[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 
[email protected].
            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
[email protected]

Craig McLean
NOAA Acting Chief Scientist
[email protected]

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: [email protected]

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, [email protected] 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
        [[email protected]]

        Lawrence A. Reisman, Director, Toxics Release Inventory Program 
        Division
        [[email protected]]

        Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel
        [[email protected]]

        Daniel R. Bushman, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division
        [[email protected]]
                                 ______
                                 
                                               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 
[email protected], Remington A. Gregg, at [email protected], 
Daniel Rosenberg, at [email protected], Pamitha Weerasinghe, at 
[email protected], 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 
[email protected] 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]