I get
    your commitment to work with my office and this committee to
    take a hard look at this very unfair, non-reciprocal approach
    that is really hurting the fishermen of the great State of
    Alaska, but really Mississippi, everywhere?
        Mr. Walsh. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you. I really appreciate
    that. I look forward to strongly supporting your nomination.
        Mr. Szabat, I appreciated our discussion on the phone as
    well. I am also a strong supporter of yours. I do want to get
    your commitment again in this hearing to work with my office
    and this committee on the issue of Alaska aviation safety and
    maybe even looking at the establishment of a safety office or
    an Alaska FAA Czar. You saw the NTSB report where, once again,
    it says that the fatality rates in the great State of Alaska
    are much too high and we need a strategy with the FAA to
    address that.
        Can I get your commitment to work with this committee, the
    FAA, and the Department of Transportation on addressing, which
    is really a matter of life and death issue for my state?
        Mr. Szabat. Senator, yes, you have my commitment.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. I appreciate that very much and I
    look forward to working with you not only on that but on roads.
    You know, every now and then, you have one of my Senate
    colleagues, unfortunately usually from the other side of the
    aisle, who cares all about roads in my state and essentially
    wants to stop building roads in my state because radical
    extreme environmental groups do not like roads in Alaska. It is
    ridiculous. I wish my Senate colleague could focus more on
    Massachusetts and New Mexico and other places like that, take
    care of their own states, not my state.
        But I need you to help me build roads. Can you help me
    build roads in the great State of Alaska? Every other state
    gets to build roads, but my state, for some reason, does not.
    You got radical guys on the other side saying do not build
    roads in Alaska. Can you help my state build roads?
        Mr. Szabat. Senator, yes, we can help your state build
    roads.
        Senator Sullivan. A strong commitment on that, please.
        Mr. Szabat. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. Thanks.
        And then finally, Mr. O'Rielly, I am very strongly
    supportive of your re-nomination to be the Commissioner. And
    again, I appreciated our discussion yesterday.
        I would like to just get your honest assessment of what has
    happened, unfortunately, with the current Chairman of the FCC
    where they clawed back, no transparency, opaqueness with regard
    to the Universal Services Fund, telehealth programs in my
    state. Our state was the state that invented that. And yet, we
    have a Chairman of the FCC that seems hell-bent on collapsing
    that system in Alaska.
        Can I get your views on whether you think that has been
    fair, whether you think that has been transparent, whether you
    think that has actually helped the people of my state, but also
    ways in which we can improve that going forward perhaps with a
    new Chairman?
        Mr. O'Rielly. So you got a lot there about my good friend,
    the Chairman.
        But to your point, I was not exactly fully supportive of
    the actions the Commission took. I did not have all the----
        Senator Sullivan. Do you think they were fair? Do you think
    they were transparent? Do you think the rules are even still
    understood by industry?
        Mr. O'Rielly. No.
        Senator Sullivan. It is unbelievable.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. Unbelievable. We have two years going,
    the Chairman made commitments to me on expediting appellate
    reviews. That has been ignored. They have made stuff up as they
    have gone along. It is really harming not just the people who
    deliver but some of the most needy people in America from some
    of the most, you know, economically disadvantaged communities
    in the country, and they do not seem to get it. But I would
    like you to comment, what we can do about it.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I have seen personally the benefits of
    telehealth in your state, and they should be the model. I have
    written a blog about this particular topic. It should be the
    model for the rest of the United States and how efficiently
    they were able to offer the services. I think there should be
    an opportunity to resolve any past disputes with the providers
    in Alaska.
        Senator Sullivan. In an expeditious manner. Correct?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely.
        Senator Sullivan. Not two and a half years of opaqueness
    and rope-a-doping my state.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Those words are yours, not mine, but I
    understand the point you are making. It should be done
    expeditiously.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I look forward to working with you
    and all of you.
        And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. O'Rielly, those questions were coming so rapid fire
    from my friend from Alaska. You may want to supplement those on
    the record.
        Senator Sullivan. We welcome that too.
        The Chairman. Thank you so much, Senator.
        Let us get back to where I think you were getting to on the
    RDOF fund, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
        Mr. O'Rielly. And can I correct one thing I said before? I
    apologize to the timing. I said we are getting close to a
    deadline. I have the CBRS deadline of June 19 on my head. The
    short form for RDOF phase one is July 1. It opens up the short
    window, and that runs two weeks to July 15. So I apologize
    confusing the two issues. We are two weeks away. The short form
    does have financial information.
        The Chairman. So the process with regard to the forms
    really begins next month.
        Mr. O'Rielly. July 1 we will open up the window. Right.
        The Chairman. OK. So I think the point you were trying to
    get to, though, Mr. Commissioner, is that it is not so much
    when the auction is but when the deployment of high-speed fixed
    broadband networks in rural America occurs. And so I am going
    to pick up where we left off there.
        Once the auction is done--this is phase one of the auction,
    and there are other phases. But I was disappointed to learn
    recently how time-consuming the buildout of the actual networks
    would be once the auction is over. Can you discuss that?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, the buildouts--you know, we have
    milestones in our rules in terms of how much and how quickly
    you are to build out to be able to continue to receive funding
    or if there are penalty obligations. We have tried to match
    them up with what we think that a provider can actually do.
    There are certainly some that are able to move faster and get
    their buildout done quicker.
        The Chairman. OK. Well, just give us an idea, though,
    Commissioner O?Rielly, about the time-frame because I do not
    want to raise the expectations of the consumer, raise the
    expectations of the public.
        Mr. O'Rielly. The program, as I remember--it is a 6-year
    total buildout. You have time to get to all the areas within
    the winning portions in 6 years. You have milestones to meet in
    terms of percentages along the way to get there. It is a 10-
    year funding. I will be corrected, I am sure, by my good staff,
    but I believe it is a 6-year buildout. There may be a mechanism
    and a way to expedite some of that buildout time, and that
    would be something I would be happy to work with you on.
        The Chairman. You know, I think there is, but I think you
    have answered correctly under what we have now and how much we
    have now. I think members of the public are going to be
    disappointed at the 10-year period and the 6-year buildout.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Let me give you an example of an issue. So I
    was reading--Mississippi--the neighbor gentleman, Mr. Prissley,
    was talking about a pilot program from the co-op in Mississippi
    that they are going to try. And then his point was that if they
    found that it was beneficial, their buildout would be 4 to 6
    years to get fiber. So it does take a while physically to get
    out the broadband to consumers, but there may be a way to
    shorten that window.
        The Chairman. OK. Well, I think there is.
        Mr. O'Rielly. OK.
        The Chairman. And I may have a proposal. I think this is
    going to require more resources. But frankly, this is the
    important aspect of it. The auction in October, the process of
    which has already sort of begun, is apparently what we are
    saddled with. But once the phase one auction occurs, I think we
    can help you with some extra funds and some incentive from the
    administration on a bipartisan basis to move this ahead. So I
    hope you will work with us there and the rest of the Commission
    on a bipartisan basis. I think you will be interested in some
    ideas that we have.
        Go ahead and say what you would like to say about that, and
    then we will move on to one other topic.
        Mr. O'Rielly. I would say I certainly commit to you.
    Absolutely.
        The Chairman. Good, good, because we need to move it faster
    once the auction is over. The build-out is the key.
        But Senator Cantwell I think realized she was about to get
    into a lengthy process on asking about Ligado, and so I think
    that is probably worth talking about. And perhaps Mr. Szabat
    had made a comment, but Commissioner O'Rielly and Mr. Walsh had
    not. So I am going to let both of you comment on this, and this
    may be an opportunity to do what we have had a frustration
    about in other forums and that is hear both sides sitting at
    the same table.
        Bands like 24 gigahertz and spectrum assigned to Ligado
    have generated high profile disputes within the administration
    at the highest levels, you know, cabinet secretaries on
    different sides of this issue.
        In order to achieve widespread 5G deployment, the FCC will
    likely have to continue to seek ways to increase spectrum
    efficiency and reallocate spectrum to federal and non-federal
    4spectrum uses.
        So let us begin with you, Commissioner O'Rielly. Talk about
    what you have done on a 5 to 0 vote with regard to Ligado. And
    what assurance can you give us that this is not going to
    interfere with GPS? And that those entities that have had to
    change their equipment and undergo an expenditure there will be
    made whole by the amended use of the spectrum by Ligado.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I appreciate the views of my good
    friend, Mr. Szabat. We actually--the Commission--have to
    balance all those points, which I think he said. We have to
    balance all of the record and all of the different concerns. We
    do not advocate on behalf of one equity.
        And I think what the Commission did in Ligado--and though I
    was not the lead voice or the lead supporter of the issue--I
    think the Commission put forward a license modification that is
    well defended by the record that is presented of a 17-year
    legal battle. And I think--I believe by reading the document,
    it provides sufficient protections on the front end, in the
    middle, and at the end to address the concerns that have been
    raised.
        I was concerned about the hearing that I watched on this
    issue in a different committee when they started talking about
    what bands or what protections were needed for what pieces, and
    they were far outside of the GPS licenses where they thought
    the protection was needed. And that is a concern for me because
    that is not what the licenses provide for. And so what Ligado
    was trying to do was defended by the record and supported by
    the information that we made a vote on. We have difficulty
    finding commonality on a lot of issues, but here we were able
    to do so.
        The Chairman. OK. Is this going to interfere with GPS or
    not?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I do not believe, based on the
    recommendations that have been provided in the material that it
    will lead to interference with GPS to the degree that it would
    cause a harmful interference. I do think that the mitigation
    tools that we put in the item will be helpful if absolutely
    necessary. So I think it is a situation where we addressed it
    up front and in the middle and at the end. And so the end has a
    number of mechanisms, including Ligado doing street drives to
    make sure, to do sensing to see if it causes interference.
        The Chairman. And at that point then, would we know who
    would be entitled to compensation from Ligado for any
    expenditures that would need to be made?
        Mr. O'Rielly. The item does go through that issue in terms
    of who would be eligible, and we would have to see exactly
    who--if it were to come to case, which I hope not to be the
    case--if it were to come to that case, we would have to see
    who--for lack of a better word, whose ox is being gored. I do
    not think that is going to be a circumstance that is going to
    happen, but we would have to see when the information and data
    is presented.
