[Senate Hearing 117-863]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-863

                   NOMINATION OF DR. ARATI PRABHAKAR,
                 TO BE THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 
                              TECHNOLOGY POLICY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 20, 2022

                               __________

    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                    
55-820 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                  
               
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                   MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia                 Virginia
                                     RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
                       Lila Helms, Staff Director
                 Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
       George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
                 John Keast, Republican Staff Director
            Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on July 20, 2022....................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     3
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    25
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    27
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    28
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    31
Statement of Senator Peters......................................    32
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    36
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    38
Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................    40
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    42
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    43

                               Witnesses

Hon. Mark R. Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia..................     4
Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Nominee to be Director, Office of Science 
  and Technology Policy..........................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Biographical information.....................................     8

                                Appendix

Mac Thornberry, Former Congressman (R-Texas 13th District), 
  prepared statement.............................................    49
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Arati Prabhakar 
  by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    49
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal......................................    50
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................    51
    Hon. John Hickenlooper.......................................    52
    Hon. Raphael Warnock.........................................    53
    Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    54
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    54
    Hon. Ted Cruz................................................    56
    Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................    59
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................    60
    Hon. Mike Lee................................................    60

 
                   NOMINATION OF DR. ARATI PRABHAKAR,
      TO BE THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in 
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria 
Cantwell, Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Cantwell [presiding], Klobuchar, 
Blumenthal, Peters, Tester, Rosen, Hickenlooper, Wicker, Cruz, 
Fischer, Sullivan, Blackburn, Capito, and Scott.
    Also present Senator Warner.

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

    The Chair. The Senate Commerce Committee will come to 
order. I want to thank our colleagues and welcome everyone 
today. Today, we will consider the nomination of Dr. Arati 
Prabhakar to be the Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy. Please, if you would join us at the table.
    Dr. Prabhakar, I welcome you and your family. And I am sure 
you will have a chance to introduce them. The position to which 
you have been nominated is charged with advising the President 
on a broad range of scientific and technological policies to 
address national problems. We are at a critical moment when 
science and innovation has never been more important to our 
Nation's health and economic competitiveness.
    And for the first time in our history, President Biden has 
elevated this position to a Cabinet level post, underscoring 
its significance and the Administration's commitment to 
ensuring that our Nation continues to be on the cutting edge of 
new developments that can improve the lives of all Americans.
    Your credentials and accomplishments and your personal 
story set you apart as a true trailblazer. You are an engineer, 
applied physicist, pioneer and skilled manager, and you have 
led to Federal research and development agencies and worked 
with startups, large companies, universities, Government labs, 
nonprofits across a wide variety of sectors to create powerful 
new solutions for our critical challenges.
    Under Dr. Prabhakar's leadership, the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency prototyped a system for detecting 
nuclear and radiological material before a terrorist can build 
a bomb, developed tools to find human trafficking networks in 
deep and dark webs, and enabled complex military systems to 
work together, even when they are not originally designed to do 
so.
    She created a new office to spur novel biotechnologies, 
which kick start the development of rapid response mRNA vaccine 
platform, making possible the fastest, safest, and effective 
vaccine development in the world in response to COVID-19. At 
34, Dr. Prabhakar became the first woman to lead in the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
    And while there, she took both the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership and the Advanced Technological Partner Program to a 
national scale to boost competitiveness in our small and medium 
sized manufacturing base. She spent years in Silicon Valley 
helping to translate R&D into deployment, a big subject around 
here, how to move more translational science.
    Then in 2019, she founded a nonprofit to develop solutions 
to challenges of climate and health and to open access for 
every person to have opportunities in the sciences. We are 
simultaneously facing our challenges on a global--the response 
from a global pandemic, experiencing daily effects of our 
challenging and changing climate, and we are on the cusp of 
discoveries that we need to meet the challenges facing our 
Nation.
    Science has never been more important, and Dr. Prabhakar is 
absolutely, I believe, the right person to lead this agency. 
She is exactly the kind of inspirational leader we need to make 
progress on the growing need to have more women participating 
in science and across technical workforce needs.
    I am also confident she is the right person to work with us 
on implementing USICA, the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. 
While the United States is a leader in scientific and 
technological innovation, we have fallen short of consistently 
recruiting, retaining, and promoting women and diverse 
individuals in the STEM field.
    In my state, Washington has a thriving technology, 
aerospace, and biotechnology sectors and space sectors. Our 
success as a state would not be possible without those 
contributions of women in our science and engineering fields. 
But in order to continue that success, we need to have even 
more women in science.
    We need more diversity in science. So addressing the 
gender, racial, and ethnic disparities in STEM needs to be a 
national priority. USICA also requires the Office of Science 
and Technology Policy to develop policy guidelines to ensure 
that Federal research agencies improve outreach to minority 
serving institutions and improve their research and 
competitiveness.
    It requires efforts to reduce sex based and sexual 
harassment involving recipients of Federal research awards. 
USICA requires the Director to establish an interagency working 
group to ensure that coordination among Federal agencies and 
activities in key technology areas which are vital to the U.S., 
continue to see leadership by the United States on a global 
basis.
    These are areas like artificial intelligence, quantum 
science, cybersecurity, biotechnology, and other leading edge 
technologies. And so these agencies are going to have to submit 
to Congress a comprehensive national science and technology 
strategy. So that is a lot of work to do but we are up to the 
task.
    And you certainly, Dr. Prabhakar, are up to the task. So 
look forward to hearing your opening statement and the question 
and answer period with our colleagues. I will now turn to my 
colleague, Senator Wicker, for his opening remarks.

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

    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator.
    [Technical problems]--because the air conditioner isn't 
working very well, and I have taken my coat off.
    On the other hand, today's confirmation hearing for Dr. 
Arati Prabhakar to be Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, recognizes her distinguished career in both 
the public and private sectors, including as head of DARPA and 
NIST.
    The vacancy at OSTP resulted from the resignation of its 
previous Director. A White House investigation concluded that 
Dr. Eric Lander engaged in bullying and intimidation of 
subordinates and his behavior contributed to a toxic work 
culture at OSTP.
    This was--this issue was raised and dismissed at first, but 
then verified. If confirmed, and I expect she will be, Dr. 
Prabhakar's first job will be making sure that everyone at OSTP 
is treated with fairness and dignity, and that workplace 
standards are met.
    I look forward to hearing how she plans to chart a new 
course for the future of OSTP. Improving OSTP's work culture 
will also require preventing any improper outside influence on 
a Government agency. A Politico report from March of this year 
detailed the outsized role played by former Google CEO Eric 
Schmidt during Mr. Lander's tenure as OSTP Director.
    We should applaud philanthropy in the service of scientific 
progress, but there is something unseemly about a well-
connected billionaire's foundation reportedly paying the 
salaries of OSTP staff and consultants indirectly.
    I expect Dr. Prabhakar would want to comment on this. Given 
her business ties with Eric Schmidt, I hope she can assure the 
Committee that she will be--that she will avoid conflicts of 
interest and undue outside influence over the Nation's 
scientific agenda or the appearance thereof.
    The OSTP Director plays a critical role in advising the 
President on scientific engineering and technological aspects 
of a wide range of Federal Government activity. The Director 
also coordinates science and technology policy across all 
Federal agencies.
    This position has become all the more significant after 
having been designated by the President to Cabinet level. So I 
want to thank Dr. Prabhakar for her commitment to public 
service, for meeting with us prior to this hearing, and for 
appearing before us.
    I expect this hearing will be informative and useful to the 
Committee. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Wicker. And we, before we get 
to you, Dr. Prabhakar, and your opening statement, we have been 
joined by our colleague, Senator Mark Warner, a very active 
member of the Intelligence Committee and very active 
participant in USICA.
    And certainly the Chips Bill was authored by you and 
Senator Cornyn. So we welcome you this morning. Former 
Representative Mark Thornberry wish to also join us, but he is 
not able to do that.
    So we will submit his statement for the record. But, 
Senator Warner, if you would like to make an introductory 
remark about Dr. Prabhakar.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

    Senator Warner. Well, Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member 
Wicker and members of the Committee, thank you for this 
opportunity. And let me start off and congratulate both of you 
on--in an extraordinarily strong vote last night.
    I know how much work you both have put into what I think is 
going to be the most significant investment this Nation has 
made literally in decades in terms of scientific research.
    I know Chair Cantwell has already going through well beyond 
just chips, dealing with post 5G world, but a host of areas 
about how we grow our workforce, how we make sure we have 
technology development all over the country, extraordinarily 
important.
    And let me also say, I have to acknowledge, as somebody who 
had the opportunity in my first, it was 4 years to be on this 
committee, I like what you have done with the room. I have not 
been in here for a long time.
    So this is, like, a whole different look than before. So 
thank you again for this opportunity. And as you indicated, 
Chair Cantwell, thank you for the opportunity to introduce Dr. 
Arati Prabhakar.
    I got to know Dr. Prabhakar when she was head of DARPA and 
an institution which was serving the country, was headquartered 
in Virginia. And I can't think of a better nominee the 
President has put forward than Dr. Prabhakar for this head of 
OSTP.
    One of the things I think that was the genesis of both 
Endless Frontiers, USICA, COMPETES, whatever we are calling it 
this week, CHIPS, all this legislation was the very act of 
competition. The United States is engaged with in competition 
with China.
    I think it is also important to mention China, at least 
that our beef is with the Communist Party and Xi Jinping, and 
it is not with the Chinese people, the Chinese diaspora and 
wherever. And one of the things that worries me is, you know, 
China has laid out which technology domains they want to 
dominate in.
    And unfortunately, if you come to the United States, there 
is one list from the Director of National Intelligence, another 
list from CIA, another list from the Commerce Department, the 
fourth list from OSTP.
    I think OSTP, when properly led, may be the only place that 
can look across all jurisdictions about where we may need to 
make the kind of record investments that, under your 
leadership, we will hopefully make coming out of the Senate 
this week.
    I think we have all known that recent years have 
demonstrated the importance of science and technology. We have 
got to make sure we stay up. I think we have kind of gotten for 
a while a little bit asleep at the switch in not only in terms 
of making investments, but also showing up at the standard 
setting bodies.
    As a former telecom guy, blew me away that with Huawei it 
was not only a case of Chinese set up, China having a leading 
company, but it was also they were setting the standards, 
rules, protocols, and procedures.
    And OSTP, I think, could play an extraordinarily important 
role. Dr. Prabhakar has got clearly an extensive background. 
She was the first woman to receive an applied physics PhD from 
Caltech, the first woman to lead NIST. And if confirmed, will 
be the first woman, the first woman of color to lead the OSTP.
    I know Dr. Prabhakar, after her tenure at DARPA had gone 
back to California and I think was very happily ensconced in 
her life back out there. And her willingness to step up and 
answer this call again for public service is really a benefit 
not only to the President, but it really is a whole benefit to 
the country.
    And I hope in her testimony today, she will be able to make 
that case. I recommend her very, very strongly, and appreciate 
the Committee's courtesy to let me come by and introduce her.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Warner. Thanks for making 
this committee hearing this morning and for your input. And we 
appreciate your long relationship with Dr. Prabhakar. So we 
will now turn to Dr. Prabhakar.
    And if you do want to introduce your family, you might do 
that before your statement. But again, thank you for your 
willingness to serve, and we welcome your opening statement.

   STATEMENT OF DR. ARATI PRABHAKAR, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, 
            OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

    Ms. Prabhakar. Thank you. Thank you. I will introduce them 
in the course of my statement. Good morning. It is just 
wonderful to be here with all of you. Chair Cantwell, Ranking 
Member Wicker, members of the Committee, it is a tremendous 
honor to appear before you for this nomination hearing.
    I want to start by thanking Senator Warner for those 
extremely gracious remarks on the charge that he laid out. I 
was so pleased that Representative Thornberry had also agreed 
to introduce me, and as the Chair mentioned, he provided a 
wonderful statement for the record.
    I loved working with both of them, and that support means a 
great deal to me. I am very grateful to have a number of family 
members and some very close personal friends here. I have four 
cousins who flew in from different parts of the country.
    But among this group of supporters who are here with me 
today is one person who was in this room in 1993 when it was--
before all this refurbishment happened. And that day I was here 
as the President's nominee to serve as Director of NIST.
    And that day, Pat Wyndham was a Senate Commerce Committee 
staffer. He was sitting behind the Chair who was Chair Hollings 
at that time. So that is the old history. In August, Pat and I 
will have been married for 27 years. Of course, we got married 
during a congressional recess.
    And we have two truly wonderful daughters. They are here 
with us as well. They are right behind me. And Pat and my two 
daughters with him are, they are my North Star and I want to 
take this moment to thank them for their love and their 
support.
    So today it is a tremendous honor to be here in front of 
this Senate Commerce Committee as President Biden's nominee to 
serve as Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy and as his science and technology adviser, as well as a 
member of his Cabinet.
    Now, in the last week and a half, I have had the pleasure 
of talking with a whole host of not everyone, unfortunately, 
but a number of the members of this committee. And I want to 
thank this committee, but each of you individually as well, for 
the work that you have done to bolster U.S. science and 
technology so that it can create a better future for every 
American.
    This is my abiding passion, and it is the reason I was so 
grateful when the President asked me to serve as his nominee. 
If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, you will find me to 
be a staunch partner in this work. I have come before you with 
a perspective that is shaped by service in the public and 
private sectors.
    I have had the opportunity to work in a number of 
companies. To be a venture capitalist for a decade. Most 
recently, I am the co-founder and CEO of a nonprofit, Actuate. 
My public service includes leading two deeply wonderful but 
very different organizations that have been mentioned as well, 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the mid 
1990s, and then DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, 2012 to 2017.
    The thread that runs through this career is an aspiration 
to create a better future, and that is a notion that started 
for me with my mother, who instilled it in me. She was the 
person who brought our family here from India when I was only 3 
years old.
    And this idea that we actually can create a better future 
was something that was reinforced for me throughout my career. 
I have gotten to work with amazing people at all different 
kinds of universities, in companies of all sorts and sizes.
    I have gotten to work with great people in Government labs 
and in nonprofit labs. I have had the chance to work with 
people in different kinds of Government agencies and different 
parts of Government.
    Together, we have had the enormous privilege of doing the 
work that makes it possible, that made it possible, to improve 
our National Security, to improve our economic competitiveness, 
and to improve the lives of many millions of Americans in every 
zip code, in every part of our country.
    For many decades, American science and technology has been 
the most powerful engine for innovation in history. And that is 
an achievement that did not happen by accident. OSTP is at the 
heart of making sure that U.S. science and technology 
leadership endures in this very complex century that we are 
living in.
    I want to just finish by touching on one last matter, which 
is that OSTP success will only happen if the great people in 
this organization are able to work in a respectful and 
energized environment. And along with you, I certainly saw the 
press reports earlier this year. They were extremely 
concerning.
    What I have seen in just my limited interactions at this 
point with OSTP, is my impression is that Dr. Alondra Nelson, 
with her terrific leadership, has worked with the staff and now 
the staff is setting a foundation for a respectful environment. 
And I do see many people who are working with great energy and 
excitement on their critically important goals.
    If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed for this position, 
people will be my first priority, and it would be my great 
privilege to nurture an environment at OSTP, where people wake 
up every morning eager to deliver on a mission that matters for 
our country.
    So thank you again for the opportunity to appear before 
you, and I very much look forward to your questions and 
thoughts today.
    [The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms. 
Prabhakar follow:]

  Prepared Statement of Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Nominee to be Director, 
                Office of Science and Technology Policy
    Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the 
Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as President 
Biden's nominee to serve as the Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP). I am very happy to have my husband and our 
two daughters here with me today. They are my north star, and I want to 
thank them for their love and support.
    I want to thank this Committee and each of you for your work to 
bolster U.S. science and technology so it can create a better future 
for all Americans. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you in 
this important pursuit.
    I come to you with a perspective shaped by science, technology, and 
innovation experience in both the public and the private sector. My 
first job after earning a PhD--and my introduction to public service--
was as a Fellow at Congress' Office of Technology Assessment.
    I later had the privilege of leading two wonderful and very 
different Federal R&D organizations. In the mid-1990s, I served as 
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 
in the Department of Commerce, a role for which I was fortunate to 
receive unanimous confirmation by this Committee and the full Senate. 
In my time leading NIST, we expanded what is now known as the Hollings 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which boosts the competitiveness 
of small and medium-sized manufacturers in all 50 states, and the 
Advanced Technology Program, which stimulated early-stage advanced 
technology development. We also significantly strengthened NIST's 
measurement and standards laboratories. From 2012 to 2017, I served as 
the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 
where I had previously managed advanced microelectronics programs and 
started a new semiconductor office. While I was Director, DARPA ran 
hundreds of R&D programs that drew from fields as diverse as space 
science and anthropology, cyber-physical systems engineering and 
biology, electromagnetics and advanced math. Their impact on America's 
security is already tangible today in revolutionary military 
capabilities, platforms to combat infectious disease, and protection 
against terror threats.
    In between NIST and DARPA, I worked for 15 years in the commercial 
technology sector, first in a couple of companies and then for a decade 
as an early-stage venture capitalist. I was later a Fellow at Stanford 
University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences 
(CASBS). Most recently, I co-founded Actuate, a nonprofit organization 
that focuses on new approaches to innovation for some of the most 
critical challenges of this century.
    The thread that runs through these four decades is an aspiration to 
improve how the future unfolds. This idea was instilled in me by a 
mother who brought our family here from India in the early 1960s, when 
I was just three years old. It was nurtured by a professor at Texas 
Tech University who called a roomful of freshmen to use engineering to 
create value for our world.
    And it was reinforced throughout my career as I worked on 
challenging goals with researchers, entrepreneurs, and executives at 
many universities, major defense contractors, large commercial 
companies, a variety of startups, nonprofit labs, and government labs 
and agencies. As I learned about the possibilities, constraints, and 
ethos of the many actors in America's rich and complex R&D community, I 
came to understand what it takes to achieve impact, and how to do 
together what we cannot do separately.
    For many decades, American science and technology has been the most 
powerful engine for innovation in history--an achievement that did not 
happen by accident. In this era, President Biden has named the greatest 
challenges we face: geopolitical and economic competition, pandemics 
and other health problems, unequal opportunity and inequity for many 
Americans, the climate crisis, and the erosion of privacy and trust. 
Meeting these challenges demands a new generation of bold exploration 
and creative experimentation. Science and technology leadership is 
essential for our country to flourish in the years ahead. And OSTP is 
at the heart of making sure that U.S. leadership endures in this 
complex century.
    OSTP's success depends on its excellent staff being able to work 
effectively with each other and many others in a respectful and 
energized environment. Press reports about the organization earlier 
this year were extremely concerning. Based on limited interactions with 
OSTP staff for this confirmation process, my impression is that Dr. 
Alondra Nelson and the OSTP staff have set the foundation for a 
respectful workplace where many people are working with excitement on 
their important efforts.
    If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, people will be my first 
priority. I look forward to the opportunity to nurture an environment 
where people wake up each morning eager to deliver on a mission that 
matters.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today, 
and I welcome your thoughts and questions. If confirmed, I will be 
deeply honored to serve our country as the Director of the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy.
                                 ______
                                 
                      a. biographical information
    1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Arati 
Prabhakar.
    2. Position to which nominated: Director, Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP).
    3. Date of Nomination: June 22, 2022.
    4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses): 
Residence:

        Residence: Information not released to the public.
        Office: 555 Bryant Street #878 Palo Alto, California 94301.