        The Chairman. Mr. Walsh, would you like to comment on this
    issue?
        Mr. Walsh. Certainly. Our NTIA has long expressed the
    widely held view across the Executive Branch that Ligado's
    proposed terrestrial operations in historically satellite
    spectrum bands pose an unacceptable risk to the critical GPS
    service that is relied upon for our national defense, homeland
    security, aviation safety, public safety, and economic growth.
        NTIA in May did file two petitions with the FCC requesting
    a stay and reconsideration of the decision to conditionally
    grant Ligado's applications. NTIA's positions at a high level
    contend on behalf of the Executive Branch that Ligado's
    prospective operations threaten to harm Federal Government
    users of GPS, along with a variety of other public and private
    stakeholders.
        The Chairman. How will that harm manifest itself?
        Mr. Walsh. I am sorry. I missed that, Senator.
        The Chairman. How will the harm occur? What will the harm
    be?
        Mr. Walsh. Interference, Senator.
        The Chairman. OK.
        Well, let me ask you both. I am sitting here in this room
    today and I hear the air conditioning whirring a little bit. I
    think all of you can do that. I am told that is interference,
    but according to the FCC, we are still able to have this
    hearing and it is not harmful interference. Mr. Walsh, am I
    getting somewhere in the distinction between interference and
    harmful interference? I will let you go first and then the
    Commissioner after that.
        Mr. Walsh. Certainly, Senator, there is a distinction
    between interference and harmful interference. It is NTIA's--on
    behalf of the Executive Branch, NTIA has filed their petition
    stating that there is harmful interference.
        The Chairman. OK. So in practical terms so the listening
    public can know what we are talking about, what would that be?
    Who would be a user and what would be the harmful interference,
    and how would that affect the user and the American public?
        Mr. Walsh. Senator, most of that is set forth in the
    petition. I would be happy to take that question for the record
    and give you a detailed, technical answer.
        The Chairman. Oh, dear. OK. And I realize I did not notice
    both of you that we would get into a back and forth on that.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, what response would you have to
    that?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Two parts.
        One, you are absolutely right on the harmful interference.
        Two, I am not sure that my fellow colleague at the table is
    right to say that NTIA has been uniformly opposed to the
    situation. My conversations with multiple people suggest that
    NTIA has had a different viewpoint over the time period, and it
    was not until the dismissal of an Administrator that the
    position was as it is now.
        But to your point, I would say if harmful interference is
    demonstrated, then the item has a requirement actually a kill
    switch, that the Ligado system be turned off.
        The Chairman. How would that occur? Let us let the public
    know what we are talking about. This may be the first time some
    of our listeners have even heard this.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Sure.
        The Chairman. You have got somebody using GPS and it is a
    very important part of our economy.
        Mr. O'Rielly. And it is likely the device itself will
    likely either have data missing, you know, not receptive, or
    the information will be inaccurate.
        The Chairman. At what point will we know this?
        Mr. O'Rielly. We should know--you know, assuming that
    Ligado actually does develop into something, which is something
    for the markets to determine, but if it does develop into what
    their plans say they would like to do, we should know fairly
    soon the practical implications. We believe that the data
    represented and presented does not lead to that situation, but
    when it gets to sort of the real-world circumstances, we will
    know pretty quickly given all of the user community who has
    been so outraged by this issue. There is not one of them that
    is not going to put their hands up and say I have got a
    problem.
        The Chairman. Would this be done in a test run at the
    outset there, or could someone be using GPS and be in a life-
    threatening situation and the harmful interference occur at
    that point and risk life or limb?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I think coming operational will be part
    of the last phase, which I talked about, all of the different
    mitigation tools that we have, including the kill switch.
        The Chairman. So that is part of the rollout before it is
    ever----
        Mr. O'Rielly. The rollout is going to be the turning on the
    system, and you will know. You should know fairly quickly
    whether there is an ongoing issue.
        The Chairman. Well, I am going to let all three of you--OK,
    Mr. Szabat, do you want to weigh in? Because I was not here
    when Senator Cantwell asked the question. So I will let you
    respond if you would care to join in.
        Mr. Szabat. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
        The Chairman. And, Dr. Beck, I am going to leave you off
    the hook on this one.
        Dr. Beck. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Mr. Szabat.
        Mr. Szabat. Thank you, Senator, and I will try to be brief.
        From our testing, we see certainly that there is harmful
    interference in at least three sub-categories of GPS use: hyper
    vision surveying, anything space-based, and the timing sector.
    So banks, locks and dams, a whole subsector of the economy
    depends on accurate timing. These things are most sensitive and
    would be most interfered with most often and at the most
    harmful level from Ligado's proposed deployment strategy.
        At a middle level are what I call the general navigation,
    you know, GPS in cars, general aviation. There would be
    interference, and that may or may not be harmful interference
    depending on how close they get to a transmitter, which again
    by plan could be 433 meters apart, and how close and how often
    they are in conjunction with these transmitters.
        And then finally, there are the areas that Ligado, to their
    credit, has protected in their plan. So we believe that
    cellular services and certified commercial aviation services by
    our testing would not receive harmful interference.
        The Chairman. OK. Well, what about, though, these first
    things you mentioned? What about this guard band that is part
    of the unanimous proposal of the FCC? Does that not help in
    those three situations that you mentioned initially?
        Mr. Szabat. Senator, thank you.
        We believe it helps but not enough. The challenge, as Mr.
    O'Rielly has pointed out, is when GPS was deployed, it took
    advantage of the adjacent quiet sector, which was used for
    satellite communications. And so the most sensitive, the most
    accurate GPS receivers receive signals from all over that
    adjacent sector, which is now proposed to be sold to Ligado for
    them to use for broadband. So even with the guard band, those--
    and ironically it is the most expensive, most accurate of our
    GPS systems would, we believe, not be able to operate.
        The Chairman. So give me then of these first instances you
    mentioned--give us an example in practical terms that even I
    could understand what might happen that you are objecting to.
        Mr. Szabat. So on the most sensitive side--I will just use
    a common example. On the most sensitive side, you have
    surveying equipment that are used by companies, by government
    agencies, and in the best case, they would be jammed so you
    would get no signal. In the worst case, there would be
    interference. And so they would be coming back to say, you
    know, this pipeline is located here or this road curve should
    be built here, and instead it would be giving a false signal.
    It would be off by some number of meters or hundreds of meters.
        The Chairman. Now, would we be able to determine that
    fairly early in the process?
        Mr. Szabat. That I do not know, and I would defer back to
    the engineers and technical experts.
        The Chairman. Well, Commissioner O'Rielly, what about that
    example? We finally got a real concrete example here, surveying
    equipment.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Right. If harmful interference is causing the
    issues to surveying, that is what I mentioned the mitigation
    techniques are intended to resolve fairly instantaneous to
    turning on the system. I think the difficulty is that our
    experts did not agree with the Department of Transportation's
    testing methodology, and they think that they have properly set
    both the power limits and the guard band to preserve the
    surrounding GPS.
        I think my colleague at this table anyway makes the point
    that they have taken advantage of neighboring spectrum bands--
    --
        The Chairman. Yes. I did pick up on that.
        Mr. O'Rielly.--that are not part of their license. And that
    is a problem. And we are trying to address spectrum efficiency
    with what is our responsibility.
        The Chairman. Mr. Walsh and Mr. Szabat, is there a way to
    work this out? Is there a way for the experts--as you said, Mr.
    Szabat, the technical expertise--to get together and work this
    out? Because we need the 5G. And I will let you go first, Mr.
    Walsh. Is there a way for people of good will on both sides to
    sit down and resolve this?
        Mr. Walsh. I would hope so, Senator, but I will say that
    the position of the Executive Branch on this, as articulated by
    NTIA in its petition, was uniform. There are critical military
    applications in GPS. So there is a lot to be done, but we are
    always willing to work with our colleagues.
        The Chairman. Mr. Szabat.
        Mr. Szabat. And, Senator, I would add I am an optimist, but
    I regret to say in this case I believe that physics stand
    between the people of good will. I do not see a way in which
    anything approaching the Ligado proposal can succeed without
    interference with GPS. So in this case, again, I mentioned at
    the very beginning to Senator Cantwell's question I do not envy
    the position that FCC is in because at the end of the day,
    there is going to be a winner or a loser. We are either going
    to have more broadband at the expense of GPS, or we are going
    to protect GPS at the expense of a fourth broadband system.
        The Chairman. Mr. Walsh, what would the military
    implications be? What would be an example?
        Mr. Walsh. I would be hesitant to speak about that here at
    this----
        The Chairman. And, again, I have sprung this on you.
        Somebody has got to wind this up. Mr. O'Rielly, it is 2 to
    1. So I will give you the last word.
        Mr. O'Rielly. And they are still outmatched. Right?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. O'Rielly. But to your point, look it, I cannot commit
    the Commission's resources. I am merely a Commissioner. But if
    there is a way to resolve this issue, if necessary, then I
    would think that would be advantageous. After 17 years of
    working on this matter, I think the Commission came to a
    reasonable outcome that is highly defensible.
        I look forward to reading NTIA's petition, which I have not
    done so yet. I will read the petition to see if it presents new
    data or evidence that the Commission should consider as
    required under our rules for a recon petition.
        I would like to believe that we can move forward, and we
    have done so in a very thoughtful manner. The Office of
    Engineering and Technology is highly regarded at the FCC. There
    are many times that I would like to turn them in a direction
    and go further, and they will stop me as well. So their
    recommendation on a landing spot for this item comes with heavy
    weight in my opinion.
        The Chairman. Well, thanks to all five of you.
        And I am required by the Committee to ask one final
    question. To all of our nominees--and I will need a yes or no
    answer--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
    important policy issues?
        Mr. Szabat?
        Mr. Szabat. Yes.
        The Chairman. Commissioner O'Rielly?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        The Chairman. Dr. Beck?
        Dr. Beck. Yes.
        The Chairman. Mr. Walsh?
        Mr. Walsh. Yes.
        The Chairman. And Ms. Toman?
        Ms. Toman. Yes.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        And let me consult with staff.
        [Pause.]
        The Chairman. Let me also state that the hearing record
    will remain open for two weeks. And you three gentlemen who
    have commented on Ligado may very much want to supplement your
    answers. 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 on Tuesday, June 30, 2020. The Committee asks the
    witnesses that upon your receipt of any questions for the
    record, you submit your written answers to the Committee as
    soon as possible, but no later than close of business on
    Tuesday, July 14, 2020.
        And with that and with the thanks of the entire Committee,
    this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

          Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
                                Hon. Joel Szabat
        Question. Mr. Szabat, I want to bring to your attention a project
    that I have long championed and a project that is incredibly important
    to rural communities in Missouri. North Central Missouri is facing a
    critical water shortage which would have a devastating impact on the
    lives of families, farmers, and business owners in the region.
        The East Locust Creek Watershed project, which has been in the
    making over the last 20 years, is a joint partnership with Federal
    partners, the North Central Missouri Regional Water Commission
    (NCMRWC), and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to establish
    a multi-purpose reservoir with the primary purpose of providing an
    abundant source of low-cost and safe water for residents in 10 rural
    counties in North Central Missouri.
        This project is multifaceted and encompasses several agencies at
    the Federal level including the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Rural Development,
    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Transportation.
    Last year, the Department of Transportation awarded a $13.5 million
    Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant for
    the East Locust Creek Reservoir Project to relocate roads surrounding
    the reservoir and install road safety improvements. I understand there
    are ongoing interagency discussions with DOT regarding the finalization
    of this BUILD grant. Can I receive a commit from you that, if
    confirmed, you will work to help expedite the interagency clearance of
    this critical infrastructure grant and utilize all flexibilities to
    ensure that this grant gets the necessary work implemented on the
    ground?
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
                                Hon. Joel Szabat
        Question. Emerging technologies--such as tunneling, hyperloop, and
    autonomous vehicles--represent a giant leap forward for the future of
    transportation in the United States. In January, I commended Secretary
    Chao and the Department of Transportation (DOT) for establishing the
    Non-Traditional and Emerging Transportation Technology (NETT) Council.
    The NETT Council plays a critical role in providing guidance and
    leadership when resolving regulatory gaps that may impede the
    deployment of new technology. I believe that it is important to foster
    a regulatory environment that encourages and promotes new and
    innovative transportation technologies. Mr. Szabat, if confirmed, in
    your role as Under Secretary of Transportation Policy do you commit to
    the continuing the Non-Traditional and Emerging Transportation
    Technology (NETT) Council and their work on identifying the resolving
    regulatory gaps that may impede the deployment of new technology? If
    confirmed, what steps do you see that are needed at DOT in order to
    foster an environment that promotes innovative technologies rather than
    stifling or impeding them?
        Answer. Yes, I am committed to the important, continuing work of
    the NETT Council. One of the most important things we can do as a
    Department is to continue to listen to stakeholders on how the
    Department can best serve innovators. To that effect, the Department
    will establish a framework for innovators to engage with the NETT
    Council and continue to explore what sorts of resources innovators may
    find most helpful as they navigate the Department's authorities and
    regulations.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ron Johnson to
                                Hon. Joel Szabat
        Question. Section 514 of the FY 2018 Coast Guard Authorization Act
    directed the Department of Transportation to establish requirements for
    a land-based, resilient, and reliable alternative timing system and to
    provide Congress an implementation plan for such a system. Both efforts
    were expected to be completed by June of 2019. This date recognized the
    economic and national security significance of fielding a viable timing
    signal in the event of a GPS disruption. We are now a year late. Can
    you commit to providing these deliverables, based on the Department's
    recent testing and finding, to the committee by July 31, 2020?
        Answer. I whole-heartedly agree on the importance of identifying
    and deploying resilient and reliable back-up position, navigation and
    timing systems to protect our economic security, as well as
    transportation safety, from the damage that would occur if GPS were
    effectively disrupted. It will be my highest priority to move forward
    with our deliverables. I hesitate to commit to a fixed date only
    because it is preferable to move forward with a whole-of-government
    plan, given the many equities that must be protected, rather than a
    report from a single Department.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                Hon. Joel Szabat
        Equity in Transportation. During the last Administration, the
    Department of Transportation undertook several activities designed to
    address transportation equity, including establishing the
    Transportation Equity Advisory Committee to provide comprehensive and
    inclusive advice to the Secretary to advance the principles of
    providing transportation opportunity and access to everyone. The
    Department also instituted a Local Labor Hiring Pilot Program to ensure
    that infrastructure investments in minority communities resulted in job
    creation within those communities. Unfortunately, this Administration
    ended both of those initiatives, with the pilot program disbanded
    before it could collect or analyze data to determine the program's
    impact.