    5. Date and Place of Birth: February 2, 1959; New Delhi, India.
    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: Patrick Henry Windham, Contract lecturer, Public Policy 
        Program, Stanford University
        Member, Technology Policy International, LLC (a small 
        consulting firm)

        Children: Katherine Madan Windham, age 25; Julia Madan Windham, 
        age 23.

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

        Ph.D. in Applied Physics, California Institute of Technology, 
        1984

        M.S. in Electrical Engineering, California Institute of 
        Technology, 1980

        B.S. in Electrical Engineering, Texas Tech University, 1979

    I have listed honorary degrees in my response to question 16.
    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.

  2019 to present     Actuate Innovation, Inc.
                      Founder and CEO
 
  2018-19             Consultant
 
  2017-18             Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
                       Sciences, Stanford University
                      Fellow
 
  2012-17             Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
                      Director
 
  2012                SRI International
                      Member of the board of directors
 
  2011-12             AutoGrid Systems
                      Advisor
 
  2001-2011           U.S. Venture Partners
                      Venture Partner
                      Partner
                      General Partner
 
  2000                Consultant
 
  1998-2000           Interval Research Corporation
                      Vice President
                      President
 
  1998                Consultant
 
  1997-98             Raychem Corporation
                      Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer
 
  1993-97             National Institute of Standards and Technology
                      Director
 
  1986-93             Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
                      Program Manager in the Defense Sciences Office
                      Deputy Director of the Defense Sciences Office
                      Founding Director of the Microelectronics
                       Technology Office
 
  1984-86             U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment
                      Congressional Fellow and Analyst
 
  1980-84             California Institute of Technology
                      Teaching Assistant
 
  1979 and 1980       Bell Laboratories Graduate Research Program for
                       Women
                      Summer Student
 

    9. Attach a copy of your resume.
    Please see 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.

        2010-12--Chair, Efficiency and Renewables Advisory Committee 
        for the U.S. Department of Energy

    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.

  2018 to present     Pew Research Center Governing Board
 
  2019                Consultant and advisor to the Advanced Education
                       Research and Development Fund
 
  2019                Consultant to the American Medical Association
 
  2018-20             Member of Technical Advisory Council, Ford Motor
                       Company
 
  2012                Member of the board of directors, SRI
                       International
 
  2011-12             Advisor to AutoGrid Systems
 

    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.

  2005-12 and 2017    Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy
   to present          (STEP) of the National Academies of Science,
                       Engineering, and Medicine
 
  2021 to present     Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES)
                       of the National Academies of Science,
                       Engineering, and Medicine
 
  2021 to present     Advisor to California 100 (a nonprofit
                       organization)
 
  2020-21             Societal Experts Action Network of the National
                       Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
 
  2009-12             Science and Technology Policy Fellows Advisory
                       Council, California Council on Science and
                       Technology
 
  2009-12             Red Team, Defense Sciences Research Council for
                       DARPA
 
  2004-05 and 2011-   UC Berkeley Electrical Engineering and Computer
   12                  Science Industrial Advisory Board
 
  2011-12             UC Berkeley College of Engineering Advisory Board
 
  2016 to present     National Academy of Engineering Member
 
  Circa 1976 to       Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
   present             (IEEE). I joined as a Student Member around 1976
                       but am unable to determine the precise date. I
                       later became a regular Member, and I have been a
                       Fellow since 1997.
 

    To the best of my knowledge, none of these organizations restricts 
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.
    I am a member of the Democratic Party.
    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.

  2020                Montanans for Bullock, $500
 
  2020                Bollier for Kansas, $500
 
  2020                Sri for Congress, $500
 
  2020                Peters for Michigan, $500
 
  2020                Scholten for Congress, $500
 
  2020                Theresa Greenfield for Iowa, $500
 
  2020                Jon Ossoff for Senate, $500
 
  2020                Jaime Harrison for U.S. Senate, $500
 
  2020                Wendy Davis for Congress, $500
 
  2020                Kathleen Williams for Montana, $500
 
  2020                Biden for President, $2,800
 
  2020                Doug Jones for Senate Committee, $500
 
  2016                Hillary for America, $2,700
 

    16. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary 
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition 
for outstanding service or achievements.
    I have done my best to identify all items in this category. 
Nonetheless, there may be other awards or recognitions that I have been 
unable to find or remember. I have identified the following:

  2018                William D. Carey Lectureship Award for Leadership
                       in Science Policy, American Association for the
                       Advancement of Science
 
  2017                Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
                       Sciences Fellow
 
  2017                Texas Tech Alumni Association Distinguished Alumna
 
  2017                Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished
                       Public Service
 
  2016                National Academy of Engineering Member
 
  2016                Honorary doctorate and Thayer School Robert
                       Fletcher Award, Dartmouth College
 
  1997                Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
                       (IEEE) Fellow
 
  1995                Honorary doctorate, Rensselaer Polytechnic
                       Institute
 
  1995                California Institute of Technology Distinguished
                       Alumna
 
  1994                Texas Tech Distinguished Engineer
 
  1992                Executive Branch Leadership Award, Semiconductor
                       Industry Association
 
  1979-84             Bell Laboratories Graduate Research Program for
                       Women Fellowship
 
  Circa 1978          Member of Tau Beta Pi, the engineering honorary
                       society
 
  Circa 1978          Member of Eta Kapp Nu, the electrical engineering
                       honorary society
 
  1976-79             I received at least one scholarship to cover a
                       portion of my undergraduate education but am
                       unable to determine any details.
 

    17. Please list each book, article, column, Internet blog posting, 
or other publication you have authored, individually or with others. 
Include a link to each publication when possible. Also list any 
speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for 
which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of these 
publications unless otherwise instructed.
    I have done my best to identify articles, interviews, blogs, 
presentations, publications, or other published material, including by 
conducting a thorough review of my personal files and online searches. 
Despite my searches, there may be other materials that I have been 
unable to identify, find, or remember. In particular, I delivered many 
speeches during my government service at NIST and DARPA but do not have 
access to recordings or transcripts of most of those speeches. I am not 
aware of any public recordings or transcripts of speeches not listed 
below.
    Additionally, in my capacity leading those agencies, my name was 
listed as the author on various reports and documents issued by those 
agencies. I have listed the ones that I recall or was able to find, but 
there may be additional reports and documents issued by the agencies 
where I was listed as an author that I was not able to find or access.
Articles and blog posts:
        ``DARPA pioneered the internet--its model can change how our 
        future unfolds,'' The Hill, June 4, 2021.

        ``How government innovation could help America's workers,'' 
        with Maria Flynn, Fortune Magazine, May 21, 2021.

        ``Changing Possible,'' Medium, October 12, 2020.

        ``The Next Administration Must Get Science and Technology 
        Policy Right,'' with John P. Holdren, Susan Eisenhower, Wanda 
        Austin, Ryan Costello, Margaret Hamburg, Eric Lander, Kathy 
        Sullivan, Deborah Wince-Smith, Scientific American, September 
        22, 2020.

        ``A Better Tomorrow: Renewing R&D's Promise to America,'' 
        Medium, May 12, 2019.

        ``BRAIN Initiative Challenges Researchers to Unlock Mysteries 
        of Human Mind,'' with Francis Collins, White House Blog, April 
        2, 2013.
Interviews, podcasts, and speeches:
        ``To Achieve Climate Scale in Time, We Need a New Type of 
        Innovation,'' Caltech Energy 10 Conference, June 15, 2022.

        Secretary's Speaker Series: Innovation Installment with Dr. 
        Arati Prabhakar, U.S. Department of Transportation, March 9, 
        2022.

        ``Inside the Biden Administration's plan to change science,'' 
        Panel with Tara Schwetz, Lev Facher, STAT Summit 2021, November 
        17, 2021.

        Arati Prabhakar & Bruce Mehlman Interview, June 23, 2021.

        ``Fireside Chat: Mission-Possible,'' with Wade Shen, Interview 
        with Terry Young, Sparks & Honey, June 9, 2021.

        Former DARPA and NIST director Arati Prabhakar on finding 
        innovative solutions for the future, Pathfinders of Innovation 
        series, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 
        April 21, 2021.

        ``Philanthropy's Role in Addressing Climate Change,'' Columbia 
        Energy Exchange Podcast, Columbia University Center on Global 
        Energy Policy, March 30, 2021.

        ``In the Realm of the Barely Feasible with Arati Prabhakar,'' 
        Idea Machines, January 25, 2021.

        ``Can Innovation Really Solve Society's Problems?,'' Zocalo 
        Public Square, December 8, 2020.

        Interview: Arati Prabhakar, American Institute of Physics, 
        August 11, 2020.

        ``R&D for a Better World,'' Ideas Matter Podcast, the Berggruen 
        Institute, July 30, 2020.

        Tech Innovation Needs Social Science--Arati Prabhakar, Human 
        Centered Podcast, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral 
        Sciences (CASBS), October 10, 2019.

        ``Changing What's Possible: The Power of Breakthrough 
        Technologies,'' CAES Director's Colloquium at the Idaho 
        National Laboratory, September 16, 2019.

        Arati Prabhakar on why she pursued engineering, NIST, March 7, 
        2019.

        ``A conversation with Arati Prabhakar, former DARPA director, 
        on how to improve our R&D ecosystem,'' Interview with Cyclotron 
        Road, August 3, 2018.

        ``A Better Tomorrow: Renewing R&D's Promise to America,'' 
        William D. Carey Lecture, AAAS Forum on Science & Technology 
        Policy, July 27, 2018.

        Center for Law and Biosciences event with Arati Prabhakar, 
        Stanford University, February 22, 2018.

        ``AI, Automation, and Society,'' CASBS Symposium with John 
        Markoff, Arati Prabhakar and Tenzin Priyadarshi, November 14, 
        2017.

        StarTalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson, November 6, 2017. Aspen 
        Ideas Festival, June 22-July 1, 2017.

        ``Future Technologies: Policy Implications for our Security, 
        Economy and Society,'' Congressional briefing hosted by the 
        Aspen Institute, May 18, 2017.

        Interview with Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Penn Political Review, 
        January 29, 2017. ``An Overview of the DARPA Research 
        Portfolio,'' December 12, 2016.

        DARPA Director Speaks on Leading Innovative Organizations, 
        CSIS, December 8, 2016.

        ``Postcards from the Future,'' University of Washington CSE 
        Distinguished Lecture, October 18, 2016.

        Fireside Chat: Arati Prabhakar, DARPA, GeekWire Summit 2016, 
        October 5, 2016.

        DEF CON 24--Mike Walker, Arati Prabhakar--DARPA Cyber Grand 
        Challenge Award Ceremony, August 5, 2016.

        Thayer School of Engineering Investiture Ceremony, Dartmouth 
        College, June 11, 2016.

        Technology & Innovation Panel, with Gary King and Jeremy 
        Gilbert, the Washington Post Transformers Summit, Part 1, May 
        18, 2016.

        Net Politics Podcast: Arati Prabhakar and John Launchbury, May 
        16, 2016.

        ``Pentagon's Research Arm Seeks Wider Relationship With 
        University Scientists,'' Interview with the Chronicle, May 13, 
        2016.

        Strategic Foresight: How a Changing World Affects America, with 
        Jennifer Sciubba, Amy Zalman, Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., the 
        Atlantic Council, May 2, 2016.

        ``DARPA Director: Today's Risky Bets Will Be Tomorrow's 
        Technology Breakthroughs,'' Interview with FedTech Magazine, 
        April 22, 2016.

        ``Technologies to Bend the Arc of the Future:'' A Luncheon 
        Lecture with Dr. Arati Prabhakar, DARPA Director, Tufts 
        University, March 31, 2016.

        ``Faster Than Thought: DARPA, Artificial Intelligence, & The 
        Third Offset Strategy,'' Interview with Breaking Defense, 
        February 11, 2016.

        ``Postcards from the future,'' Kent Presents Festival, October 
        6, 2016.

        ``Arati Prabhakar's Game Plan for Innovation,'' Interview with 
        the Wall Street Journal, November 23, 2015.

        ``Brainworks I: Man and Machine,'' Techonomy, November 12, 
        2015.

        ``The Cutting Edge of Cybersecurity Research,'' Passcode 
        Research Pavilion, October 8, 2015.

        Arati Prabhakar, DARPA Director, Washington Ideas Form, 
        September 30, 2015.

        Closing remarks at DARPA's ``Wait, What?'' Forum, September 11, 
        2015.

        ``Changing What's Possible,'' DARPA ``Wait, What?'' Conference, 
        September 9, 2015.

        Interview--Arati Prabhakar, DARPA Director, DARPA Robotics 
        Challenge Finals, June 5, 2015.

        Next Generation Dialogue on Industry and Defense: Rethinking 
        Research and Development for the DoD, with Wes Bush and Andrew 
        Hunter, CSIS, May 26, 2015.

        Press briefing, DARPA, March 25, 2015.

        DARPA overview, March 9, 2015.

        ``How Will Technology Shape the Future of War?,'' First Annual 
        Future of War Conference, March 3, 2015.

        Keynote Address, The George Washington University School of 
        Engineering and Applied Sciences, February 26, 2015.

        ``The Future of Business Innovation,'' Panel discussion with 
        Andrew McAfee, John Haltiwanger, Laura Tyson, The Future of 
        Work in the Age of the Machine, The Hamilton Project, February 
        19, 2015.

        Arati Prabhakar, DARPA, Interview with Charlie Rose, January 5, 
        2015.

        ``How DARPA is creating the impossible,'' TED Archive, 2015.

        DARPA Director addresses President's Council of Advisors on 
        Science and Technology (PCAST) on DARPA's Mission, November 14, 
        2014.

        Military Innovation and Changing Ways of War, with LtGen Robert 
        E. Schmidle Jr., Maren Leed, Global Security Forum, November 
        13, 2014.

        ``DARPA director: Technological advances in neuroscience 
        `exciting and terrifying,' '' CBS News, November 11, 2014.

        Fireside Chat, Arati Prabhakar and Michael Gorman, Engadget 
        Expand NY, November 7-8, 2014.

        Grace Hopper Celebration Keynote, Anita Borg Institute, October 
        10, 2014.

        Arati Prabhakar, DARPA, Cybersecurity Summit hosted by the 
        Washington Post, October 1, 2014.

        CHM Revolutionaries: DARPA Director Arati Prabhakar in 
        Conversation with John Markoff, June 11, 2014.

        Betting on Breakthrough Defense Technologies: Keynote with 
        DARPA Director Arati Prabhakar, Disrupting Defense Conference, 
        the Atlantic Council, May 14, 2014.

        The Future of American Innovation, March 31, 2014.

        Speech at University of Southern California Viterbi School of 
        Engineering, February 5, 2014.

        ``DARPA in 2014: Director Arati Prabhakar looks ahead,'' 
        Interview with FCW, The Business of Federal Technology, January 
        17, 2014.

        ``Robots of the future: Q&A with DARPA Director Arati 
        Prabhakar,'' CBS News, December 23, 2013.

        Interview with Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Director, Defense Advanced 
        Research Projects Agency, DARPA Robotics Challenge Trials, 
        December 2013.

        Titans Breakfast Series Event Featuring Arati Prabhakar, 
        November 19, 2013.

        ``Driving Technological Surprise: DARPA's Mission in a Changing 
        World,'' 2013 Herb York Memorial Lecture, UC Institute on 
        Global Conflict and Cooperation, November 5, 2013.

        Keynote address, Naval Academy Science and Engineering 
        Conference, November 3, 2013.

        2013 AAAS Science & Technology Policy Forum, June 12, 2013.

        DARPA Director Arati Prabhakar: Long-term view should guide 
        public-sector investments, SPIE Newsroom video, June 12, 2013.

        University of California Berkeley College of Engineering 
        Graduate Commencement Ceremony, June 3, 2013.

        ``Driving Technological Surprise,'' SPIE DSS plenary 
        presentation, May 3, 2013.

        ``DARPA: Driving Critical Technological Surprise,'' April 24, 
        2013.

        ``Open for Questions: the BRAIN Initiative,'' Interview with 
        Administration Officials, April 2, 2013.

        ``DARPA: Creating & Preventing Strategic Surprise,'' 
        Philosophical Society of Washington, March 22, 2013.

        ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit Keynote Speech, February 27, 
        2013.

        ``Technology, Finance, and Policy Defining our Energy Future,'' 
        Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of 
        Society, UC Berkeley, August 31, 2011.

        QA with Arati Prabhakar, Buyouts Insider, May 21, 2001.

        ``An Interview with Arati Prabhakar,'' Caltech News, March 
        1995.

        ``Technology and Applications: Building the NII,'' before the 
        IEEE/Technology Policy Council on the NII, McLean, VA, June 29, 
        1994.

        ``Designing the Information Infrastructure,'' before the IEEE 
        Spectrum NII Roundtable, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1994.

        ``The NII and the Committee on Applications and Technology: an 
        Update,'' before the North American ISDN Users' Forum NII 
        Seminar, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1994.

        ``Committee on Applications and Technology of the Information 
        Infrastructure Task Force: An Update,'' before the Brookings 
        Institute, May 19, 1994.

        ``The National Health Information Infrastructure: Preparing for 
        its Impact on the Future of Health Care,'' before the Health 
        Care Information Solutions Conference, Washington, D.C., April 
        14, 1994.

        ``Civilian Technology for Economic Growth: The Changing Face of 
        Federal R&D -NII Applications and Technology,'' before 
        Bellcore's General Research Colloquium, Murray Hill, NJ, March 
        28-30, 1994.

        ``Federal Role in Information Infrastructure,'' before ARPA's 
        High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Symposium, 
        Alexandria, VA, March 17, 1994.

        ``The NII: A View from the Department of Commerce,'' before the 
        Annenberg Washington Program's Conference on the National 
        Information Infrastructure, Washington, D.C., November 9, 1993.

        ``CALS and the NII--Information Technology Tools to Promote 
        Economic Growth,'' before the CALS Exposition, Atlanta, GA, 
        October 26, 1993.

        ``The National Information Infrastructure and NIST's Role,'' 
        before Women in Government Relations, Washington, D.C., 
        September 29, 1993.

        ``Building the National Information Infrastructure: the Role of 
        Government,'' before the Industry Summit (MIT), Cambridge, MA, 
        September 9-12, 1993.

        ``Profile/Arati Prabhakar; She's Not Just Setting Standards,'' 
        New York Times, August 1, 1993.
Publications:
        ``How to Unlock the Potential of the Advanced Research Projects 
        Agency Model,'' The Day One Project, June 2021.

        ``Creating an Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-L) for 
        the Department of Labor,'' with Joshua Schoop, Jeff Kaplan, 
        Andrew Sosanya, The Day One Project, March 2021.

        ``In the Realm of the Barely Feasible,'' Issues in Science & 
        Technology, Vol. XXXVII, No. 1, Fall 2020.

        ``The merging of humans and machines is happening now,'' Wired, 
        January 27, 2017.

        Driving Technological Surprise: DARPA's Mission in a Changing 
        World, with DARPA staff, April 2013.

        Breakthrough Technologies for National Security, with DARPA 
        staff, March 2015.

        ``Technology Infrastructure,'' Scientific American, September 
        1995.