        Question 1. What is the Department of Transportation doing to
    ensure equity in transportation opportunity and access?
        Answer. Transportation should be an avenue that eases social
    equality and upward economic mobility, not an obstacle. It should be
    accessible for all.
        One of the lessons we have learned during this pandemic is that new
    transportation technologies can be used to meet our most pressing
    needs. We want to harness the power of this innovation to enhance
    quality of life for all Americans.
        Disability advocates often remark that ``technology is the great
    equalizer.'' The Department has implemented accessible transportation
    initiatives that aim to harness the equalizing power of technology to
    improve mobility for people with disabilities. At the October 2019
    Access and Mobility for All Summit, Secretary Chao announced almost $50
    million in new initiatives as part of the Complete Trip Portfolio to
    develop and deploy innovations in technology and further interagency
    partnerships to improve mobility. This includes $3.5 million for the
    Federal Transit Administration's Mobility for All Pilot Program, $40
    million for the Complete Trip--ITS4US Deployment Program, and $5
    million for the Inclusive Design Challenge.
        We are prioritizing accessibility because 25.5 million Americans
    have disabilities that make traveling outside the home difficult,
    according to the 2017 National Household Travel Survey. While access to
    critical services, including medical care, is always vital, the
    pandemic has underscored the importance of meeting transportation
    needs. It is critical that people with disabilities have access to the
    transportation they need to get to workplaces, the doctor, the grocery
    store, and all the destinations they need and want to get to as the
    Nation recovers.
        This month we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the passage of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act. The spirit of the ADA was to ensure
    the full participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of
    community life. This landmark civil rights law has led to major
    improvements in transit systems across the country; however, there are
    still barriers that we need to address, such as access to on-demand,
    accessible transportation services. As we celebrate many
    accomplishments stemming from the ADA over the past three decades, we
    have an opportunity to build on its success.
        Perhaps one of the opportunities we're most hopeful about is
    automated vehicles. To help us all plan for the future of automation
    with the goal of developing truly inclusive approaches to passenger
    vehicles, the Department launched the Inclusive Design Challenge on
    April 21. The Inclusive Design Challenge is a prize competition that
    rewards innovative ideas and design solutions to enable people with
    disabilities to use automated vehicles independently. By using a prize
    competition format, DOT seeks to draw attention to the topic of
    passenger vehicle accessibility; encourage new cross-disciplinary
    collaborations; incentivize the development of new approaches and
    technologies to improve mobility; and tap into the creativity and
    knowledge of the disability community, researchers, advocates,
    manufacturers, and entrepreneurs.
        Our Federal partners at the Department of Labor are examining how
    accessible AVs can bridge transportation gaps and connect people with
    disabilities to jobs. This is more important now than ever as states,
    businesses and jobs reopen and the economy revs up. We partnered with
    DOL to host a series of 4 listening sessions with our Federal partners,
    AV companies, disability advocates, and researchers to gather
    information on this topic, and learned a lot about the transportation
    and accessibility needs of the disability community. There is a report
    with all the findings on the Office of Disability Employment Policy's
    website at dol.gov/odep. We listed this report as a resource for teams
    that are participating in the Inclusive Design Challenge.
        We believe that technology innovation holds the promise to make our
    lives better, so we are investing in solutions that can be used to make
    them work for all of us. We will be announcing some new projects in our
    accessibility initiative on July 30 at a virtual event we are planning
    to celebrate the 30th Anniversary of the ADA and we hope you can join
    us!