        Setting Priorities and Measuring Results at the National 
        Institute of Standards and Technology, with Mark Bello, Michael 
        A. Baum, and other NIST staff, 1994.

        ``Digital Gallium Arsenide Microelectronics: Manufacturing and 
        Applications,'' with Sven A. Roosild, Proceedings of the 1990 
        International Symposium on GaAs and Related Compounds.

        ``Digital Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) Upgrades for Improved 
        Military Systems Capability,'' with A. S. Joseph and D. H. 
        Butler, 1989 Government Microcircuit Applications Conference 
        Proceedings.

        ``Digital Gallium Arsenide Upgrades for Military Systems,'' 
        1989 IEEE GaAs Symposium Proceedings.

        Microelectronics Research and Development, Office of Technology 
        Assessment Background Paper, March 1986.

        Intellectual Property in an Age of Electronics and Information, 
        with Office of Technology Assessment staff, 1986.

        Investigations of Deep-Level Defects in Semiconductor Materials 
        Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology, 
        1984.

        ``Thermally Induced Transition Metal Contamination of Silicide 
        Schottky Barriers on Silicon,'' with T. C. McGill, AIP 
        Conference Proceedings: The Physics of VLSI (American Institute 
        of Physics, New York, 1984).

        ``Platinum diffusion into silicon from PtSi,'' with T. C. 
        McGill and M-A. Nicolet, Applied Physics Letters 43, 1118 
        (1983).

        ``Injection-Locking a Krypton Fluoride Laser,'' IEEE 1979-80 
        Student Papers.

    18. List all 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: Arati Prabhakar. Account is active.
        https://www.linkedin.com/in/arati-prabhakar-a366737/

        Facebook: Arati Prabhakar. Account is active.
        https://www.facebook.com/arati.prabhakar

        Snapchat: aratiprab.
        Account is active.

        Medium. @aratiprab.
        Account is active. https://medium.com/@aratiprab

    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.
    As the list below shows, I testified in front of various committees 
and subcommittees over 20 times related to my roles as Director of 
DARPA and NIST.
    I have done my best to identify hearings at which I testified by 
consulting public records and online searches. Despite my searches, 
there may be House or Senate hearings at which I testified that did not 
appear in my searches.
Testimony related to my role as DARPA Director:
        Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. 
        Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017. 
        April 20, 2016.

        Senate Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging 
        Threats and Capabilities. Department of Defense Authorization 
        for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017 and the Future Years 
        Defense Program: Part 5--Emerging Threats and Capabilities. 
        April 12, 2016.

        House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging 
        Threats and Capabilities. National Defense Authorization Act 
        for Fiscal Year 2017 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
        Programs: Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2017 Science and 
        Technology Programs: Defense Innovation to Create the Future 
        Military Force. February 24, 2016

        House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging 
        Threats and Capabilities. National Defense Authorization Act 
        for Fiscal Year 2016 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
        Programs: Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2016 Science and 
        Technology Programs: Laying the Groundwork to Maintain 
        Technological Superiority. March 26, 2015.

        Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. 
        Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015. May 
        14, 2014.

        Senate Committee on Appropriations. Driving Innovation Through 
        Federal Investments. April 29, 2014.

        Senate Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging 
        Threats and Capabilities. Department of Defense Authorization 
        of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 and the Future Years 
        Defense Program: The Role of the Department of Defense Science 
        and Technology Enterprise for Innovation and Affordability. 
        April 8, 2014.

        House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
        Emerging Threats, and Capabilities. Department of Defense 
        Fiscal Year 2015 Science and Technology Programs: Pursuing 
        Technology Superiority in a Changing Security Environment. 
        March 26, 2014.

        Senate Committee on Armed Services. Department of Defense 
        Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 and the 
        Future Years Defense Program: Part 5--Emerging Threats and 
        Capabilities. April 18, 2013.

        House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
        Emerging Threats, and Capabilities. Budget Request for 
        Department of Defense (DOD) Science and Technology Programs. 
        April 16, 2013.
Testimony related to my role as NIST Director:
        Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the 
        Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
        Related Agencies. Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
        and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY97. May 15, 1996.

        House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the 
        Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
        Related Agencies. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
        the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1997, 
        Part 5. April 25, 1996.

        House Committee on Science Subcommittee on Technology. 
        Technology Administration/National Institute of Standards and 
        Technology Fiscal Year 1997 Authorization. April 16, 1996.

        Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the 
        Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
        Related Agencies. Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
        and Related Agencies Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1996. April, 
        6, 1995.

        House Committee on Science Subcommittee on Technology. FY 1996 
        TA/NIST Budget Authorization. March 23, 1995.

        House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 
        Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies. 
        Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
        Related Agencies Appropriations for 1996, Part 6. March 15, 
        1995.

        Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 
        Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies. 
        Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
        Agencies Appropriations, FY95. April 12, 1994.

        Senate Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Defense 
        Technology Acquisition and Industrial Base. Department of 
        Defense Authorization for Appropriations for FY95 and the 
        Future Years Defense Program Part 5: Defense Technology, 
        Acquisition, and Industrial Base. March 18, 1994.

        House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the 
        Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
        Related Agencies. Proposed FY95 Budget for the Department of 
        Commerce Technology Administration. March 10, 1994.

        House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee 
        on Technology, Environment, and Aviation. The Proposed FY 1995 
        Budget for the Department of Commerce Technology 
        Administration. March 10, 1994.

        House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee 
        on Technology, Environment, and Aviation. Role of the NIST in 
        U.S. Technology Policy. July 26, 1993.

        House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee 
        on Technology, Environment, and Aviation. Defense Conversion 
        Initiatives: Progress and Plans. July 20, 1993.

        Senate Committee on Armed Services. Department of Defense 
        Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1994 and the 
        Future Years Defense Program Part 5: Defense Technology, 
        Acquisition, and Industrial Base. June 17, 1993.

        Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, 
        Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies. 
        Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
        Agencies Appropriations, FY94. June 16, 1993.

        Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 
        Nominations of D. James Baker, Douglas K. Hall, Kathryn D. 
        Sullivan, Arati Prabhakar, and Clarence L Irving. May 24, 1993.

    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?
    Over the last four decades, I have had the opportunity to 
contribute to American science and technology (S&T) through my work in 
a wide variety of organizations in both public and private sectors. I 
have had the honor to serve in two very different Federal R&D agencies. 
I started as a Program Manager at the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA), the Defense Department's agency responsible 
for breakthrough technologies for national security. I later served as 
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the 
Department of Commerce, a role for which I was fortunate to receive 
unanimous confirmation by the U.S. Senate. We expanded what is now 
known as the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which today 
boosts the competitiveness of small and medium-sized manufacturers in 
all 50 states, and the Advanced Technology Program, which stimulated 
early-stage advanced technology development. At the same time, we 
significantly strengthened the NIST laboratories and their measurement 
standards role. When I returned to DARPA as the Director, we ran 
hundreds of R&D programs that drew from fields as diverse as space 
science and anthropology, cyber-physical systems engineering and 
synthetic biology, electromagnetics and advanced math. Their impact is 
already tangible today in revolutionary military capabilities, 
protection against terror threats, and platforms to combat infectious 
disease. In these roles, I learned to lead and manage large 
organizations, and to work productively with our oversight and 
appropriations committees in Congress, the White House, and many other 
Federal agencies.
    Supporting exceptional people was at the heart of every 
achievement. As we worked together to achieve challenging goals, I got 
to know researchers, engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, managers, 
and leaders at many universities, major defense contractors, large 
commercial companies, a variety of startups, nonprofit labs, and 
government labs and agencies. I learned about the possibilities, 
constraints, and ethos of the many actors in our rich and complex 
American research and development (R&D) community. I gained a deep 
understanding of the R&D process and how to inspire, lead, and manage 
to achieve impact--to do together what we couldn't do separately.
    When President Biden asked me to be his nominee for this position, 
I accepted for two reasons. The first is a love of our country. The 
second is an abiding passion to fulfill science and technology's 
promise of a better future.
    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 responsibility for effective management and proper controls 
resides with the leader of the organization, and I would shoulder these 
responsibilities if confirmed to serve as OSTP Director.
    I have led organizations ranging from 3 employees (Actuate at 
startup) to 3,200 (NIST). Each has its unique characteristics, but in 
all cases my job as a leader has been to provide clarity of mission, 
attract and support great people, ensure effective management and 
controls, manage the budget, overcome unexpected challenges, constantly 
reinforce an ethical foundation, and deliver on the mission.
    22. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the 
department/agency, and why?
    The American science and technology ecosystem is the most powerful 
engine for innovation in history--something that did not happen by 
accident. OSTP is at the heart of making sure this fact is true into 
the future.

   The first challenge for OSTP is to nurture and strengthen 
        existing Federal science and technology efforts so they are as 
        effective as possible in achieving their important missions. 
        That includes helping the S&T system experiment, learn, and 
        advance so it can meet America's greatest aspirations for the 
        years ahead.

   The most pressing issues of our times will require novel 
        approaches to create fresh possibilities for a future in which 
        all Americans can thrive. The President has clearly identified 
        the challenges of pandemics, public health, and cancer; climate 
        change; economic and military competitiveness; and expanding 
        opportunity and equity. Many new S&T initiatives hold great 
        promise for these challenges. The Advanced Research Projects 
        Agency for Health (ARPA-H), the Cancer Moonshot, and the 
        American Pandemic Preparedness Plan can open up important new 
        approaches for health. The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment 
        and Jobs Act includes promising new science, technology, and 
        demonstration efforts. And the Bipartisan Innovation Act 
        contains important provisions that would allow agencies to 
        boost applied research and partner with industry to address 
        global competitiveness, climate change, and regional 
        innovation. To be successful, these efforts will require strong 
        and nimble leadership from OSTP, along with a close partnership 
        with departments and agencies and Congress.

   The third challenge is foundational to everything the Office 
        must do: OSTP's success depends on the excellent staff being 
        able to work effectively with each other and many others in a 
        respectful and energized environment. Press reports about 
        morale have been quite concerning. I have had only limited 
        interaction with current OSTP staff in preparation for this 
        nomination. My impression is that with Dr. Alondra Nelson's 
        leadership over the last few months, the OSTP staff has created 
        a respectful environment where many people are working with 
        excitement on their important efforts. If confirmed, people 
        will be my first priority. I look forward to the opportunity 
        help nurture an environment where people wake up each morning 
        eager to deliver on a mission that matters.
                   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.
    All of my financial arrangements, to include retirement accounts, 
are described in my Executive Branch Personnel Financial Disclosure 
Report, which will be provided to this Committee. I have no other 
financial arrangements, deferred compensations agreements, or other 
continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers.
    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 Designated Agency Ethics 
Official at the Office of Science and Technology Policy to identify any 
potential conflict of interest. Any conflict of interest will be 
resolved according to the terms of an ethics agreement that I have 
entered into with OSTP's Designated Agency Ethics Official and that 
will be provided to this Committee. In the event that an actual or 
potential conflict of interest arises during my appointment, I will 
consult with OSTP's ethics counsel and take the measures necessary to 
resolve the conflict.
    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 Designated Agency Ethics 
Official at the Office of Science and Technology Policy to identify any 
potential conflict of interest. Any conflict of interest will be 
resolved according to the terms of an ethics agreement that I have 
entered into with OSTP's Designated Agency Ethics Official and that 
will be provided to this Committee. In the event that an actual or 
potential conflict of interest arises during my appointment, I will 
consult with OSTP's ethics counsel and take the measures necessary to 
resolve the conflict.
    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 Designated Agency Ethics 
Official at the Office of Science and Technology Policy to identify any 
potential conflict of interest. Any conflict of interest will be 
resolved according to the terms of an ethics agreement that I have 
entered into with OSTP's Designated Agency Ethics Official and that 
will be provided to this Committee. In the event that an actual or 
potential conflict of interest arises during my appointment, I will 
consult with OSTP's ethics counsel and take the measures necessary to 
resolve the conflict.
    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.
    Both in my government roles and as a private citizen, I have 
responded to Congressional, White House, and Federal agency requests 
for my perspectives on public policy matters. I have not represented 
any clients in the capacities described here.
                            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 (except for routine investigations for employment and security 
clearances related to Federal government roles I've held).
    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.
    While serving as DARPA Director, I, along with many other public 
figures, was named in a civil action by an individual alleging that the 
government had unlawfully connected to her brain. The case was 
dismissed in 2013.
    I, along with other board members, was named in several shareholder 
lawsuits while serving on the board of Leadis Technology Inc. in the 
2005 timeframe. I do not recall the specifics of the suits, but I 
believe they were dismissed or settled out of court.
    I have served on the boards of multiple other organizations, some 
of which have been engaged in civil litigation at various times. I had 
no personal involvement in the litigation or any other legal 
proceedings and was not named as a party other than as noted above.
    To the best of my recollection, I have not been named as a party in 
any other legal proceedings.
    4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo 
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic 
offense? If so, please explain. No.
    5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual 
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or 
any other basis? If so, please explain. No.
    6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, 
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in 
connection with your nomination.
    I am not aware of additional information in this regard.
                     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.
                                 ______
                                 
                      Attachment: Prabhakar Resume
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Chair. Thank you, Dr. Prabhakar. And again, appreciate 
all your work and advice during the USICA process and many 
comments to many members of this committee. I am going to start 
with Senator Wicker and then followed by Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate it. 
Dr. Prabhakar, I was at a family reunion this weekend, and I am 
glad this committee has an opportunity to host a family reunion 
today. Welcome to you all. And they seem to be enjoying 
themselves. I think they like each other.
    I was going to ask about the culture that I mentioned in my 
opening statement. I think you have addressed that. And so I do 
appreciate it. Let's see if in 4 minutes and 27 seconds we can 
get in three topics.
    One is the disparity of funding among the states. You know, 
two states get a third of all the NSF funding. What steps could 
OSTP take to spread science and technology around to some 
really great researchers around the Nation who are just not 
getting that chance? Also, talk about Federal research 
security.
    I am not sure we are quite where we ought to be on the 
proposed legislation, but FBI Director Christopher Wray said 
this is a real problem. And then if you will, do comment on 
your understanding of the Politico story and what assurances 
you could give us about avoiding the appearance of conflicts of 
interest?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Thank you very much, Senator. Those are 
three very meaty topics. I will start with the first one and I 
have so appreciated your leadership on the EPSCoR topic and 
just the broader notion of making sure that we reach people 
across every part of our country.
    I was an undergraduate at Texas Tech University, and when I 
was there, this is now a long time ago, my hair was still 
black. But at that time, that university really had very little 
research funding.
    But for me and for a lot of the rural students that I went 
to school with there, the fact that there were faculty who are 
doing really interesting leading edge research opened a window 
that really--for me, it changed my life.
    I worked in the laser lab there and that opened a lot of 
new opportunities and a lot of new thoughts about what was 
possible in STEM. So I really share your conviction that we 
need to make sure that those pathways and the excitement of 
STEM and also of research are available to the kids going to 
these universities in all different parts of the country.
    If I am confirmed, that is an area I would very much like 
to work with you on. Your second topic was about research 
security. And again, this is one of the problems that is very 
real in our country today.
    The geopolitics and the competition that we are in with 
China in particular certainly means that we have some real 
issues that have to be wrestled with. They need to be dealt 
with, with a clear understanding of a couple of principles.
    One is how important it is for the most fundamental 
research to be conducted in a way that is open and widely 
available to the research community. That is not true as you 
move into product development.
    It is not true as you move deeper into applied work. But 
that is something to keep in mind for the earliest stages of 
research. And then second, very much to Senator Warner's point, 
I think we have to be very clear about the fact that what we 
are concerned about is espionage and the undue taking advantage 
of the U.S. research base by other countries.
    But we don't want to turn that into a--we don't want to 
inappropriately go after individuals who are earnestly working 
on their research and not out of line. So I think these are 
some of the conflicts that people are wrestling with.
    I know there has been some very good work done on this 
subject in USICA that I hope will be able to move forward. And 
again, if confirmed, this is a topic that I believe is very 
important and one that I would very much want to work with you 
on.
    To briefly turn to your last issue, which I think is 
critically important as well, which is about either the fact or 
the appearance of conflicts of interest or undue influence, 
this is something that I believe is fundamental for anyone in 
public service or any organization that is part of the 
Government.
    We simply can't do our jobs as public servants if there is 
either a conflict or an appearance. Because even if there is an 
appearance, what it means is that the people we need to engage 
will not believe that it is a level playing field and that 
their ideas and that their work is being taken seriously.
    So I take those issues very, very seriously. As I am sure 
you know very well, OSTP, back to its initial enabling 
legislation, was designed to have a modest budget and to tap 
resources from across Federal agencies as well as from outside 
in the private sector. And that has been done very 
successfully.
    I mean, it is so integral to our OSTP's mission to work 
with all those communities that I think it does make sense to 
draw from different parts. But of course, that in no way 
eliminates the obligation to make sure that there is no undue 
influence and that, in fact, that there are no conflicts, no 
undue influence, and no appearance, to your point.
    So those are some of the thoughts that I will have that 
will be important priorities if I am confirmed and go into that 
position.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. And thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I 
enjoyed our discussion, doctor. I want to congratulate you on 
your nomination. As you and I talked about earlier, Minnesota 
is home to a whole lot of innovation, the Mayo Clinic, which 
cares for more than 1.3 million people a year.
    We are home to many innovative companies and given the 
world everything from the pacemaker to the Post-it note, as we 
say. So I am pleased and look forward to working forward with 
you, if and when you are confirmed.
    So I am going to start with something actually, Senator 
Wicker and I have worked on together, and that is rare 
diseases. We co-chair that caucus and we are working to make 
sure that cures and treatments get out there as soon as 
possible.
    And we introduced the STAT Act recently to improve access 
to rare diseases by promoting intergovernmental coordination 
that advance science based policies. If confirmed, how will 
OSTP coordinate with other agencies on rare diseases?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Klobuchar, thank you very much for 
that question. I greatly enjoyed our visit, and I will note 
that many decades ago I was one of the people that Mayo Clinic 
cared for in Rochester, Minnesota, and I remain grateful for 
that opportunity to go to Minnesota and come back a healthier 
person.
    I think this work that you all are engaged in on rare 
diseases is incredibly important. The devastation that this 
brings to families who are dealing with these issues is very 
real and something that I think we have an opportunity to do 
better and more. Very much to your point, I think there are 
opportunities to pull together strands of work in a way that 
can be more effective.
    In addition, I think some very important new initiatives 
that are beginning today. For example, the ARPA for Health, 
ARPA-h will chart its course, but my hope is that this might be 
an area that they can also contribute to.
    So again, if I am confirmed, it is an area I would look 
forward to working with you on.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Doctor, the world 
is literally burning right now as we see what is happening in 
England, across our own country. And the climate crisis is one 
of the key defining scientific challenges of our time. 
President Biden has promised to take swift action.
    I am focused on, of course, bringing down greenhouse gases 
and being as aggressive as we can. And there is ways we can do 
this, as you know, that are not just working with science, 
investing in science, but are actually good for our economy in 
the long haul because just doing nothing is not going to work.
    Since 1980, the United States has sustained 285 weather and 
climate disasters, where the overall damage cost reached or 
exceeded $1 billion, if we want to talk about money. In your 
view, what role do you see OSTP playing in helping the United 
States respond to climate?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, this is an incredibly important 
topic right now. The majority of Americans are living through 
climate extremes. They are experiencing it. It is a very real 
crisis, and urgent action is needed.
    I have been very pleased and proud of the Biden 
Administration's actions throughout agencies, but also with 
some great expertise assembled in the White House, including at 
OSTP. And this is an area that, if I am confirmed, will be one 
of my priorities.
    As you mentioned, there are important things to be done 
right now with the new technologies and the new industries, 
that we can continue to expand as part of this massive 
transformation and across, for example, our energy sector.
    So I think there are some important things underway, but it 
is also clear that we don't yet really know how to achieve the 
reduction and then the elimination of emissions in a way that 
is really going to work across our society fully. And when I 
see an unsolved problem like that, that to me is a clarion call 
for innovation.
    And OSTP's role, I believe, in this area can be an 
important one to help find those pathways that make it possible 
for us to eliminate emissions more rapidly. Again, an area that 
if I am confirmed I would very much look forward to working on.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. One more question. 
Manufacturers in Minnesota, we have employed about 10 percent 
of our workforce. We have a lot of high tech manufacturing in 
medical devices, robotics, the like.
    We don't have enough workers right now across the board in 
our economy. I believe the solution is everything from 
apprenticeships, training. We have a bill on that bipartisan in 
the Committee, that I have been leading as well as immigration 
reform. Just 30 seconds on that before I turn over to the next 
colleague.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Thank you, Senator. Again, a super important 
topic. Huge opportunities because of the manufacturing, this 
rich manufacturing base that we have. And linking people and 
their skills to those jobs, I think is a tremendous 
opportunity. Thank you for the chance to comment on that.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you.
    The Chair. I am going in order of people who had appeared. 
Senator Thune, if he is available. If not, Senator Blackburn.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And a Dr. 
Prabhakar, thank you for the time yesterday to visit over the 
phone. I want to start right where Senator Klobuchar left off, 
and that is with the workforce.
    And I would love to hear from you how OSTP can be more 
engaged. Senator Rosen and I have a bipartisan bill that deals 
with advanced manufacturing. We have the Nashville Tech Council 
that is setting up talent programs and tech talent programs so 
that job seekers can gain the skills that they need to work 
with companies that are coming into the Nashville area, Amazon, 
Oracle, that is relocating to Nashville.
    So what role can OSTP play in ensuring that we are focusing 
on training that skilled workforce that needs to be in place? 
And then how can you work with the Governors and the states to 
make sure that they are going to be able to take advantage of 
and coordinate those efforts?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Blackburn, thank you for that 
question. I enjoyed our visit yesterday and I really appreciate 
your leadership on this issue because I think we all know that 
there are companies that need skilled workers and there are 
people who would love to have a chance at these stable, well-
paying jobs.
    And bridging that gap is such a huge opportunity. Over many 
decades, we have seen State level efforts that have made 
strides in that direction. And I think what you are talking 
about is a terrific example and one I would love to learn more 
about, if I am confirmed, and to help with.
    The question in my mind is, we have seen many specific 
examples of these kinds of training programs. Often we are 
bringing together community colleges and linking them to 
workers who are displaced or looking for new opportunities, and 
then linking them to the companies.
    We know this can work. And the question I want to get after 
is, how do we scale it? How do we make it happen at a level 
that allows many, many, many millions of workers to achieve 
these opportunities? So if I am confirmed, I would absolutely 
love to work with you on that.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, thank you for that. We also 
chatted a little bit about national labs yesterday. And as you 
know, Oak Ridge is very important to us in Tennessee for the 
work that they are doing, the isotope science, the engineering, 
fusion, fusion technology and fusion energy and supercomputing.
    And Oak Ridge is home to Frontier, which is the world's 
fastest supercomputer and the first exascale computer. So under 
your leadership, how will OSTP work with the national labs like 
Oak Ridge to make sure that the U.S. remains a world leader on 
these type of technologies?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, thank you. That is--I think that is 
an important area. Our national labs are a big part of the U.S. 
innovation system. It was my privilege to lead one when I was 
Director at NIST, and my experience with the DOE labs goes all 
the way back to when I was an undergraduate and had the chance 
to work out and visit some of those facilities.
    You know, the way I think about how this country achieves 
huge progress on any area of technology or advances in our 
industrial capacity or our National Security is that it takes 
all of these different pieces coming together.
    We need our universities. We absolutely need our national 
lab system. We need companies, and we need the Government 
agencies that play various roles to play their parts. And a lot 
of the reason I am excited about the opportunity to lead OSTP 
is because that is a place from which we see the entire 
chessboard.
    And so I would like very much, if I am confirmed in this 
position, to be able to work with the national labs on some of 
their unique capabilities, but in particular to work with them 
on how to link them better to the rest of the ecosystem, in 
particular, often to the commercialization that takes some of 
those innovations, for example, fusion, and moves it out into 
the world so that as a society we can really gain the full 
benefits of their work.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, and I appreciate that. And I would 
add to that list that you just went through, deliverables that 
would focus on near-term capabilities in areas like Quantum as 
well as a track that some of these near-term deliverables would 
lead us to some long term successes and discoveries. Thank you 
so much for your time and we look forward to visiting with you 
after your confirmation. Thank you.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Thank you.
    The Chair. Senator Fischer.