        Freight Policy. I am concerned that the Department of
    Transportation is not making freight policy a priority. It has been
    nearly five years since the enactment of the FAST Act, which required
    the Department to create a national strategic freight plan and develop
    a national freight network. However, it was not until earlier this year
    that the Department began requesting input from the public on a freight
    plan.

        Question 1. Does the Department need additional resources to focus
    on freight policy?
        Answer. No. At the direction of Secretary Chao, the Department has
    added Policy staff in the last year, several of whom are focused on the
    freight portfolio. I recognize that developing a truly intermodal
    national freight plan, and identifying the national network, are of
    crucial importance. The main reason for our prior delay was the need to
    allow every State to complete its State Freight Plan and provide
    additional opportunities for public input.

        Question 2. When will the national strategic freight plan and the
    national freight network be finalized?
        Answer. The Department is working to complete the National Freight
    Strategic Plan by later this year. In December, the Department
    requested information from States, local governments, and other
    stakeholders to inform the development of the national freight
    strategy. The completion of the National Freight Strategic Plan will
    directly lead into the identification of the National Multimodal
    Freight Network.

        Executive Branch Concerns with FCC's Ligado Decision. The
    Departments of Commerce and Transportation (along with the entirety of
    the executive branch) believe that the Federal Communications
    Commission's (``FCC's'') recent approval of Ligado's terrestrial
    wireless plans threatens the Nation's global positioning system
    (``GPS'') on which the safety and security of everything from civil
    aviation to military operations to weather forecasting rely. The FCC
    rejected the executive branch's concerns and related technical studies
    both from the government and the private sector showing that the
    precision and effectiveness of GPS could be impaired. Instead, the FCC
    relied on competing technical studies (some of which were funded by
    Ligado), and its own conclusion that the government studies measured
    the wrong things, to allow Ligado to move forward with its plans. Yet
    in its decision to allow Ligado to move forward, the FCC acknowledged
    that its ``analysis [in the order] should not be construed to say there
    is no potential for harmful interference to any GPS device currently in
    operation in the marketplace.''