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

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Dr. Prabhakar, 
it is so nice to see you again. I certainly enjoyed working 
with you when you were at DARPA, and I really appreciated your 
visit to the University of Nebraska.
    In fact, I met with Dr. Gold and some others from the 
university this morning, and when I said I was coming here and 
you would most probably be coming back to Governmental service, 
they are thrilled as well.
    So it is so good to see you. I know when you were at NIST, 
you were there more as the scientist. And because it was such a 
technical agency, and the same was true with DARPA, of course, 
and when you are looking at this new position, if you are 
confirmed, it is going to have a stronger policy component.
    So how will you use that technical science background in 
dealing with this?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Fischer, as always, that is a 
wonderful question. It is so lovely to see you again. And I 
have thought about that visit to Nebraska, and I got to reunite 
with a wonderful old professor of mine and made a lot of new 
friends. So it was--I really enjoyed that. Thank you.
    I love your question because I want to tell you that having 
served at NIST, having worked in the private sector, having led 
DARPA, when I left DARPA 5 years ago now the thought that was 
in my mind was how privileged I was to participate in science 
and technology from all of these different perspectives.
    But then I kept thinking about the problems that we are 
wrestling with in this century, and it seemed to me that we 
weren't yet fully stepping up with the innovation that we need. 
And we have talked about many of the issues here today.
    And when I started really challenging myself to say, well 
how would we innovate to open opportunity for every person and 
deal with the dark side of the information revolution and deal 
with our climate challenges and boost the health of people 
across this country.
    You know, what you quickly realize when you challenge 
yourself with a question like that is science and technology is 
absolutely essential because it opens doors that you never 
thought were possible. And it is not enough, because until you 
turn it into real change in the world, it doesn't really solve 
problems for anybody.
    And it brought me to a view that really caused me to value 
much more than just the research itself. And of course, every 
big thing we were ever able to do from NIST or DARPA took the 
efforts of so many other people.
    So that is very much the lens that I find I am bringing as 
I think about, I hope to be able to serve in this role, and 
that is the lens I would bring. It has to be rooted in what is 
real and what is not real, scientifically and technically.
    But then really, I think the way you make progress happen 
is you engage with absolutely everyone who has to be part of 
the change and moving forward.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. When you were at DARPA, the 
Department of Defense was trying to reorient its approach to 
developing advanced technology, and it was described as the 
third offset strategy.
    Some in Congress weren't satisfied with--I guess there 
wasn't a lot of clarity on what the goals were with the third 
offset, really what the mission was, if there were any results. 
It was just hard to get, to be honest, to get some straight 
answers with that.
    We saw many things that I think came out of it, though, 
looking at China and Russia and the advancements we saw in 
their technology there. But still it--kind of controversial on 
what the outcomes were with the third offset.
    Are there any relevant lessons that you learned in that 
process that you think would translate back and be able to help 
you and your leadership in this new position?
    Ms. Prabhakar. I am having a flashback, Senator, as you are 
talking about the third offset strategy. It has been 5 years 
since I left the National Security world. That hasn't been a 
focus in my efforts since then.
    If I am confirmed for this job, one of the things I am very 
interested in is getting back into it. And I think I am going 
to feel a little bit like Rip Van Winkle, going away for 5 
years and coming back to see where things are.
    What I will tell you that I think was very important in the 
thinking that was happening and leadership in the National 
Security community, the Pentagon, both military and civilian 
leaders at the time that I served at DARPA. I was there 2012 to 
2017. We were coming through a period of extended ground wars.
    And as we pulled our heads up, as we collectively as the 
National Security community pulled our heads up, I think people 
felt that it was a lot like the end of the Vietnam era when we 
had been so consumed with war, but when we looked around at 
that time, we realized that the Soviet Union had made very 
important strides forward and that we had to figure out a new 
offset strategy.
    That, of course, was happening in the 70s. Very similarly 
when we looked around in the mid-teens, what we saw was an 
incredibly powerful China that had surged forward. We saw 
globally available technologies and a kind of connectivity that 
we hadn't really ever imagined before.
    The world had really changed in that time that we had been 
involved with Iraq and Afghanistan, and that was the genesis of 
the third offset strategy. And I think, you know, I think we 
all agree that we have to find a very different way to deal 
with the emerging threat in China. So that was what was behind 
it.
    My personal view was that while there were very specific 
weapons systems and military capabilities that would be 
critically important, hypersonics is an area that we have 
talked about a lot, those absolutely have to be advanced, and 
we need the leadership there.
    But my particular concern on a lot of what we tried to 
bring to the table from DARPA was the idea that instead of just 
moving to a new fixed capability for military technologies, we 
needed to get on an escalator so that we were always 
continually getting better, because the world doesn't stand 
still, and everyone has access to leading edge component 
technologies.
    And it is a very different, and in my view, it needs to be 
a very different way of thinking about this next offset. So 
those are some 5 year old ideas. And if I am confirmed, I would 
very much look forward to updating with you as I get current 
again.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    The Chair. Senator Capito.

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

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair. And welcome. Thank 
you for being with us today and your willingness to serve. Two 
quick, just will you commit to work helping me work on these 
issues.
    Senator Coons, Collins, Klobuchar, and I introduced--we 
were able to pass a Sustainable Chemistry Research and 
Development Act as part of NDAA in Fiscal Year 2021. The Office 
of Science and Technology Policy announced their request for 
information from the public on a consensus definition of what 
sustainable chemistry is. So quick action would be good.
    I would just ask that we could work on this together and if 
you might have some perspectives on what that definition might, 
how that might clarify some of the direction that you would 
like to go.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Capito, it is wonderful to meet you, 
and I look forward to diving into some of those issues with 
you. Thank you for your leadership in that area. If I am 
confirmed, that is an area I would very much like to learn a 
great deal more about and would be very happy to work with you 
on it.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you. And we also, West 
Virginia is home to a number of scientific facilities. We have 
the NSF Screen Bank Telescope, Observatory in Greenbank, West 
Virginia. We have NOAA's supercomputer. We also have great NASA 
facilities.
    And we also have NETL. So the reason I think it is 
important, and I think this was part of the substance of what 
we have talked about in the Chips Act and the ancillary 
commerce title that is with that is there are seeds of 
excellence all around the country.
    And if you look at where a lot of the funding goes for 
science and research, it goes to six states, a third of it goes 
to, I think, Maryland and either Massachusetts or California. 
We happen to believe we have some great--I don't think we are 
ever going to be able to build these seeds of excellence in 
other states if we don't start recognizing that, a, the talent 
is there.
    But, b, that in order for the talent to stay there, you 
have to have the encouragement and some of that has to come 
from the Federal Government. I don't know if you have an 
experience in other areas besides what would be considered, you 
know, the more highly funded areas.
    Have you ever done research in and around the country that 
might lend some helpful ideas along this line?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Capito, my thoughts on that subject 
are informed by my personal experience, which I mentioned 
earlier. I was an undergraduate at Texas Tech University, and 
the window I got into research because--they didn't have a lot 
of research funding. This is many decades ago.
    But that window that I got because they had a little bit of 
research funding was something that really opened horizons for 
me. And so I share your commitment to making sure, for two 
reasons.
    Number one, I think reaching these amazing talents that are 
in every part of our country is vitally important because it is 
fair for those kids to have those shots at STEM jobs. If that 
is what calls to them, we want them to come. But also because 
we have got hard problems that need talents of all sorts.
    And I think that reach is important. So I think there are a 
number of very practical steps. I hope there will be some 
really helpful progress, as I know you all are in the middle of 
wrestling with legislation in that area, but that is an area 
that I would look forward to working with you on if I am 
confirmed.
    Senator Capito. Well, thank you, that would be much 
welcomed. And one of the areas that a lot of us have worked on 
is to try to get involvement in STEM careers. Both women and 
people of color were underrepresented in these areas, so I am 
glad to see that this is a passion obviously of your life's 
work.
    And I mean, from my perspective, you know, you have got to 
start early. You have got to talk about what does it really 
mean? It doesn't mean you are you know, you are sitting in a 
lab coat with a, you know, a beaker and a Bunsen burner or 
whatever it is we had back in the 70s.
    You know, there is all kinds of wonderful opportunities in 
particularly in the robotics area. How--do you have any 
original ideas or any new ideas to reach those underrepresented 
populations that are presently underrepresented in the STEM 
fields?
    Ms. Prabhakar. I think, to me this is something that is 
going to take a lot of different measures. Some of them can be 
legislative about reaching into different kinds of 
organizations and reaching into states that haven't had as much 
participation. I think a lot of this is going to happen one on 
one.
    You know, just the idea that a young kid, you know, a black 
girl who is born into a household that doesn't have a lot of 
resources, when she sees people who look like her holding 
positions where they get to do really exciting, worthwhile 
work, that is the kind of thing that really changes how a child 
imagines where they might go.
    And I think that different aspects of this enterprise call 
to different people. There are people who are drawn to the 
discovery and wonder of science. And I think for a lot of 
people, and certainly for me, what drew me was just this 
powerful notion that you could make the world work better.
    And there are so many problems that I think young people 
today really care about solving, whether it is about health, 
about our climate and energy systems, whether it is about 
opening opportunity to everybody. And when we can tie these 
innovative efforts and science and technology to these real 
changes, I think it draws just a host of really important and 
exciting new entrants.
    Senator Capito. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Peters.

                STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

    Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And Dr. 
Prabhakar, it is wonderful to see you and congratulations on 
your nomination for this critically important position. Dr. 
Prabhakar, when we last spoke, I mentioned how PFAS 
contamination and exposure is continuing to harm residents and 
communities across Michigan, as well as across the country.
    Unfortunately, Federal research efforts have been 
fragmented at various Federal agencies and have struggled to 
effectively address just the full scope of the challenges that 
are presented by these PFAS substances.
    Certainly much continues to remain unknown about the 
toxicity, human and environmental health effects, exposure 
pathways, as well as ways to effectively remove and treat the 
exposure and discretion methods of PFAS substances, as well as 
some of the alternatives that are out there.
    That is why I introduced a bill, the Federal PFAS Research 
Evaluation Act, which is co-sponsored by Senators Moran and 
Shaheen, and it would direct a study by the National Academies 
of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to better help inform 
decisions by the Federal Government, State Governments, 
industry, and other stakeholders on how we actually address 
PFAS substances.
    It would also require the OSTP to submit to Congress an 
implementation plan for increased collaboration and 
coordination of Federal research, Federal development, and 
demonstration activities with respect to PFAS substances.
    So my question for you, ma'am, is, if confirmed, will you 
commit to working with my office to ensure that we have the 
strongest possible level of coordination within the Federal 
Government to address PFAS?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Peters, thank you for the question. 
I enjoyed the opportunity to chat with you last week. Thank you 
for your leadership on this particular topic. We have got a 
long history in this country of identifying problems like this. 
And just to your point, doing the research, understanding what 
is really going on, figuring out how to deal with it and how to 
fix it, and then implementing that.
    And it does take many different agencies. It takes many 
different kinds of researchers. And it is--I think it is a 
classic example of an area where the kind of coordination that 
OSTP does can be extremely valuable.
    So this is an area that I would love to learn more about if 
I am confirmed, and I would very much look forward to working 
with you on it.
    Senator Peters. Right. Right. We will look forward to doing 
that, if confirmed. I have also previously authored legislation 
to establish a regulatory framework to facilitate the safe 
testing and deployment of autonomous vehicles.
    It is the AV START Act and working with Senator Thune from 
the Committee as well in a bipartisan way. This is, this Act is 
essential and to developing and manufacturing autonomous 
vehicles domestically, as well as achieving the safety and 
mobility benefits that they offer.
    Manufacturing autonomous vehicles in the U.S. will also 
help commercialize AI research, which will boost the flow of 
resources to support critical areas of scientific inquiry.
    But achieving this goal is going to absolutely require a 
focused effort across the number of Federal agencies, including 
with support from leaders at the White House, such as yourself. 
So, Dr. Prabhakar, when we last spoke, our conversation touched 
on this issue and that of automation and artificial 
intelligence, certainly much more broadly.
    But my question to you is, if confirmed, will you commit to 
working with me on promoting the safe testing and deployment of 
autonomous vehicles in the U.S., as well as supporting AI 
research that will be absolutely vital to growing industry, not 
just in the auto sector, but across the country and in a 
variety of industries?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Peters, thank you for this topic. I 
enjoyed talking with you about it earlier. And the answer is 
yes, absolutely. I would welcome that opportunity if I am 
confirmed. I would like to say that I find people talk about 
autonomous vehicles from many different perspectives.
    For a lot of researchers, it is a very exciting 
technological development. It is a market opportunity for 
companies. At the end of the day, the most fundamental 
question, though, is the one you are talking about, which is 
safety. And the hope--and the reason a lot of people are 
working in that area is the hope that it can help--that 
autonomy can help reduce traffic fatalities.
    And I think that prospect is important, very tantalizing. 
And of course, at the same time, until we prove it and until we 
understand it, because the safety implications will be 
different in these autonomous scenarios, if we don't really 
have that safety, then we don't have it.
    And so I very much support and appreciate the work that you 
are doing in that area. It is something I would love to work 
with you on if I am confirmed.
    Senator Peters. Well, I will certainly look forward to 
working with you, if confirmed, on it. It is critical. Thank 
you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Peters. Dr. Prabhakar, I 
think I will ask my questions now. And for members, we had a 
couple of people who are expected, so if members are either on 
their way or on their way to a remote question, please do so 
soon. Otherwise, our hearing will conclude early.
    Dr. Prabhakar, I wanted to--you know, this elevation of 
OSTP to the Cabinet level gives a unique opportunity for a 
scientist to play a larger role in shaping the public policies 
of the Nation.
    And I am a big fan of--we live in a technology driven 
economy, and so we need to have people, in my mind, all aspects 
of our Government, who--I am a little down on the CEOs of 
companies who aren't science based.
    You know, they don't know what the next engineering 
evolution is going to be, and they try to run it on a Wall 
Street basis, and I guarantee you that is not a recipe for 
success. There is just so much transformation happening.
    If you don't have a scientist or an engineer at the top of 
the ranks, you are not going to see the next move. So how do 
you sit at the Cabinet level and see the next move and 
communicate that across Government? And let me give you an 
example.
    I am very interested in what we do next on cybersecurity. I 
feel like the amount of attacks are just escalating. It is 
really a way of intimidation, if nothing else, by foreign 
Governments. And the consequences could be devastating to our 
economy. And yet probably every committee in the Congress has 
had a hearing on cybersecurity.
    So how do you play a role? What do you think that we should 
do to get a more a whole of Government response on 
cybersecurity? And what can the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy do at the Cabinet level to assure that that 
happens?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Madam Chair, thank you for this question, 
because I think it is--that is a question that has been very 
much on my mind as I have thought about what this role will be 
if I am confirmed.
    I had the great honor of being in the Oval Office with the 
President to talk about this position and to have him say to me 
that the reason he had made this position a Cabinet level role 
was because he viewed the role of science and technology in our 
country and in the future to be so vitally important that he 
thought it needed to be elevated.
    And that just moved and delighted me because I see that in 
everything that we are doing. In my private sector experience, 
I very much had the experience that you are describing about 
managing the Wall Street, which is very different than managing 
into the future and driving a future that we really want to 
create.
    The reason I think that this--that that connection of 
science and technology at the Cabinet level can actually be 
very effective is because science and technology opens doors, 
but by itself, it can't do anything.
    And it is implementation, it is acceptance, it is adoption. 
It is the way science and technology changes the way we 
operate, the way our incentives are established, the way our 
organizations work.
    That is when change really happens. And I think 
cybersecurity is in many ways a perfect example, because when I 
think about the challenge of cybersecurity, we have this 
growing attack surface.
    For decades now, it has felt as if the problem is getting 
worse faster than we can keep up with it. And when I think 
about that, I see two complementary facets of dealing with it. 
One will always be the research that gives us better methods 
and more automated, more effective methods to be more secure.
    But without the other half, which is the implementation, we 
are simply not going to get there. And how many times have you 
seen a report of a cybersecurity problem where when you peel it 
back, that organization should have patched something, or they 
should have had a different procedure in place?
    It is not that they didn't know. It is that they didn't 
have sufficient incentives, or they weren't worrying about it 
as much as they should have. And so these implementation issues 
are where I think--that is where the rubber meets the road for 
science and technology.
    And my hope is, and what I would work toward if I am 
confirmed in this position, is to use that Cabinet position to 
link science and technology to the other aspects of Government 
that so often are where a lot of the important implementations 
have happened.
    The Chair. What do you think, that is like a road map? Do 
you think that say a plan? I was a big fan of a very geeky 
report done by then Secretary Moniz called the Quadrennial 
Report.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Yes, wonderful report.
    The Chair. And that kind of report says, this is where we 
are as a Nation. These are the things that we should go and 
implement as it related to energy. And basically was talking 
about the transformation that was happening that we no longer 
had the same structure even, we didn't even have the same 
structure to deliver what we previously had.
    So I think that in my mind, we have a lot of great efforts 
going on in cybersecurity, but it is not as cohesive as a 
strategic plan or certainly not a constant review. So I think 
that that--so you are saying you think that OSTP could play 
that role?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Yes, I think those reports can sometimes be 
extremely impactful. The one you described is a great example. 
And then I think you also have to couple it with the direct 
persuasion and the finding of ways to implement.
    And that is sometimes, as you know, that is a very human 
enterprise. And I think that is something that--my hope is the 
Cabinet position will give me an opportunity to be more 
effective than science and technology has been in the past on 
that side of it.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Cruz.