        Question 1. Did the FCC quantify the number of receivers that would
    be negatively impacted by its decision, or analyze the impact of its
    decision on the risk this interference could cause to safety of life or
    property?
        Answer. Not to my knowledge. One of the primary concerns of the
    Department of Transportation, discussed in the Executive Branch's
    reconsideration petition to the FCC, is that FCC's Ligado decision does
    not account for the significant damage Ligado's deployment would impose
    on the broad swathes of the economy that rely on position, navigation
    and timing devices. Nor can we see that the FCC sufficiently accounted
    for the impact of its decision upon emergency response systems and
    other applications used to promote transportation safety and
    efficiency.

        Question 2. Did the Department of Transportation or Commerce
    provide data in its study on the percentage of GPS receivers that would
    suffer interference from Ligado's terrestrial operations at the power
    levels recently authorized by the FCC? Did the FCC ask for such
    information?
        Answer. Yes. The Department of Transportation conducted engineering
    studies that identified what interference would do to a range of
    different types of receivers. For each type, the Department identified
    interference up to total `loss-of-lock' at the thresholds of 10
    percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of the types of receivers tested
    (high precision, timing, general location and navigation, general
    aviation, space-based, and cellular). This data is included in the DOT
    GPS Adjacent Band Compatibility Assessment Final Report and was
    provided to the FCC when the report was published in April 2018.

        Question 3. Do you agree that in high-profile spectrum decisions,
    particularly ones which create potential risk to safety of life, that
    it is in the greater public interest to reach consensus among and
    between the FCC and the expert Federal agencies on aviation,
    transportation safety, and national defense?
        Answer. Yes. In the reconsideration petition and stay request in
    the Ligado proceeding, DOT and the rest of the Executive Branch have
    called upon the FCC to pause its decisionmaking process and revisit the
    important issues involved here. DOT remains ready to work with FCC,
    other agencies, and other stakeholders to address the critical national
    interests at stake.

        The Jones Act. The Jones Act is one of the foundational American
    maritime laws, supporting 650,000 jobs in the U.S. and generating $150
    billion in economic activity. Secretary Chao has been a vocal proponent
    of the Jones Act as Secretary of Transportation.

        Question 1. In your role as Assistant Secretary for Policy, will
    you also take steps to ensure the continuation of the Jones Act?
        Answer. Yes

        Airline Passenger Consumer Protections. In the 2016 Federal
    Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization, Congress specifically
    directed DOT to promulgate a rule requiring refunds for delayed checked
    baggage. The rule is now almost three years overdue, and consumers
    continue to lose thousands of dollars every day that DOT ignores its
    statutory mandate to protect consumers.\1\ Similarly, in the 2018 FAA
    reauthorization, DOT was directed to require airlines to refund
    ancillary fees for products and services that are not delivered.\2\
    This requirement is almost one year overdue and, again, DOT has taken
    no action to protect consumers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, sec. 2305,
    P.L. 114-21 (July 15, 2016) (stating that the ``Secretary of
    Transportation shall issue final regulations'' requiring air carriers
    to refund fees for delayed checked baggage no later than July 16,
    2017).
        \2\ FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, sec. 421, P.L. 115-254 (Oct.
    5, 2018) (stating that the ``Secretary of Transportation shall
    promulgate regulations that require each covered air carrier to
    promptly provide a refund to a passenger of any ancillary fees paid for
    services related to air travel that the passenger does not receive''
    not later than Oct. 6, 2019).

        Question 1. When will DOT complete the delayed checked baggage
    refund rule and the ancillary fee refund rule?
        Answer. The Department is scheduled to issue this month the Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on refunds for delayed checked baggage
    fees and ancillary service fees. More specifically, the NPRM would
    require airlines to refund checked baggage fees when they fail to
    deliver the bags in a timely manner as provided by the FAA Extension,
    Safety and Security Act of 2016. The NPRM would also require airlines
    to promptly provide a refund to a passenger of any ancillary fees paid
    for services that the passenger did not receive, as provided by the FAA
    Reauthorization Act of 2018. The rulemaking schedule is available in
    the Administration's Spring 2020 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
    Deregulatory Actions.

        FAA Information Regarding the 737 MAX Crashes. Following the two
    crashes of Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in Indonesia and Ethiopia, Members
    of Congress, including myself and members of the Commerce Committee,
    have made repeated requests for information from the Federal Aviation
    Administration regarding that agency's decision to certify the model as
    a 737 derivative. Specifically, these parties have requested un-
    redacted versions of the Transport Airplane Risk Assessment Methodology
    (TARAM) and any risk analyses or other assessments conducted prior to
    and after the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines crashes. To date, we have
    not received a satisfactory reply from the FAA or DOT.

        Question 1. When will DOT and the FAA comply with the Congressional
    requests for information regarding the FAA's certification activities
    for the 737 MAX, including any TARAMs, risk analyses, or similar
    assessments?
        Answer. FAA provided the unredacted TARAM in response to the
    Committee's request prior to Administrator Dickson's hearing on June
    17, 2020. A copy of the TARAM is attached for your reference. FAA has
    and will continue to provide documents and information in response to
    requests from the Committee.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
                                Hon. Joel Szabat
        Question 1. As you know, our dependence on GPS for Positioning,
    Navigation, and Timing (PNT) is a single point of failure for critical
    infrastructure. To address this security concern, Congress passed and
    the President signed the National Timing Resilience and Security Act of
    2018, which I sponsored. The law requires the Department of
    Transportation (DOT) to provide for the establishment, sustainment, and
    operation of a backup timing signal for GPS. The statue further
    establishes an implementation deadline of no later than two years from
    the date of the law's enactment.
        If confirmed, will you devote and prioritize sufficient
    administrative and leadership resources to implementing the National
    Timing Resilience and Security Act?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 2. Although the DOT is currently behind on its interim
    implementation deadlines, are you committed, and is the DOT prepared,
    to ensuring the overall law is executed as written and fully
    implemented by Congress's statutory deadline at the end of this year?
    If not, why not? And if not by the end of this year, what is the DOT's
    schedule for having the backup system in operation?
        Answer. Both the Department and I are committed to executing the
    overall law as written, insofar as it is in our power to do so. If
    there is a delay in putting a backup system in operation, it will be
    because the importance of GPS cuts across every sector of the economy,
    and the development and deployment of a backup deserves a coordinated
    whole-of-government response.