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

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Dr. 
Prabhakar. Welcome. It is always good to see a fellow Texan 
before the Committee. My first question for you is a pretty 
simple one.
    Do you believe there is such a thing as, ``settled 
science,'' that being a time when scientific inquiry is no 
longer required, when questioning is no longer required, when 
experimentation is no longer necessary.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Cruz, it is good to meet you. Thank 
you for that question. The enterprise of science is one of 
inquiry. And over time, there are fields where the scientific 
consensus emerges that has been tested under a broad set of 
circumstances.
    And it starts to feel immutable. It never really fully is. 
But that is the nature of scientific inquiry is to continue to 
ask those questions and to examine any topic from all 
perspectives.
    Senator Cruz. Well, I agree with that, particularly the 
last point you just made, that it is the essence of science to 
question. And history is replete with all sorts of instances 
of, ``scientific consensus'' being categorically wrong.
    And the mantra of settled science is often a mask for a 
political agenda to prevent scientists from asking questions 
that are inconsistent with the political agenda. We know that 
it was once settled science that the earth was the center of 
the universe, and Galileo was a heretic for daring to question 
other words. It was settled science, less than 200 years ago, 
that handwashing did nothing to prevent the spread of disease. 
That everyone knew disease was caused by an imbalance of bad 
air or evil spirits.
    And so settled science has a way of shifting. And I would 
note just a couple of months ago, the Biden Administration's 
Assistant Secretary for Health, Rachel Levine, all but said 
that the science surrounding, ``gender affirming care'' was, 
``settled'' specifically, and the quote was, ``there is no 
debate in the medical community about the medical or scientific 
validity of gender affirming care.''
    And gender affirming care is a euphemism for all sorts of 
policies that with young children can involve puberty blocking 
drugs, that can involve at extreme level surgeries that 
permanently alter their reproductive capacity, their capacity 
for the rest of their life.
    Do you think it is accurate that questions such as that are 
settled science, and no one is even allowed to ask what are the 
consequences of an 8-year old child being given severe drugs 
that alter their physiology for the rest of their life?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Cruz, I think you are talking about 
an area that is quite complex. I think gender is actually, I 
think, complex in ways that are surprising to many people. And 
my view on this matter is that fundamental to this topic is 
respect for the individuals who are involved. And I would keep 
coming back to that as well.
    Senator Cruz. But you are not answering my question. Do you 
believe it is settled science and thus it is unacceptable to 
ask questions about the impact of a child of administering 
severe life altering drugs at very young ages. Do you think 
that is settled science and nobody is allowed to question it?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, that is an area that is, again, 
very complex. It is not one that I have deep personal 
familiarity with. It is one that I would want to learn a lot 
more about.
    Senator Cruz. OK. So you are refusing to answer that. Like 
it ought to be a really easy of course, you can ask questions 
about what is the impact of giving life altering drugs to kids.
    That is not a complicated--I can tell you, if I go home to 
Texas and I get 100 people in a room, I promise you, 99 of them 
will say, well, of course, we ought to ask a question about 
that.
    I find it amazing that you are nominated to a Cabinet level 
position as the President's science adviser, and you are not 
even willing to acknowledge that asking questions about the 
long term, physical and emotional health to a child, asking 
those questions is OK.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, I think you are talking about some 
issues that certainly require a lot more thought and----
    Senator Cruz. OK, unfortunately, what you are demonstrating 
here is that politics is more important than science because 
there are obvious science and medical questions. Let's shift to 
another topic.
    OSTP has done a lot of work under President Biden on energy 
and climate, and there may be no area of science that is more 
politicized than energy and climate. Of the almost 200 nations 
on planet Earth, which Nation has reduced its CO2 
emissions by the greatest number of total tons over the last 15 
years?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Cruz, I would probably want to look 
at the data to give you a complete answer to that. I know the 
U.S. has been very good at reducing our emissions after having 
a long history of being the greatest emitter.
    Senator Cruz. OK. The complete answer is the United States 
of America, which has reduced our CO2 emissions by 
more than 600 million metric tons in the past 15 years. And my 
last question, because my time has expired, what is the 
principal cause of the United States leading the world in the 
reduction of CO2 emissions? There is an objectively 
correct answer to this.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, from my recollection of looking at 
the shifts in U.S. emissions, they have come about, I believe, 
from a combination of efficiency, improvements of shifts in 
manufacturing, and of the adoption of renewables.
    Senator Cruz. OK, that question is science--that answer is 
scientifically false. The answer for the principal cause of the 
reduction of CO2 emissions is the substitution of 
natural gas for coal in the production of electricity. That is 
objective. It is scientific fact. And it is dismaying to me 
that your answer to this committee is the political answer, 
rather than actually talking about science and data and facts.
    And it also explains why the Biden Administration has a 
relentless hostility to natural gas, even though it is the 
principal driver of carbon reductions. That is not science, 
that is politics. And frankly, it is bad politics.
    The Chair. Senator Rosen.

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

    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Cantwell. And thank you, 
Dr. Prabhakar, for being here. And I am just so proud of you. 
As the first woman to earn a PhD in applied physics from the 
California Institute of Technology, where you also earned a 
master's of science in electrical engineering.
    And you are here today to talk to us about good, strong 
science and technology policy. So I thank you for being here, 
and I thank the Chairwoman for bringing you. I also want to 
agree with the Chairwoman I am not going to talk about this 
today, but how cybersecurity is so important and should be part 
of our national strategy.
    But in order to do that, we have to have access for STEM 
education. So one of my top priorities in Congress is 
supporting STEM education and the STEM workforce, being a woman 
in STEM myself. And it is why I launched with Senator Capito, 
the bipartisan Senate Women in STEM Caucus.
    I am proud to have introduced several STEM related bills, 
including my STEM Restart Act with Senator Hyde-Smith, my Rural 
STEM Act with Senator Wicker, and the Building Blocks of STEM 
Act with Senator Capito, which was signed into law last 
Congress.
    However, there is still so much work to be done, 
particularly in breaking down barriers that stand in the way of 
all students of all ages and genders and backgrounds from 
pursuing STEM education and STEM careers.
    We know that there are jobs everywhere. You said that you 
were the first woman to break that barrier there. So what role 
do you see OSTP having promoting STEM education and workforce 
training, particularly for girls and for underrepresented 
communities?
    And if you are confirmed, will you commit to working with 
me to increase our Nation's investment in those education 
programs for girls and students of color?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, thank you for your question, and 
thank you for the enormous amount of work that you have done on 
this vitally important topic. As we have been discussing today, 
I see two big reasons that this wider participation in STEM is 
just critically important.
    We have made enormous progress since I was an undergraduate 
in the 70s. And when I look around and I start to see many more 
people of color, people from all different backgrounds, many 
more women, I can see that we are making progress. And it is 
also clear we have got a long way to go.
    And the work that you are doing, I think, is important in 
that. This is a process that accelerates, I think, as there are 
more and more role models, people who look like you when you 
are a kid. I think that is enormously beneficial.
    But progress here comes in many different forms, and I know 
that improving STEM opportunities and improving our STEM 
workforce is something that is part of my--I have seen it as 
part of what many different parts of the Federal R&D enterprise 
does.
    And historically, and I believe continuing OSTP, plays a 
role in pulling all of those pieces together and helping to 
make sure that they really are fully effective. So if I am 
confirmed, this is an area that I would look forward to working 
with you on.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you, because you know what, these are 
good jobs. They are really creative jobs. They are jobs for 
everyone. But what do you need to do, all these cyber jobs, 
tech jobs, STEM jobs, whether they are education, programming, 
research, development, you name it, engineering, you need 
broadband.
    You need broadband. And so last year, Congress passed the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I was proud to help 
write part of that bill, drafting key portions of the law, 
including my middle mile Broadband Deployment Act. It is part 
of that $40 billion broadband equity access and deployment 
program to invest in last mile infrastructure.
    And so I know I have a short time left, but I do believe by 
investing in these high speed networks, especially for our 
anchor institutions across the country, we could see greater 
participation in science from our rural communities.
    So, doctor, although broadband I know isn't part of OSTP's 
directive, the Office's mission is to maximize the benefits of 
science and technology for all Americans, including rural 
Americans, underserved communities.
    We have those all across the country. So greater broadband 
access really can bring us closer to realizing the agency's 
mission and your mission. So can you discuss the importance of 
closing the digital divide and what role perhaps your office 
can play in working with the FCC, NTIA, USDA, and all of that 
to make this happen?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, I couldn't agree more. It is, you 
know, you really can't--you can't educate kids, you can't 
operate businesses without that broadband access. That is the 
world that we are in.
    The issues are different, as I understand them, for 
different communities. And I think that is the reason that I 
can--I think OSTP can, in fact, play a very constructive role 
working with the different parts of Government that are 
responsible for different parts of that. I think it is 
fundamentally enabling and it is something that I would really 
be delighted to work with you on if I am confirmed.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I think we just need a whole of 
Government approach to create the foundation for success, and I 
look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you, 
Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Hickenlooper.

             STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. And 
Dr. Prabhakar, thank you so much for your--there you are. There 
I am. Thank you so much for your willingness to come back again 
and again into public service and to look at the opportunities 
that surround us in terms of getting more return for our 
investments with our scientific research.
    And I thought Senator Rosen's questions about getting more 
women, people of color into science are so powerful just 
because science--in its way, science allows us, by fostering 
our curiosity and through careful observation, are able to make 
significant progress in solving the problems that face mankind.
    And while science probably is never always settled, at a 
certain point, you make decisions, and we have to go forward 
with the science we know. And still new information comes, we 
have to be willing to admit that change. But with the 
information we have, we have to go forward.
    And I think that is something you have done all through 
your career. I think that the--your experience with DARPA, your 
experience with NIST, and your experience in the private world 
have kind of prepared you for helping create a bigger vision of 
what science can mean.
    And within that, I recognize that science without values, 
without a framework of values, can be dangerous. And that is 
part of our job, to make sure your job and my job and the 
Senate's job is to make sure that that framework is strong.
    How does your experience, both in this and DARPA, how does 
it allow you, and describe a little bit about what that bigger 
vision for the White House Office of Science and Technology 
Policy is?
    I mean, is that--when we had a chance to discuss, I think, 
I don't know whether you got me more excited or I got you more 
excited, but that excitement was real, and I think it was 
really meaningful.
    So talk a little bit about what that, you know, in terms of 
getting rid of duplicity, duplicative research, things like 
that, what you see.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Hickenlooper, I really enjoyed our 
conversation. I remember we were--hands were waving, and a lot 
was going on. I just feel so lucky that at this stage in my 
career, I have had the opportunity, the NIST opportunity, the 
DARPA opportunity, but also my private sector experience.
    And it has given me a lot of different windows into this 
very complex, rich ecosystem that we have for innovation. And 
the first thing I would observe about that is all the big 
progress we have ever made in any area comes not because--we 
love the lone hero story in American mythology, but the fact is 
it really does take all these different components.
    And what I learned from DARPA and NIST in particular is, 
the number one thing for the organization to succeed is to 
really be clear about their mission. The people you bring in, 
how you organize, the culture you build is all about that 
mission. And I found that DARPA and NIST, they were very, very 
different.
    They both have very important national purposes. One is 
breakthroughs for National Security. The other is measurement 
and standards, infrastructure that supports everything at 
DARPA. The favorite word is risk.
    At NIST I found the favorite word was careful. And you 
really have to understand how important each of those are, and 
then let each organization be really great at what it is they 
do, which both of us are.
    So now when I think about that, when I now think about--I 
hope the opportunity, if I am confirmed to come in and lead 
OSTP. OSTP is a place that sees that whole chessboard. And one 
thing I want to do is respect and honor those different 
missions, and then I want to knock down barriers to help those 
different parts of our Federal R&D enterprise achieve those 
missions.
    And I want to knit them together so that they can do the 
things together that they can't do separately. And that is--a 
lot of that focus will be the Federal R&D enterprise. But of 
course it is part of our national and then our global 
innovation system.
    And that is the lens I would tell you I bring, is that we 
need each piece to flourish, and if big things are going to 
happen, we need it all to work together as well.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Absolutely. Well, we look forward to 
it. I think I--Chairwoman Cantwell has been a great leader in 
the Congress in terms of how do we put more energy into our 
science and get more out of it.
    In other words, how do we--the same time we are expanding 
curiosity and whole new frontiers, how do we take the 
innovations and the ideas that we have proven out and make them 
more beneficial?
    And I think that is one of the most exciting things about 
you going into that Office is that is where that can happen, 
where we can, as a country, reassert our leadership on the 
global stage as a place where not only is there great research 
and new ideas, and just the purity of research is unfettered, 
but we are also a place where we take those ideas and put them 
into action, which is something you have been working on those 
building blocks for such a long time.
    Ms. Prabhakar. That is what I really care about, Senator. 
So, thank you.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Well, I can tell. And again, I am as 
excited--oh, I am not sure I am quite as excited as you are, 
but I am darn close. I yield back.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper. I am going to 
ask Senator Tester, if no one else shows up, if you could close 
out the hearing. I have to run to another very important 
Finance hearing on low income housing.
    So I am going to submit more questions for the record, 
definitely on some of the other science areas we didn't cover. 
Definitely we will touch on ethics and conflict of interest and 
all those things that are important for us to continue to build 
confidence in the systems that we have in place.
    But thank you very much. And Senator Tester, you are up. 
And if you could help us close out, and no one else shows up--
--

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be honored 
to close out as long as your crack staff gives me a script that 
I can rip through at the end, so thank you very, very much.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Tester. Doctor, thank you for your willingness to 
serve. OSTP leads the climate and environmental team. You 
correct me if I am saying anything wrong. Provides the 
Administration with scientific information on climate and 
environmental issues to help inform their policies.
    Is the work that you do, analyzing what has already 
happened within the climate? Or do you do anything--and I am 
not being judgmental. I think it is very important to do 
analysis. What happened after. Do you do anything saying, we 
need to do this because that result would end up in this, OK.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Tester, it is wonderful to meet you. 
I hope to have an opportunity to talk in greater detail another 
time. Thank you for that question. The work in climate and 
environment and our energy systems, as I understand it, has a 
couple of divisions at OSTP with two really exceptional 
leaders.
    Part of that work, as again, I am only seeing it from the 
outside at this point, but part of that work is a clear 
understanding of where we are, where emissions come from, at a 
fine grained enough level that we can take action.
    And so part of it is understanding. And then the other part 
is, what are the actions that will actually get us to a place 
where we can maintain the devastations of climate change? So it 
is both components as far as I understand it.
    Senator Tester. So as I said in caucus yesterday, I think 
there are two ways to attack climate. There may be more.
    One is either through regulation or one is through getting 
technology out of that is so affordable that business can't 
afford not to have vehicles or pick an industry that doesn't 
put a lot of carbon out in the atmosphere. I, as you probably 
know, I am probably a little more in the camp of the latter 
rather than the former.
    And you know, climate is a huge issue. And I think in the 
end the real problem isn't runways mountain in England. It is, 
there is not going to be enough food to feed the world. No 
matter how good our science is, there is still not enough good 
food. Now let me give you an example.
    Where I live in North Central Montana, which is the Golden 
Triangle, which is incredible wheat belt, I just heard from 
folks at the university who says, if things continue at this 
rate, this is going to be have to put back in the grass. You 
are not going to have enough water to raise crops, OK.
    That kind of worries me since that has been my family's 
life for generations. So the question is, can you tell me how 
you could use your position to leverage technology, or can you 
use your position to leverage technology? It deals with climate 
change by the way.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator--yes, absolutely. I think, I very 
much appreciate the way you framed it, because we tend to talk 
about technologies as these exciting, new, wonderful ways to 
solve problems.
    But you have really put your finger on a very important 
piece, which is better technologies, lower the barrier to make 
the shift into the carbon free future that we have to have.
    And so I think that, and you know, every big thing we have 
ever accomplished did require a combination of regulation and 
advances in technology that ultimately allowed the market to 
just drive and scale.
    So I think those are the transitions that we really need to 
get to. And I think that there are opportunities underway and 
new opportunities that research can provide.
    Senator Tester. Do you see your Office as playing a role in 
that?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Yes.
    Senator Tester. As far as those recommendations go. Because 
look, we can all look and say, you know what, the polar ice cap 
is melting. And we can all say that, you know, you had the 
driest year ever or the hottest year ever. The oceans rising, 
so much. But I think solutions are--we are where we are, and 
solutions are really important. Do you see your Office as 
playing a role in recommending solutions to the White House, to 
the agencies, to Congress?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, if I am confirmed, that is very 
much what my focus will be, practical solutions. And my 
impression from, again, just a brief introduction so far is 
that is very much the approach that the people who are in those 
roles are taking today.
    Senator Tester. As I started out my questions, I appreciate 
your willingness to serve. I think I hope you are confirmed. I 
hope you are done by unanimous consent, so we don't have to 
mess around and take days and days to do these confirmations. 
But we will see what happens. With that, I will recognize 
Senator Sullivan.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Thank you, Senator.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Prabhakar, 
congratulations on your nomination and it is a really important 
position. And I think our country needs to get back to trusting 
science. There is a lot on both sides of the aisle who kind of 
claim, oh, they are the party of science.
    And I think we just got to go with the facts and the 
science, and you are going to be critical in that perspective. 
You know, there is the International Arctic Research Center is 
the result of strong international scientific collaborations as 
it relates to the Arctic.
    And one of the things that frustrates us a little bit in 
Alaska is you have Arctic research that seems almost purposely 
not to take place in the Arctic, and we think that it should 
take place in the Arctic.
    So will you help us prioritize Arctic science, of which 
there is a lot and a lot of interest, actually taking place in 
Alaska that has great research institutions that in my mind are 
some of the best in the world. And live it, they live it.
    And this is both our university systems, but also our 
native people who have traditional knowledge on Arctic issues 
in science that maybe isn't the Western PhD knowledge, but time 
and time again is proven to be in many ways smarter and more 
predictable as it relates to Arctic science.
    So can I get your commitment on that, and do you have any 
views on those issues that I raised?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Sullivan, it is wonderful to meet 
you. I look forward to a chance to dive in deeper with you. I 
think we are scheduled to meet later. Thank you for this issue.
    Thank you for the work that you have done in this area. You 
do have my commitment. I wanted to say that when I served at 
DARPA, I became aware of the issues in the Arctic and the 
changing nature of the Arctic. And of course, at that time, I 
was thinking about it from a National Security lens.
    Huge implications from National Security perspectives, but 
it is much broader than that. And this is an area that I, if I 
am confirmed, I would want to learn a great deal more about. I 
very much appreciate your emphasis on local knowledge, which 
seems critical to a problem like this.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes. Critical. Good. Let me turn to the 
issue of the energy sector, oil and gas, and then I want to 
talk about emissions. All--well, I will start with the 
emissions. I have this chart that I like to trot out a lot and 
take a look at that.
    [The chart referred to follows:]

   [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    This has been fact checked and but, you know, there is a 
movement on some of the climate issues to say, all right, well, 
we are just going to get rid of all hydrocarbons. I think John 
Kerry reflects that the best in this Administration. It is very 
nonscientific based. There is no country in the world that has 
gone from, for example, power generation by coal to wind and 
solar.
    No one has done that in the world. No major economy in the 
world has done that, right. The transition has been generally 
coal, fired power generation, to natural gas. And no country in 
the world exhibits that more than us. And what that does, it is 
actually benefited the world in terms of emissions.
    What do I mean by that? Take a look at this chart. These 
are facts. The U.S. is the leader since 2005 on reducing 
emissions almost by 15 percent. That is a fact. And as you 
know, India, China, I mean, these countries are going through 
the roof on emissions.
    When I asked very knowledgeable people, you are one, why do 
you think that happened? Why do you think that happened? Why 
are we the leader for the last 15 years? You never read about 
it in the press, but we are, more than Europe, more than Japan, 
more than Germany.
    Certainly more than China and India. Do you have an answer? 
Do you know why that happened? Do you think it was you think it 
was comprehensive, smart EPA regulations that made that happen?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, I had the opportunity to have an 
exchange on this matter with Senator Cruz a few minutes ago. 
And he reminded me that natural gas had played a critical role. 
And I have seen--I was remembering the chart that I know from 
the EIA that addresses exactly that issue. And I am happy to 
discuss that further with you.
    Senator Sullivan. OK. So, you know, then the reason this 
chart and the reason we are the leader in the world by far, 
John Kerry take note, is because of the revolution in the 
production of American clean burning natural gas. Isn't that 
correct?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Sullivan, that is an important 
contribution.
    Senator Sullivan. You are going to be the top scientist in 
America. You need to know the answer to that question.
    Ms. Prabhakar. That is an important contribution. I would 
like to add that it is not the only component----
    Senator Sullivan. Not the only one.
    Ms. Prabhakar.--in that progress.
    Senator Sullivan. But it is the driving factor.
    Ms. Prabhakar. And I would also like to note, if I might, 
that, again, back to the point that as we learn more things, we 
need to adapt. I think what we are learning now about some of 
the concerns about natural gas and leakage issues actually puts 
in question how much of a contribution we have made. So I don't 
want to take that contribution.
    Senator Sullivan. Now you are sounding like John Kerry. 
This is a serious issue, right. And I don't--the John Kerry 
talking point on leakage, you know, the guy is not a scientist. 
You are going to be--you are a scientist, right. You need to 
you need to be able to answer this question, right.
    This is primarily because of the production of natural gas 
in America. That is a fact. OK. You are a scientist. You can't 
quibble and give me the John Kerry answer about leakage. And so 
there is leakage. I am not saying there isn't. But the reason 
we are the leader in the world is the production of natural 
gas. And the reason I am mentioning this, the world is going to 
need more American natural gas, particularly in the aftermath 
of the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
    Our allies in Europe, our allies in Asia need it. We need 
to be able to say that, strategically. You are from DARPA. But 
then also say, and there will be benefits from global emissions 
that relate to that. If every country in the world had this 
profile, you think the world would have a better chance on 
reducing emissions?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, there is no question that was great 
growth. A lot of that is from coal fired plants. And I want to 
be very clear that I think it is important to acknowledge the 
role that natural gas has played.
    So I do agree with you on that. And again, in my view, 
having a complete understanding of all the components is 
important because I think we all understand that those 
emissions come from every sector of our economy.
    You and I are talking right now primarily about 
electricity, but there is a lot more that's going on. So I want 
to affirm your point about natural gas, but I would also like 
to put down a marker that I think there are many other 
dimensions of this very complex challenge.
    Senator Sullivan. There is no doubt there are other 
dimensions, but the driving force here--Mr. Chairman, if I can 
ask one more question, and it is an important one. We want to 
make sure in my State on resource development--again, science 
and data are critical. Alaska, for example, we are the 
superpower of seafood.
    Almost two-thirds of all seafood harvested in America comes 
from Alaska's waters, two-thirds. And we do that because we 
have the best data and science on managing our fish stocks. 
Sometimes it takes discipline to tell fishermen, hey, you can't 
fish here, it will limit your harvest. So I just want you to 
commit to me on continuing to make sure we get data on that, 
but also data in the energy sector.
    We have an area called the National Petroleum Reserve of 
Alaska. A couple of years ago, White House officials, 
scientific officials in the Obama Administration came out and 
said, there is no more real oil in NPRA. I was the DNR 
commissioner at the time. We knew that was a factually 
inaccurate statement.
    So you had science from a White House being used on energy 
that was clearly politicized, right. How do I know that was 
wrong? Because that part of Alaska is seeing a huge renaissance 
in exploration and discovery of massive amounts of energy that 
we have in America, that we need.
    So I just want your commitment to make sure we are not 
going to politicize science in any way, shape, or form, 
particularly as it relates to energy, oil, gas, fishing, 
climate change. Straight up on science. Can you give me that 
commitment? And I look forward to having a further discussion 
in my office.
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator, yes, I will commit to you.
    Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Tester. Yes, thank you. And one last question, and 
that is, Dr. Prabhakar, will you commit to respond to requests 
to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 
the Senate?
    Ms. Prabhakar. Senator Tester, I do.
    Senator Tester. OK. Perfect. Everybody on the Committee, 
especially the Chairman and Ranking Member, will be happy to 
hear that. This concludes this hearing this morning. And I want 
to thank you for appearing for the Committee today and for your 
continued commitment to public service and making this world a 
better place.
    Senators will have until Monday, July 25, at the close of 
business to submit questions for the record to the Committee. 
You will have until close of business on August 1 to respond to 
those questions. With that, this Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

       Prepared Statement of Former Congressman Mac Thornberry, 
                   (R-Texas 13th District, 1995-2021)
    Madam Chair, Senator Wicker, Members of the Committee,

    I had planned to join you in person to help introduce Dr. Arati 
Prabhakar at this hearing. Unfortunately, the latest COVID variant has 
caught up with me. I remain greatly honored, however, to be able to 
express my admiration for Dr. Prabhakar's professionalism, character, 
and dedication to public service.
    Dr. Prabhakar and I discovered that our paths have crossed a couple 
of different times. The first was when we both attended Texas Tech 
University. Apparently, she spent virtually all her time in the science 
and engineering buildings, graduating in three years. I was elsewhere. 
So, even if we were attending the same school at the same time, it is 
unlikely that we actually met.
    The second intersection was more fruitful. When Dr. Prabhakar was 
the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 
I chaired the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the 
House Armed Services Committee which had oversight responsibility for 
DARPA. I tried to make regular visits to DARPA to hear firsthand some 
of the work that they were pursuing to supplement our meetings, 
hearings, and briefings on the Hill. I continued to take a special 
interest in DARPA when I became chairman of the full committee in 2015, 
and over the course of those interactions got to know Dr. Prabhakar 
well.
    I came away from those five years obviously impressed by Dr. 
Prabhakar's knowledge and professional expertise, and maybe even more 
by her ability to explain complex scientific matters to a history major 
like me. She was a strong, capable, and cohesive leader of DARPA who 
fostered a culture that led to significant successes for the Department 
of Defense and our Nation. It was also clear to me that she was 
committed to letting the science and the results of the studies 
determine the way forward. Marshalling the brilliance of those 
scientists and engineers toward meeting our national security needs 
required a special set of skills. And she left DARPA a more capable and 
productive organization than she found it.
    I also came away in admiration of her personal integrity and 
dedication to serving the country and the national interests. We all 
hear a lot of talk along that line, but it is something else to see a 
leader of many strong personalities and intellects work to see that the 
country's interests come first.
    Whether it was at DARPA, NIST, or elsewhere, whenever Dr. Prabhakar 
has been given responsibilities of public trust, she has met the 
challenges in an intellectually honest, inclusive, and productive way. 
The country has benefited, and I have no doubt that will continue to be 
true in the Office of Science and Technology Policy as well.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Weather and Climate Forecasting. If confirmed, you will oversee the 
Interagency Council for Advancing Meteorological Services (``ICAMS''), 
established to ensure that the United States leads the world in weather 
and climate forecasting.
    The work of ICAMS and NOAA is critical for our Nation's ability to 
prepare, respond, and adapt to the increasing extreme weather events 
and our changing climate.

    Question 1. The European weather forecast model is superior to the 
American forecast model. The European model provides more accurate 
three- to seven-day forecasts and can better predict the location of 
hurricane landfall compared to the American model. In your role, will 
you commit to accelerating the work of this Council to improve the 
United States' leadership standing?
    Answer. Yes. ICAMS is well positioned to accelerate scientific and 
technological advancements in weather forecast modeling because it 
brings the broad Federal meteorological enterprise together.

    Question 2. Increases in extreme weather events cause hundreds of 
deaths, cost billions of dollars annually, and threaten food, water, 
energy, and economic well-being. So far this year there have been nine 
separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in the Nation. Do 
you agree that advancing the Nation's preparedness for extreme weather 
events and climate events is a science priority and will you prioritize 
ICAM's work to improve the timing and accuracy of weather forecasting?
    Answer. Yes. If confirmed, my roles as OSTP Director and as the 
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology would allow 
multiple avenues for prioritizing solutions that address the climate 
crisis and its increasingly devastating impacts. With respect to ICAMS, 
one of its primary strengths is coordination across Federal 
meteorological science and service providers and users, which can 
significantly advance the development of new tools and capabilities 
that enable communities to prepare for extreme weather events.

    Question 3. We invested $80 million in the Biden-Harris 
Infrastructure Law to help boost supercomputing technologies for fire-
weather models, but we have a long way to go. The United Kingdom's 
recent billion-dollar investment gives them the most powerful weather 
and climate supercomputer technology in the world. If confirmed, will 
you work with the Committee to elevate the need and procure the 
supercomputing infrastructure, including high-performance computers, 
cloud computing capabilities, and the workforce, needed to support and 
advance our weather and climate forecasting capabilities?
    Answer. Enhancing our weather and climate forecasting capabilities 
is essential to Americans' safety. If confirmed, I look forward to 
engaging with the Committee on the technological infrastructure and 
workforce investments that will be needed for this important challenge.

    OSTP Workplace. A December 2021 White House investigation revealed 
complaints from fourteen OSTP employees that the former Director 
bullied and demeaned his subordinates in violation of OSTP's Safe and 
Respectful Workplace policy. In April, this Committee submitted a 
bipartisan letter to the Administration urging it to move quickly to 
nominate a new OSTP Director to continue the Office's important work 
and address workplace issues. The Committee's letter cited reports of a 
toxic work environment and allegations that employees who raised 
concerns with senior leadership faced retaliation.

    Question. What will you do to restore trust among OSTP staff and 
ensure that OSTP leads by example in maintaining a safe and 
professional work environment?
    Answer. I was extremely concerned about the allegations and 
behavior cited in press reports about the investigation and in your 
bipartisan letter. Based on my interactions with OSTP to date, it is 
clear that the organization has since made important progress in 
setting a foundation for a respectful workplace environment. As I 
stated at the hearing, people will be my first priority, if I'm 
confirmed. I plan to come into the role ready to do two things. One is 
to listen to the people in the organization to learn about the history 
and the current environment and assess what work is now needed to move 
forward. The other is to state my own expectations for a high standard 
of mutual respect and to exhibit that level of respect in my 
interactions with all parties. OSTP's success depends on its excellent 
staff being able to work effectively with each other and many others in 
a safe and professional environment, and I am committed to doing 
everything I can to nurture that environment.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Combatting Sexual Harassment. There is a long history of a 
persistent and pervasive culture of discrimination and sexual 
harassment in the STEM workforce. Earlier this Congress, I introduced 
S. 1379, the Combatting Sexual Harassment in Science Act, which would 
direct the National Science Foundation to award grants to examine the 
causes of and reduce the incidence and negative consequences of sexual 
harassment. The bill would also direct OSTP to establish a working 
group to assess current practices and develop, maintain, and implement 
policy guidelines for sexual harassment prevention and reduction 
efforts at Federal science agencies.
    This bill was included in the ``CHIPS plus'' package currently 
under consideration on the Senate floor.

    Question. If confirmed, do you commit to expeditiously standing up 
the OSTP working group?
    Answer. Yes. Sexual harassment is unacceptable in the STEM 
community, as it is everywhere.

    A.I. Bill of Rights. Last October, the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP) announced an initiative to develop an A.I. 
Bill of Rights. It is important that we protect consumer rights, civil 
rights, and civil liberties as A.I. and other data-driven technologies 
increasingly intersect and shape the lives of Americans.

    Question 1. Do you support OSTP's work on creating an A.I. Bill of 
Rights?
    Answer. Yes. Artificial intelligence is a powerful technological 
capability, and it is up to us as a society to make sure we use it in 
ways that reflect and reinforce American values. AI and automated 
systems must be designed, built, and used in ways that uphold our core 
values and protect the civil rights of all Americans.

    Question 2. If confirmed, do you commit to moving forward with this 
work?
    Answer. Yes.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Competition Bill Implementation. Congress will soon pass the 
competition bill, previously known as the U.S. Innovation and 
Competition Act. In addition to vital funding for our domestic 
semiconductor industry, the legislation provides significant 
investments in the National Science Foundation (NSF) and a variety of 
initiatives that full under the purview of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP) through the ten key technology focus areas 
(KTFAs) noted in the legislation. Programs relevant to KTFAs in 
artificial intelligence, quantum science, cybersecurity, biotechnology, 
and distributed ledger technologies include the NSF's Technology 
Directorate and the Department of Commerce's Regional Innovation Hubs, 
among others.

    Question. If confirmed, how will you work at OSTP to implement the 
competition legislation, once it is signed into law?
    Answer. This pending legislation is a tremendous opportunity to 
boost American competitiveness, and its effective implementation will 
be critical. If confirmed, I will lead OSTP in implementing the 
bipartisan innovation legislation as enacted. I understand that the 
legislation has multiple coordination and implementation tasks for 
OSTP, and if confirmed, I will ensure OSTP executes these authorities 
and policies in collaboration with other White House offices, with 
Federal agencies, with stakeholder communities, with Congress, and with 
the science, technology, and innovation communities.

    Diversity in STEM Education and Fields. Despite gains in recent 
years, women and minority groups remain underrepresented in STEM 
fields. Figures from 2021 state that underrepresented minority groups 
make up a little over 33 percent of the STEM workforce. Though women 
comprised 50 percent of the STEM workforce in 2019, their participation 
varies across industries, with women overrepresented in health-related 
fields while being underrepresented in the computer science and 
engineering fields. Though many factors play a role, bolstering 
diversity among instructors and students in STEM courses will likely 
encourage more individuals to pursue STEM careers.

    Question 1. How can OSTP promote diversity in STEM education in K-
12 schools, in addition to institutions of higher education?
    Answer. OSTP can promote diversity in STEM education in K-12 
schools by working to ensure that all schools, including those that 
have been historically under-resourced, are able to bring the 
excitement of STEM to life for students in ways that connect 
personally. That means educators and teachers must have the resources 
they need to provide a quality STEM education, including state-of-the-
art learning, training, and instructional materials, as well as 
connections to the broader STEM ecosystem.

    Question 2. From your own experience, are there additional actions 
Congress should consider taking to support diversity in the STEM 
workforce?
    Answer. In addition to the critical investments and actions in the 
bipartisan innovation legislation, Congress can bolster U.S. STEM 
capabilities by appropriating substantial investments in R&D, STEM 
education, and the STEM workforce, as the President has proposed in his 
Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Agencies are making important progress in 
improving diversity and access to funding opportunities. The bipartisan 
legislation that this Committee has championed would provide 
significant additional measures. If confirmed, I look forward to 
helping the agencies that implement these new efforts make them as 
impactful as possible.

    Workplace Culture at OSTP. As you know, the White House found that 
your predecessor at OSTP engaged in inappropriate workplace conduct, 
especially in his treatment of subordinate staff. I expect all 
presidential nominees to believe in the mission of their agency and to 
have the proper qualifications to serve in their role, which includes 
fostering a productive, safe, and collaborative environment.