        Question 3. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the DOT
    immediately initiated steps to protect the security of airline
    passengers and aviation workers. By contrast, during the COVID-19
    crisis, the DOT has stepped back and left questions about how to
    protect the health of passengers and employees up to a patchwork quilt
    of inconsistent and often conflicting policies introduced by individual
    airlines, airports, and states.
        Do you believe the DOT has the authority to set baseline health and
    safety standards for airlines and airports? If no: What authority would
    it need? If yes: What specific steps will DOT take to set such
    standards, especially as more restrictions are being lifted and airline
    travel is slowly increasing?
        Answer. The Department of Transportation, specifically the FAA,
    unequivocally has the authority to set safety standards for airlines
    and airports. Across the Department, safety is our primary mission.
    Both before and during the spread of COVID-19, our position has been
    consistent: directions and guidance for aircraft safety will come from
    FAA; directions and guidance for contagious diseases best comes from
    the medical professionals and public health experts at NIH, CDC and
    elsewhere in HHS.

        Question 4. To address the patchwork of policies for air travel, I
    have introduced the Ensuring Health Safety in the Skies Act (S.3681).
    This legislation instructs the Departments of Transportation, Health
    and Human Services, and Homeland Security to establish a joint task
    force--advised by aviation, security and public health experts--that
    will develop recommended requirements, plans, and guidelines to ensure
    safe and healthy air travel during and after the coronavirus pandemic.
    Do you support the goals of my legislation?
        Answer. Yes, I support the goals of ensuring safe and healthy air
    travel.

        Question 5. In an op-ed in USA Today in May, the Secretary of
    Transportation wrote about the importance of airlines following Federal
    requirements to provide refunds to consumers when their flights are
    canceled or substantially changed. The Secretary went on to write:
    ``Many Americans, who canceled their reservations based on COVID-19
    health concerns, are seeking refunds for the non-refundable tickets
    they purchased but could not use . . . They deserve fair treatment.''
    However, subsequent reports indicate that the problem persists and
    consumers are not receiving refunds for unused airline tickets.
        Is it unfair for the airlines to deny travelers refunds when they
    proactively cancel their own ticket due to concerns around COVID-19?
        Answer. Secretary Chao has been vocal about the urgent need to
    refund airline passengers, including passengers who choose not to
    travel due to safety or health concerns related to the COVID-19 public
    health emergency. However, under current law, passengers who purchase a
    non-refundable ticket on a flight that is still being operated without
    a significant change, but would like to change or cancel their
    reservation, are generally not entitled to a refund or a travel voucher
    for future use on the airline. This is true even if the passenger
    wishes to change or cancel due to concerns related to the COVID-19
    public health emergency. Although not required, many airlines are
    providing travel credits or vouchers that can be used for future travel
    for those passengers electing to cancel their travel due to health or
    safety concerns related to COVID-19. The Department strongly encourages
    airlines to do even more and offer passengers the option of a refund,
    instead of a voucher, as many consumers may be under enormous financial
    strain given the COVID-19 public health emergency.

        Question 6. What does the DOT consider ``fair'' treatment when it
    comes to airline refunds?
        Answer. Airlines have an obligation to provide a refund to a
    ticketed passenger when the carrier cancels or significantly changes
    the passenger's flight, and the passenger chooses not to accept an
    alternative offered by the carrier. The Department considers a practice
    of offering a refund to a ticketed passenger when an airline cancels a
    flight or significantly changes the passenger's flight to be ``fair''
    treatment of passengers.

        Question 7. If the DOT finds that airlines are not treating
    consumers fairly, what steps will the agency take to address these
    refund issues?
        Answer. Given the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 public
    health emergency on the aviation industry, the Department's Office of
    Aviation Consumer Protection is exercising its enforcement discretion
    and first providing carriers and ticket agents an opportunity to become
    compliant. However, the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection will
    take enforcement action as necessary and appropriate. Enforcement
    action may include, for example, seeking corrective actions through
    warning letters, issuing consent orders (which may include fines), or
    filing an enforcement proceeding in front of an Administrative Law
    Judge.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Cory Gardner to
                               Dr. Nancy B. Beck
        Question. PFAS is a serious issue in Colorado for communities like
    Colorado Springs where water has been contaminated through years of
    PFAS exposure. I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the
    aisle to address the risks posed by these harmful chemicals including
    introducing legislation to limit PFAS use, supporting efforts to
    provide resources for PFAS cleanup, and advocating for additional
    research dollars toward studying harmful effects of PFAS chemicals. Do
    you believe that PFAS chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS, pose any
    hazardous risks to human health? Do you believe the Federal government
    has an important role to play in protecting the public from exposure to
    harmful chemicals? If confirmed, how do you intend to use the Consumer
    Product Safety Commission's authorities in law to keep my Colorado
    constituents safe from hazardous products?
        Answer. PFAS chemicals pose hazardous risks to human health, and I
    do strongly believe that the Federal government has a very important
    role to play in protecting the public from harmful exposures.
        I have spent my career committed to promoting public safety through
    policies supported by objective and transparent scientific analysis. If
    confirmed to serve on the Commission, I would make it a priority to
    ensure that CPSC takes appropriate and timely action to protect the
    public from risks, including from PFAS. Specifically, I would ask the
    Commission to inventory known and suspected consumer products
    containing PFAS. I would then work collaboratively with the CPSC staff
    experts and other Commissioners to make sure the Commission is guided
    by the scientific information, the data, and our legal obligations to
    make timely decisions to ensure that robust protections are put in
    place to protect the public, including our most vulnerable populations.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                             Michael J. Walsh, Jr.
        The Pacific Salmon Treaty is a Federal obligation to Canada. Alaska
    has repeatedly taken harvest reductions through the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty process, and worked hard to accommodate ESA concerns. FY20
    appropriations provided $35.2 million dollars (an additional $20
    million above FY19) to NOAA/NMFS for Pacific Salmon Treaty-related
    work. Of that, NMFS has proposed to allocate 92 percent of that money
    to themselves for ESA priorities.
        Additionally, even with this huge amount of money going to ESA
    obligations, Wild Fish Conservancy has sued on ESA violations perceived
    to originate from Southeast Alaska salmon fisheries. Under NOAA's
    current approach, failing to supply adequate funding does not reflect
    the terms agreed to by both countries under the Pacific Salmon Treaty,
    nor does it meet the funding commitments of the Biological Opinion
    prepared by the NMFS West Coast Region.