    Question. How will you work to create a positive work environment 
at OSTP?
    Answer. Nurturing a positive work environment is very important to 
me; I see it as the lynchpin of a successful organization. I was 
extremely concerned about the allegations and behavior cited in press 
reports earlier in this year. As I stated at the hearing, people will 
be my first priority, if I'm confirmed to lead OSTP. I plan to come 
into the role ready to do two things. One is to listen to the people in 
the organization to learn about the history and the current environment 
and assess what work is now needed to move forward. The other is to 
state my own expectations for a high standard of mutual respect and to 
exhibit that level of respect in my interactions with all parties. 
Delivering on OSTP's important mission depends on its excellent staff 
being able to work effectively with each other and many others in a 
safe and professional environment, and I am committed to doing 
everything I can to nurture that environment.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Climate Science. Dr. Prabhakar, your experience running science 
organizations such as NIST, DARPA, and others in the private sector can 
provide leadership at OSTP that will be vital to providing the best 
scientific research possible to address critical issues climate change, 
economic competitiveness, and national security.
    During your nomination hearing you were asked about actions taken 
by the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 2005 and to opine 
on the United States' shift from coal to natural gas.

    Question 1. Can you describe in full the role that coal-to-gas 
substitution has played in reducing emissions since 2005, including any 
relevant uncertainties around fugitive methane?
    Answer. With communities in every part of the U.S. experiencing the 
devastations of a changing climate, it is clear that we must 
drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions very quickly. The 
electricity sector has made the most progress, with natural gas playing 
the biggest role in electricity decarbonization to date. Combusting 
natural gas does result in CO2 emissions but far less than 
combusting coal, though as noted below this advantage is to some extent 
offset by leakage in the supply chain. The U.S. Energy Information 
Administration estimates that the shift from coal to natural gas for 
electricity generation resulted in a cumulative savings of 
CO2 emissions of about 3 billion metric tons during 2006-
2019 in the U.S. Despite this progress, it is sobering to realize that 
cumulative gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 96 billion metric 
tons over those years, showing how much further we still have to go.
    In addition to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion at power 
plants, methane that leaks into the atmosphere from natural gas 
production and distribution also contributes to climate change. We 
continue to learn how to measure these leaks to get a better handle on 
their impact and where actions to contain the leaks would have the 
biggest benefit. This ``fugitive methane'' erodes some of the climate 
benefits from fuel switching from coal to natural gas.

    Question 2. Relatedly, can you discuss any fundamental limitations 
of an emissions-reduction strategy based primarily on switching from 
one fossil fuel to another?
    Answer. Getting to net-zero emissions for electricity generation 
requires maximizing carbon-free generation, using carbon capture and 
sequestration for any remaining fossil-powered generation, minimizing 
fugitive methane, and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law makes important investments in innovation 
and demonstration across all of these important technologies.

    Question 3. And finally, how will OSTP, under your leadership if 
confirmed, use accurate scientific and technical data to inform the 
development of strategies to support the United States' transition to 
clean energy for all sectors of our economy?
    Answer. Accurate and up-to-date scientific and technical data are 
essential to support evidence-based analysis, decisions, and actions to 
enable clean, affordable, and equitable energy. If confirmed, I will 
build on OSTP's work in this area.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Investing in U.S. R&D. From the landing of the first man on the 
moon to recent breakthroughs in science and technology, the U.S. has 
been a global pioneer in cutting edge STEM research and development 
(R&D). As you know, Congress is negotiating a bipartisan bill that 
would help maintain this competitive edge by making historic 
investments to improve research capacity at colleges and universities, 
establishing regional technology hubs, boosting domestic research and 
production of semiconductors, and more. However, as this legislation 
stalls, other nations are beginning to invest more into these fields, 
which could jeopardize U.S. STEM leadership and have disastrous 
consequences for the economy and national security.

    Question 1. How important is it that Congress pass this competition 
bill and make these critical investments in U.S. R&D? What are the 
risks in failing to pass this legislation?
    Answer. I agree with the President's view that it is critical for 
Congress to pass this bipartisan innovation legislation. It can play a 
very significant role in strengthening our economic and national 
security, advancing U.S. science and technology, and creating good-
paying jobs for U.S. workers in communities across the country. 
Geopolitical competition in both military and economic spheres means we 
can no longer take American leadership for granted--because leadership 
translates directly to the safety and prosperity of all Americans. That 
is what is at stake.

    Question 2. In the absence of a competition bill to invest in U.S. 
R&D, what actions should Congress take to ensure the U.S. remains a 
global leader in STEM?
    Answer. In addition to the critical investments and actions in the 
bipartisan innovation legislation, Congress can bolster the U.S.'s STEM 
abilities by appropriating substantial investments in R&D, STEM 
education, and the STEM workforce, as the President has proposed in his 
Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.

    Question 3. What actions would you take as OSTP Director to promote 
U.S. leadership in STEM R&D? How would you work with Congress, Federal 
agencies, colleges and universities, and the science and technology 
industries to achieve this goal?
    Answer. The second part of this question is the starting point to 
address the first part. My experience working in and with a myriad of 
agencies, universities, and companies has brought home the fact that 
major progress happens only when many organizations in both public and 
private sectors play their important roles. As I remarked at the 
hearing, OSTP is at the heart of making sure that U.S. science and 
technology leadership endures in our complex times. That is because it 
sees and can work with all the actors in this innovation ecosystem. If 
confirmed, I would support and continue OSTP's long history of working 
with the broad science and technology community to address the greatest 
challenges that our Nation faces. I would also advise the President on 
science and technology policy matters, and I would look forward to 
working closely with you and your colleagues in Congress on our shared 
goal of science and technology that creates a better future for all 
Americans.

    Diversity in STEM. From Lewis Latimer, who helped invent the 
lightbulb, to Dorothy Vaughan, who contributed to computations for 
space flight, Americans from all backgrounds have been crucial to U.S. 
achievements in STEM. NSF, NASA, and other Federal agencies related to 
STEM R&D administer programs that build on this diversity to provide 
greater opportunities for women and communities of color that have 
historically been overlooked and under-credited. However, women and 
minorities remain underrepresented in our Nation's STEM community, 
despite evidence that greater diversity can lead to greater innovation 
and scientific discovery.

    Question 1. How would diversifying America's STEM researchers and 
practitioners help to improve the efforts of NSF, NASA, and other 
agencies to maintain global leadership in STEM fields?
    Answer. Broad and diverse participation in STEM is critical for two 
reasons. The first is that STEM careers can be among the more 
rewarding, both in terms of providing good-paying jobs and in terms of 
the satisfaction that many of us in STEM derive from making this 
contribution to our world. Every child in America must have the 
opportunity to discover if a STEM career is their calling and to pursue 
one if that is the case. The second reason is that the challenges and 
aspirations of our times--such as boosting health outcomes, mitigating 
and adapting to climate change, improving equity and access to 
opportunity for all, bolstering our global competitiveness, and 
reinvigorating trust in the Information Age--demand more talents, 
backgrounds, and experiences than we currently have at the drafting 
table.

    Question 2. Do Federal agencies have the resources and support they 
need to cultivate greater diversity in America's STEM community? If 
not, what actions should Congress take to address this issue?
    Answer. Agencies are making important progress in improving 
diversity and access to funding opportunities. The bipartisan 
legislation that this Committee has championed would provide 
significant additional measures. If confirmed, I look forward to 
helping the agencies that implement these new efforts make them as 
impactful as possible.

    Question 3. As OSTP director, will you commit to making it a 
priority to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion for women and 
minorities within your office, Federal agencies that are related to 
STEM R&D, and the broader STEM community?
    Answer. Yes.

    Regional Innovation. America's STEM talent can be found in all 
corners of our nation, and it is critical that our Nation's scientific 
leadership encourages research, education, and technology development 
across the country. I'm proud that Georgia is home to many institutions 
that are critical to our Nation's scientific development, from research 
powerhouses like Georgia Tech to HBCUs like Morehouse and Spelman who 
punch above their weight when it comes to training Black scientists and 
engineers to institutions that are the cornerstone of our regional 
economy and workforce, like Savannah State University, Valdosta State 
University, and many others.

    Question. If confirmed, will you come visit some of these 
outstanding Georgia institutions to demonstrate your commitment to STEM 
development across the country?
    Answer. I couldn't agree more that America has STEM talent all 
across our country, including in the institutions in Georgia. If 
confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to accompany you on a visit 
to Georgia institutions.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Topic. OSTP advises the President on and assists the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) in the development of the Federal research 
and development (R&D) budget. In the President's Budget Request, I 
applaud the Administration's focus on ensuring our competitiveness in 
key technology areas, such as bioscience, AI, and quantum information 
sciences. Unfortunately, however, the Administration's requests have 
generally shortchanged the Department of Energy's Office of Science, 
despite its leadership in these key areas of the R&D ecosystem.

    Question. How do you plan to strengthen our entire Federal research 
ecosystem, including the Office of Science and the Department of Energy 
National Laboratories, to ensure that we are making smart investments 
on the frontiers of science and technology?
    Answer. My experience working in and with a myriad of agencies, 
universities, labs and companies has brought home the fact that major 
progress happens only when many organizations in both public and 
private sectors play their important roles. As I remarked at the 
hearing, OSTP is at the heart of making sure that U.S. science and 
technology leadership endures in our complex times. That is because it 
sees and can work with all the actors in this innovation ecosystem. If 
confirmed, I would support and continue OSTP's long history of working 
with the broad science and technology community to address the greatest 
challenges that our Nation faces.
    Our national labs are a major part of the U.S. innovation system. 
It was my privilege to lead one when I was director at NIST. And my 
experience with the DoE labs goes all the way back to when I was an 
undergraduate and had the chance to visit some of those facilities and 
then work at one of them. If confirmed, I would look forward to 
opportunities to reduce barriers and create new linkages to boost the 
effectiveness of all parts of our R&D ecosystem, including our national 
labs.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Question 1. Emerging Technologies. The Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP) is a leader in the cross-government effort to 
engage with emerging technologies. Next year, Congress will have to 
reauthorize the National Quantum Initiative. Congress has expressed to 
the Department of Energy and to the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) a desire to have the quantum efforts be focused on a 
wide variety of technologies. In light of this, Congress was careful to 
ensure that engagement with the quantum industry be inclusive of the 
wide variety of quantum technologies, ensuring not to overestimate the 
winners and losers in this emerging field.

   Dr. Prabhakar, please tell us about your position on 
        engagement with the quantum and artificial intelligence 
        industry. Will you ensure that OSTP and government efforts to 
        engage with industries of the future, such as quantum and 
        artificial intelligence, be technology-neutral and inclusive of 
        the wide variety of emerging technologies?

    Answer. A robust U.S. R&D ecosystem is vital for advanced 
technologies of all types. Creating this environment requires active 
partnerships with a range of stakeholders across the Federal government 
and with universities and industry. If confirmed, I will work to ensure 
that as OSTP promotes technologies that are essential for our national 
and economic security, including quantum and artificial intelligence, 
its efforts embrace a wide variety of technical approaches and actors.

    Question 2. Update on Research Security Under the NSPM-33. In the 
final days of office, the Trump Administration issued a Presidential 
Research Security Directive 33 (NSPM-33) to strengthen protections of 
United States Government-supported Research and Development (R&D) 
against foreign government interference and exploitation. In January, 
the OSTP and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 
Subcommittee on Research Security issued guidance to Federal 
departments and agencies regarding the implementation of NSPM-33.

   Dr. Prabhakar, can you provide an update on where the 
        implementation of NSPM-33 stands today? As director of OSTP, 
        how will you ensure the integrity of federally sponsored 
        research, and will you promise to uphold research security?

    Answer. I understand that OSTP issued implementation guidance for 
NSPM-33 in January 2022 and that it continues to coordinate the 
protection of federally funded R&D from foreign interference while 
maintaining openness in basic research. The reality of today's 
geopolitics means that this work is critical to the Nation's safety, 
security, and prosperity. It can and must be done in ways that respect 
individual researchers, including those who came to our shores from 
other nations and are now part of the American science and technology 
community. If confirmed, I will work to protect the security of the 
American research enterprise while upholding our core values of 
integrity, equity, and the elimination of prejudice and discrimination.

    Question 3. Research Security and Intellectual Property. Continuing 
on the topic of Research Security, China is fast becoming a science and 
technology powerhouse. We know that Beijing will cross any line to 
dominate critical technology sectors such as artificial intelligence, 
quantum, and robotics. Chinese intellectual property theft is estimated 
to cost the United States as much as $600 billion per year. Through 
talent recruitment programs like the Thousand Talents Program, China 
pays scientists at American universities to bring our knowledge and 
innovation back to China--including valuable, federally funded 
research. According to FBI Director Christopher Wray, ``the greatest 
long-term threat to our Nation's information and intellectual property, 
and to our economic vitality, is the counterintelligence and economic 
espionage threat from China.''

   Dr. Prabhakar, can you please outline what steps the Federal 
        government can take alongside universities and industry to 
        protect our valuable research from foreign espionage and to 
        maintain a competitive advantage over countries like China?

    Answer. To maintain our competitive advantage, the Federal 
government, alongside universities and industry, can take several steps 
to protect our research enterprise from espionage by countries of 
concern, including China. For instance, I understand that OSTP and 
Federal agencies' ongoing implementation of NSPM-33 is advancing clear, 
transparent, standardized approaches to research disclosures. If 
confirmed, I look forward to promoting research security and sustaining 
the competitiveness of America's research enterprise.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Question 1. General. President Biden has asked OSTP to focus on 
five big areas--learning public health lessons from the coronavirus 
pandemic; harnessing science and technology to tackle climate change; 
ensuring the U.S. can compete technologically, especially with China; 
guaranteeing that the fruits of science and technology are shared with 
all Americans; and ensuring the long-term health of American science 
and technology.

   Of these, which do you believe is the most important and 
        why?

    Answer. These five areas are good examples of the many factors that 
will shape how the lives of many millions of Americans unfold. Good 
health, safety from conflict and weather extremes, the opportunity for 
a good job and a rising standard of living, equitable treatment for 
each American--all of these together lay the foundation that allows 
each of us the freedom to pursue our own American dream.

    Question 2. Energy and Environment. If you are confirmed, what kind 
of recommendations would you propose to the President with regards to 
energy subsidies and tax credits?

   Do you think energy subsidies are useful?

   If so, do you believe energy subsidies have the potential to 
        distort the energy market in ways that can be detrimental to 
        ensuring we have a stable and reliable power grid?

    If you are confirmed, what kind of role would OSTP play in 
determining climate policy?

    Do you believe mandates or technological innovation is the most 
effective method for reducing emissions?

    If confirmed, you will oversee the national approach to science and 
technology. Although you won't be their formal boss, what you focus on 
and what messages you push will have significant impacts on the grant-
making agencies like NIH, NSF, and DOE Office of Science. As we 
discussed during your confirmation hearing, I have become increasingly 
concerned with how political agendas, especially relating to climate 
change, shape what grants are awarded, which in turn shapes what 
proposals are submitted, and creates a kind of feedback loop that runs 
a real risk of only funding science which validates the political 
narrative, and never that which challenges orthodoxy. This is the 
opposite of how science should operate. What will you do if confirmed 
to ensure there is robust funding for research into both sides of a 
scientific debate?
    Following questions from Sen. Sullivan at your hearing, you 
confirmed that natural gas has been ``critical'' in the U.S. reducing 
emissions more than any other country in the world over the last 15 
years. In Fall 2020, you published an article in the journal Issues in 
Science and Technology in which you said, ``To avoid the most 
calamitous consequences of a changing climate, we will need to 
eliminate or offset essentially all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050''.

   Therefore, wouldn't you agree we should focus on boosting 
        natural gas production, which you've said is critical to 
        emission reductions?

   If confirmed, will you advise President Biden to increase 
        natural gas production?

    Answer. In response to your questions ``Do you think energy 
subsidies are useful?'' and ``Do you believe mandates or technological 
innovation is the most effective method for reducing emissions?'': 
These mechanisms are often complementary. Ultimately, the adoption and 
mass scale up of technological innovations is what it will take to 
reduce emissions. To start that process, a number of different policy 
measures are needed.
    In response to your question ``If you are confirmed, what kind of 
role would OSTP play in determining climate policy?'': OSTP's mission 
is to maximize the benefits of science and technology to advance 
health, prosperity, security, environmental quality, and justice for 
all Americans. This includes informing policies for mitigation and 
adaptation that reflect a rigorous understanding of climate variability 
and change. OSTP also advances actionable information so that all 
Americans can prepare for, and enhance their resilience to, extreme 
weather and climate change.
    In response to your question ``What will you do if confirmed to 
ensure there is robust funding for research into both sides of a 
scientific debate?'': If confirmed, I will support the ongoing work led 
by OSTP to promote and protect scientific integrity, through for 
example the OSTP-led Scientific Integrity Task Force.
    In response to your question ``Therefore, wouldn't you agree we 
should focus on boosting natural gas production, which you've said is 
critical to emission reductions?'': Natural gas is a critical part of 
the U.S. energy system today and the U.S. is also the world's largest 
exporter of liquified natural gas. Demand for gas in the U.S. and 
worldwide is shifting in response to changing national and global 
energy and environmental policies, as well as the cost-competitiveness 
of alternative technologies. It is also clear that in the next few 
decades, emissions from burning natural gas and from uncontrolled 
methane releases must drop to near zero if we are to avoid even more 
extreme consequences from a changing climate.
    Consequently, it is difficult to anticipate gas demand. It's up to 
private sector actors to make investment decisions based on their risk 
tolerance and their assessment of this evolving energy landscape.
    In response to your question ``If confirmed, will you advise 
President Biden to increase natural gas production?'': Along with other 
members of the Cabinet, I would advise President Biden to assess what 
is in the best interest of the security, economic, environment, and 
equity goals of the United States and act accordingly.

    Question 3. 5G

   What is your stance on the nationalization of 5G and future 
        generations of broadband cellular networks?

   Last year, OSTP announced $40 million in new funding to 
        support research into next-generation telecommunication 
        networks and systems. Do you know what specific technology is 
        being worked on and how it can support our goal of expanding 
        5G?

    Answer. I do not support the creation of a nationalized 5G network.
    I understand that last year's funding announcement highlighted a 
$40 million investment in the Resilient and Intelligent Next-Generation 
Systems (RINGS) program. This is a National Science Foundation effort 
to advance research on future versions of the cellular, Wi-Fi, and 
satellite networks. My understanding is that this research aims to lay 
the groundwork for companies to provide faster service, greater 
resilience, and broader access in the U.S. and around the world.

    Question 4. Artificial Intelligence. What do you think are the 
greatest promises and greatest challenges related to artificial 
intelligence (AI) and machine learning?
    In its 2021 report, the National Security Commission on Artificial 
Intelligence called AI the ``quintessential `dual use' technology--it 
can be used for civilian and military purposes.'' We have laws and 
regulatory regimes in place to prevent the spread of other dual use 
technologies--like those used in rocket technology. Those have been 
applied to the spread of advanced digital technologies, including for 
hardware like gaming consoles that has extensive computing power.

   Is it possible to have similar controls for AI?

   If so, what would that look like?

    Answer. AI is already unleashing economic growth and transforming 
military power--both for the U.S. and our competitors. However, the use 
of AI is posing risks to Americans' privacy, civil rights, and civil 
liberties, making it vital to design, build, and implement AI 
responsibly. AI is powered by data, computing power, and algorithms--
each of which can be protected using a variety of controls. If 
confirmed, I will continue OSTP's work to promote responsible AI 
development and protect America's AI advantage by exploring all policy 
responses.