        Question 1. Why has NOAA continually not included Pacific Salmon
    Treaty obligation funding in their budget, instead relying on
    alternative sources, to meet requirements that are clearly a Federal
    responsibility for ESA, and which the United States has agreed to?
        Answer. The President's FY 2021 Budget requests $16.2 million to
    implement the Pacific Salmon Treaty. This represents an increase of
    $5.0 million from FY 2020 President's Request. This increase reflects
    NOAA and the Department's efforts to prioritize Pacific Salmon Treaty
    requirements within the Administration's FY 2021 Budget Request. NMFS
    will continue to support the ongoing Pacific Salmon Treaty
    implementation and provide personnel support to the Pacific Salmon
    Commission's technical committees, as well as a broad range of salmon
    stock assessment and fishery monitoring programs that produce
    information required to implement Pacific Salmon Treaty provisions.

        Question 2. How does the large amount of PCSRF funding allocated to
    Pacific Northwest relate to meeting the Pacific Salmon Treaty
    obligations? Why are other sources of funding, such as those
    appropriated by state governments, or appropriated through the Pacific
    Coastal Salmon Recover Fund (PCSRF) not accounted for in the United
    States Pacific Salmon Treaty obligations?
        Answer. Contributions from these other sources, such as the Pacific
    Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and recent funding by Washington State to
    increase hatchery production of Chinook salmon for Southern Resident
    killer whale prey, may contribute to the anticipated benefits of the
    conservation program considered as part of the action and environmental
    baseline evaluated in the following three biological opinions.
        In April 2019, NMFS completed a biological opinion on the
    delegation of management authority to Alaska for some Southeast Alaska
    fisheries. In May 2020, NMFS completed two additional biological
    opinions on the 2020 Pacific Fishery Management Council ocean salmon
    fisheries, and on the 2020 Puget Sound salmon fisheries. The Southeast
    Alaska biological opinion evaluated the effects of discretionary
    domestic actions associated with implementing the new Pacific Salmon
    Treaty agreement on species listed under the Endangered Species Act as
    well as a conservation program for threatened Puget Sound Chinook
    salmon and endangered Southern Resident killer whales. This
    conservation program includes conservation hatcheries for critical
    Puget Sound Chinook salmon stocks, hatchery production for increased
    prey for SRKW, as well as habitat improvements. The conservation
    program was also evaluated as part of the environmental baseline in
    NMFS' subsequent biological opinions on the Pacific Fishery Management
    Council ocean salmon fisheries, and the Puget Sound salmon fisheries.
    NMFS took considerable care to apply consistent approaches and the best
    available science in each of these three biological opinions.
        Whether a given activity contributes to the conservation program
    will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These other sources of
    funding would be applied in addition to any congressionally
    appropriated funds for Pacific Salmon Treaty implementation.

        Question 3. Why are these programmatic funding actions included in
    the Southeast Alaska Biological Opinion, but not in any of the Pacific
    Northwest Biologic Opinions?
        Answer. The 2020 Pacific Fisheries Management Council ocean salmon
    fisheries and the 2020 Puget Sound salmon fisheries biological opinions
    considered the conservation program and its anticipated benefits to
    Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Southern Resident killer whales as part
    of the environmental baseline. While these consultations considered the
    conservation program as a whole (as opposed to focusing on specific
    funding details), the two May 2020 biological opinions did examine
    additional details on Federal and state funding appropriated in FY
    2020, criteria for selecting projects, and specifics of hatchery and
    habitat projects where currently available. NMFS believes Alaska and
    the southern states and tribes have a unity of interest in implementing
    the proposed actions in all three biological opinions to sustain
    fisheries coastwide consistent with the 2019 Pacific Salmon Treaty
    agreement.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
                                 Mary A. Toman
        Question 1. The economy is measured by the data collected by BEA
    and the ongoing Census. The current year has created many challenges in
    collecting data in a timely manner across all sectors and in conducting
    the decennial census because of COVID. How will you instill in the
    public, and stakeholders, confidence in the data being collected?
        Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with BEA and the
    Census Bureau to ensure that timely and accurate data collection
    continues. Both agencies have made adjustments because of COVID-19. We
    must ensure that technology and methodologies continue to be adapted to
    maintain accuracy during the current public health emergency. I would
    look forward to working with you and your staff in a cooperative effort
    so that we instill in the public, and stakeholders, confidence in the
    data collected.

        Question 2. The components of the DOC that you will oversee are
    vital to the Nation's economy and representation in Congress. Data
    integrity is crucial. What do you feel are the greatest risks to
    security of the information collected by BEA and Census and how will
    you address them if confirmed?
        Answer. Yes, data integrity is crucial, and the public is
    increasingly aware of both the value of data and the risks to data
    security. It is paramount that risks such as cybersecurity issues are
    identified and mitigated. The Census Bureau is bound by Title 13 of the
    U.S. Code, which is fundamental to the collection and security of data.
    If confirmed, I will work hard to help explain and reassure our fellow
    Americans that they can trust us to safeguard their personal
    information. I would look forward to working in partnership with you
    and your staff on these issues.

                                      [all]