    Question 5. Civil Military Fusion/China. One of the hallmarks of 
the Western approach to science and research is that, generally 
speaking, there is minimal fusion between civilian scientific research 
and military scientific research. This is in contrast to say China, 
where it is near impossible to separate scientific research and 
development done for civilian purposes and what is done for military 
purposes. How will you approach maintaining our leadership in science 
and technology, while preserving this important bifurcation?
    Because of the whole of government and in many cases whole of state 
approach China takes to technological dominance, one area where there 
has been increasing, bipartisan concern is espionage and the theft of 
American science and technology in academia. The open and collaborative 
nature of academia creates an environment which is ripe for 
exploitation by nefarious actors. I've legislated on this subject--
specifically regarding the threat posed by Confucius Institutes and 
more broadly academic espionage.

   If confirmed, what will your approach be to these 
        challenges?

   And how, with what seems to be a renewed embrace of China, 
        will you balance the need for security with the desire for 
        collaboration?

    China's dominance in the exploration and production of rare earth 
minerals has become an issue of increasing bipartisan concern. Last 
year I introduced the Onshoring Rare Earths Act, or ORE Act, to end 
U.S. dependence on China for rare earth elements and other critical 
minerals. Specifically, the bill provides tax incentives for the rare 
earths industry, including expanding and making permanent full-
expensing provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; requires the DOD to 
source rare earth minerals and critical elements from the U.S., and; 
establishes grants for pilot programs to develop these materials in the 
U.S. The rare earth industry is completely supportive of the bill.

   Do you agree that it is critical to onshore the critical 
        minerals supply chain?

   What is the best way to engage with you and the 
        Administration to either directly move my legislation forward 
        or secure those provisions through other vehicles?

    Answer. In response to your question ``How will you approach 
maintaining our leadership in science and technology, while preserving 
this important bifurcation?'': America's innovation ecosystem is second 
to none. To preserve American competitiveness in science and 
technology, if confirmed, I will promote our innovation ecosystem's 
unique strengths by promoting technology development that supports a 
diverse set of civilian and military missions that range from boosting 
American health outcomes to enhancing our national security.
    In response to your questions ``If confirmed, what will your 
approach be to these challenges?'' and ``And how, with what seems to be 
a renewed embrace of China, will you balance the need for security with 
the desire for collaboration?'': I understand that OSTP issued 
implementation guidance for NSPM-33 in January 2022 and that it 
continues to coordinate the protection of federally funded R&D from 
foreign interference while maintaining openness in basic research. 
Certain governments, including China, engage in espionage and theft. 
This reality of today's geopolitics means that OSTP's work is critical 
to the Nation's safety, security, and prosperity. It can and must be 
done in ways that respect individual researchers, including those who 
came to our shores from other nations and are now part of the American 
science and technology community. If confirmed, I will work to protect 
the security of the American research enterprise while upholding our 
core values of integrity, equity, and the elimination of prejudice and 
discrimination.
    In response to your question: ``Do you agree that it is critical to 
onshore the critical minerals supply chain?'' Yes. It is also in the 
interest of the U.S. to work with our allies and partners to expand the 
number of countries that produce and process these materials.
    In response to your question: ``What is the best way to engage with 
you and the Administration to either directly move my legislation 
forward or secure those provisions through other vehicles?'' If 
confirmed, I would be happy to work with you to identify the most 
promising actions to increase the security of supply chains for 
critical energy materials and technologies.

    Question 6. Space. Do you support extending the operation and 
utilization of the International Space Station beyond 2024 to 2030?

    What should our priorities be for our national space program?
    Although it has come a long way, commercial space is still an 
emerging industry.

   How do you think government should address creating safety 
        standards for commercial space companies?

   Do you favor a more collaborative, industry driven approach?

   Or more of a top down, bureaucratic approach?

    How can we leverage the scientific enterprise of America and our 
allies to make sure that we fully utilize the International Space 
Station (ISS) to create new industries?

   How should we approach replacing the ISS once it has reached 
        the end of its useful life?

   Do you believe another government asset is the best 
        approach?

   A commercially-developed space station? Or some hybrid of 
        the two?

    What are your thoughts on the National Space Council?

   Do you envision it playing a role under the Biden 
        administration?

    Under Vice President Pence, the National Space Council made policy 
implementation its focus, and agencies were surprisingly responsive to 
direction. The Biden administration's space policy predominately has a 
theme of continuity, keeping in place many priorities of the Trump 
administration.

   How will you make sure that the interagency process delivers 
        on the goals that the President and Congress set for the 
        nation?

    Answer. In December 2021, NASA announced the Administration's 
commitment to extend International Space Station (ISS) operations until 
2030, working with our international partners. For more than 20 years, 
the ISS has been a unique capability that has enabled research not 
possible on Earth. Without this extension, China would be the only 
nation with a permanent human presence in space. Now, NASA is funding 
public-private partnerships for commercial space stations to transition 
to after ISS.
    I support the continuing work of the National Space Council under 
the leadership of Vice President Harris. Space operations are integral 
to American commercial and military interests, and shifting geopolitics 
makes space more important than ever. If confirmed, I look forward to 
partnering with other Space Council members and Congress to ensure 
strong U.S. leadership, capable of meeting the opportunities and the 
challenges in this critical domain.

    Questions 7. Gain of Function Research. In 2014, OSTP directed a 
``pause'' and risk assessment of GOF that referenced `incidents' 
related to biosafety and biosecurity. The ``pause'' applied to GOF 
research related to ``research projects that may be reasonably 
anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses 
such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or 
transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.'' Though there 
was a pause in Federal GOF research due to perceived risk, HHS issued 
the `Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research 
involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens'' in December 2017 and 
as a result, NIH lifted the pause of GOF research.
    The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) 
also provided a nearly $600,000 grant to EconoHealth to study bat 
coronavirus emergence at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Subsequently, 
that grant was reauthorized for $3.7 million over five years in 2019.

   Do you support an independent investigation of OSTP's role 
        in gain of function research?

    Answer. This is an area of research that can be dangerous, but--
when carefully conducted with appropriate guardrails--can be critically 
important to understand how a life-threatening virus might mutate. When 
we do research that has safety implications like this, it must be 
deeply thought through, and we have mechanisms to do that. For example, 
I understand that OSTP, in partnership with the National Security 
Council, is participating in a Federal government-wide review of 
policies related to risks from biological events, as directed by 
Executive Order 13987, including research related to high-risk 
pathogens.

    Question 8. Blockchain. The ``Chips Plus'' bill currently being 
considered in Congress includes a provision directing OSTP to 
``establish or designate a blockchain and cryptocurrencies advisory 
specialist position within the office to coordinate Federal activities 
and advise the President on matters of research and development 
relating to blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and distributed ledger 
technologies.

   Do you support creating a blockchain specialist position at 
        OSTP? Please explain.

    Answer. The President recently signed an Executive Order focused on 
harnessing the benefits and mitigating the risks from digital assets. I 
support OSTP having the expertise needed to implement the Executive 
Order and any laws Congress may pass directing OSTP to take further 
action on digital assets.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Question 1. Currently, efforts to develop autonomy tend to be 
siloed among services. What role can OSTP play to break down the 
barriers between agencies and the private sector to accelerate the 
development of autonomy?
    Answer. OSTP often helps break down barriers and silos across 
government and across sectors. OSTP houses the National AI Initiative 
Office and the National Quantum Coordination Office, which both 
coordinate activities across the Federal government and work closely 
with the private sector. I look forward to supporting these critical 
functions, if confirmed.

    Question 2. Testing and evaluation is critical to building public 
trust in AI and autonomous systems. Do you see any gaps in U.S. 
infrastructure to test and evaluate AI and autonomous systems? If so, 
how would you lead OSTP to fill those gaps?
    Answer. I certainly agree that testing and evaluation are important 
components in building trust in AI and autonomous systems. I understand 
that OSTP co-chairs the Congressionally mandated National AI Research 
Resource Task Force, which is considering whether a National AI 
Research Resource could increase access to the ability to develop, 
test, and evaluate AI systems in the context of research. If confirmed, 
I would support this work to identify and propose solutions to rectify 
gaps in testing and evaluation of AI and autonomous systems, as well as 
to support an AI Bill of Rights to ensure we protect people from the 
harms to privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.

    Question 3. If you're confirmed as the president's science and 
technology advisor, there inevitably would be a stronger policy 
component to your job. How would you use your technical science 
background to inform sound and unbiased policy decisions?
    Answer. My experiences at NIST, where the watchword was 
``careful,'' and DARPA, where great leaps were made by taking risks--
and my experience in the private sector--provide me with several very 
different vantage points that would inform the science and technology 
policy efforts of OSTP. What was common in all these roles was the 
realization that achieving impact required much more than science and 
technology itself. Exploring widely with enthusiasts and skeptics, 
rigorously examining evidence, weighing ethical and societal 
considerations, setting clear goals, bringing actors with sometimes 
divergent incentives together, assessing progress, and persuading users 
to adopt successful results--all of these were essential. If confirmed, 
I would expect to adopt and adapt many of these practices in leading 
OSTP, with the aim of achieving policies that enable science and 
technology to benefit all Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Question. American leadership in science and technology--especially 
the emerging technologies that will dominate the 21st Century--is vital 
to both the future of the American economy and to our competitiveness 
with China. This is a national security issue and we must invest in 
research & development in key technology areas. For years now, I've 
been working on comprehensive innovation legislation to do just that. 
It has gone through many name iterations and a gauntlet of procedural 
hurdles but the important thing is that we are making real progress to 
secure many of these provisions along with funding to support the 
American semiconductor manufacturing base. These provisions include 
standing up a strong tech directorate at the National Science 
Foundation and establishing regional technology hubs around the 
country--all while leveraging significant private sector dollars.

   Can you discuss the importance of passing innovation 
        legislation that invests in R&D to help America win the 
        technological arms race against China?

    Answer. I very much agree with your view, and the President's view, 
that it is critical for Congress to pass this bipartisan innovation 
legislation. It can play a very significant role in strengthening our 
economic and national security, advancing U.S. science and technology, 
and creating good-paying jobs for U.S. workers in communities across 
the country. Geopolitical competition in both military and economic 
spheres means we can no longer take American leadership for granted--
because leadership translates directly to the safety and prosperity of 
all Americans. That is what is at stake.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Lee to 
                          Dr. Arati Prabhakar
    Question 1. In 42 USC 6614 the OSTP is to broadly ``serve as the 
source of scientific and technological analysis and judgement for the 
President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the 
Federal government.'' And further, the Director is required to 
``develop, review, revise, and recommend criteria for determining 
scientific and technological activities warranting Federal support.'' 
Given this importance and the fact that President Biden has elevated 
the Director of the OSTP to a Cabinet level position within the White 
House, I have a series of questions regarding the ethics of certain 
scientific research:

   Do you support Hyde Amendment protections in our 
        appropriations legislation? If not, should Federal taxpayer 
        money be used to pay for abortions?

   Do you support the use of aborted fetal tissue for research 
        purposes?

   Do you support the use of embryonic stem cell research?

   Do you support the use of live embryos in federally funded 
        research?

   Do you support the creation of three-parent embryos?

   Do you support the use of germline genetic engineering to 
        create genetically modified embryos?

   Do you support the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos?

   Do you support allowing an embryo to gestate in an 
        artificial womb environment for research purposes for less than 
        14 days? Do you support allowing such an embryo to gestate in 
        an artificial womb environment for longer than 14 days?

    Answer. Publicly funded research bears an important responsibility 
to consider ethical issues, and where appropriate, to create 
mechanisms, such as Institutional Review Boards, to allow careful 
consideration of the benefits and risks of such research. The scenarios 
presented require individual consideration, based on differences in 
ethical consideration, current legal status, and the state of research.

   Hyde Amendment: President Biden has been clear that he 
        opposes the Hyde Amendment, but recognizes it is current law. I 
        agree with the President's view.

   Research use of abortive fetal tissue: This is a specific 
        research approach, for which there are limited or no 
        alternatives, that can help find therapies for otherwise 
        incurable diseases and conditions. I support the Biden 
        Administration's decision to lift an earlier ban on this 
        research because of its potential to unlock solutions for 
        cancers, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other diseases and 
        conditions that afflict so many Americans.

   Embryonic stem cell research: I support the Administration's 
        reaffirmation of the long-standing support of responsible, 
        scientifically worthy, human embryonic stem cell research 
        allowable under the law, subject to the NIH Guidelines on Human 
        Stem Cell Research.

   Live embryos for research: I understand that Congress has 
        banned Federal research funding on this.

   Three parent embryos: This type of research, aimed at not 
        passing on genetic defects from parents with fertility issues, 
        raises a host of ethical questions. I understand that Congress 
        has imposed a regulatory ban on this. This Congressional action 
        provides an opportunity for public deliberation on balancing 
        the potential for this technique with the serious ethical 
        issues that have been raised.

   Germline engineering of gene edited embryos: While this has 
        been proposed as an approach for treating extremely serious 
        genetic conditions, there are significant safety and ethical 
        issues raised by this application of gene editing technology, 
        and I do not support it. In addition, Congressional 
        prohibitions prevent funding of this research or regulatory 
        approval of its clinical use.

   Human-animal hybrid embryos: I understand that Federal law 
        prohibits Federal funding to insert animal cells into human 
        embryos.

   Embryo in artificial womb environment (14 days): I 
        understand that Federal law prohibits Federal funding for 
        research involving human embryos at any stage.

    Question 2. Last year, the Biden Administration lifted restrictions 
on the use of fetal tissue for medical research. These new rules would 
allow scientists to use tissue derived from abortions for medical 
research. Recently, a series of FOIA requests showed how the Food and 
Drug Administration paid an estimated $2,000 per individual baby and 
sometimes up to $12,000 per box of harvested organs. Some documents 
have even showed that the FDA bought body parts from babies that were 
24 weeks old as well as the skulls of second trimester babies.

   With the Biden Administration's lifting restrictions on use 
        of fetal tissue, do you support the trafficking of aborted 
        human body parts?

   If confirmed to be OSTP Director, a role that involves the 
        coordination and establishment of research and development 
        goals across Federal agencies, will you oppose this type of 
        scientific research being conducted at the FDA or at any 
        Federal agency?

    Answer. I believe you are referring to a specific research 
approach, for which there are limited or no alternatives, that can help 
find therapies for otherwise incurable diseases and conditions. The 
Biden Administration lifted the ban on this type of research because of 
its potential to unlock solutions for cancers, Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, and other serious diseases and conditions that afflict so 
many Americans. Federal agencies are working with Congress, 
researchers, and communities to ensure that this research proceeds 
under appropriately strict guidelines. If confirmed, I commit to 
working with Congress, researchers, Federal agencies, and others to 
ensure that any such research is conducted under the highest ethical 
standards.

    Question 3. The Senate is considering the CHIPS Act of 2022 which 
places a great deal of responsibility on the OSTP Director and National 
Science Foundation for implementation of government R&D efforts to 
counter China's threat to the U.S. homeland. I'm concerned that in this 
conversation, we are only trying to respond to the CCP threat with more 
government spending.

   Should our biggest response to increased Chinese investment 
        in R&D be to just ``outspend'' China? Will ``outspending'' 
        China through the Federal government actually counter the CCP 
        threat?

   Are there regulatory changes that we need to make in order 
        to better mobilize the United States to meet the challenges 
        posed by the Chinese government? How about regulatory changes? 
        Tax code changes? Workforce changes? And will U.S. spending be 
        less effective without making these regulatory changes?

   How much money should the Federal Government spend on 
        Research and Development? $100 billion? $250 billion? More or 
        less than those numbers? And is there a point when government 
        spending becomes counterproductive?

   Competition increases innovation. How do we avoid a 
        situation where the Federal government is picking winners and 
        losers? And because Federal investment isn't subject to market 
        forces, could Federal investment drive private R&D dollars 
        toward inefficient purposes?

   Are there any R&D programs that the United States is 
        currently funding that we should eliminate? Is there any room 
        for stopping waste in the R&D space? And would you agree that 
        we should be eliminating duplicative research and finding ways 
        to conduct oversight of our R&D programs before we authorize 
        more spending?

    Answer. Geopolitical competition in both military and economic 
spheres means we can no longer take American leadership for granted--
because leadership translates directly to the safety and prosperity of 
all Americans. That is what is at stake.
    I agree with you that our competitiveness challenges demand that we 
make good use of all the tools we have as a nation. One important step 
is the bipartisan innovation legislation currently being considered by 
Congress. I agree with the President's view that it is critical for 
Congress to pass this legislation. Its focus is not simply more of the 
same, but rather some important new approaches to improve regional 
innovation, make it possible to have core semiconductor production in 
the U.S., and bolster technology research. I understand the legislation 
also includes workforce policies, tax-code changes, and other policies. 
Given China's R&D spending, which is growing rapidly and is 
strategically focused, these advances are important and necessary for 
the U.S. to maintain technological leadership.
    Federal spending on R&D is the sum of R&D allocated by many 
different parts of government to pursue the science, technology, and 
innovation they need to achieve their missions. As one example, I 
participated directly in this during my years at DARPA, which the 
Defense Department has funded for over 60 years for its role in 
breakthrough technologies for national security. In my experience 
leading both DARPA and NIST, I found that these agencies along with the 
others across the Federal R&D enterprise received very substantial 
scrutiny and review by their bosses within the Executive Branch and 
their overseers and appropriators in Congress. This oversight is an 
important part of why our Federal R&D agencies are effective in 
achieving their important missions.

    Question 4. What is the appropriate role of the Federal government 
for the categories of ``basic research'', ``applied research'', or 
``development''? And what should be left to the private sector?
    Answer. I have had the opportunity to work in both the public and 
private sector parts of our innovation system. Federal support is 
essential for basic and applied research that creates a broad 
foundation that all industries can build upon and that allows us to 
make progress on critical national challenges. In addition, Federal 
funds support the development of products required for government 
mission, such as weapons systems for our military and satellites for 
weather and space exploration. The strong American private sector 
spends substantially more on R&D than the Federal government. It 
focuses its funding almost exclusively on the development and 
improvement of specific commercial products and services--in many 
cases, building upon prior federally sponsored R&D. Our success as a 
country depends on all of these players making their different and 
complementary contributions.

    Question 5. Access to additional spectrum is critical for future 
technological innovation. Unfortunately, the Federal government sits on 
a lot of valuable spectrum bands, particularly mid-band spectrum which 
is the best suited for 5G wireless networks.

   Do you have any plans to issue a national spectrum strategy?

   Do you think Federal agencies currently use their spectrum 
        efficiently?

   Should government agencies be immune from oversight of their 
        use of the electromagnetic spectrum?

   I think Congress and Executive Branch agencies need the best 
        available data to identify inefficiencies in both the 
        commercial and government contexts. Will you support my 
        legislation, the Government Spectrum Valuation Act (S. 553), 
        which would require NTIA to calculate the value or the 
        ``opportunity costs'' associated with Federal spectrum so that 
        we can make more informed decisions?

    Answer. Wireless spectrum is a scarce national resource that 
supports a wide range of national interests: 5G and other connectivity 
innovations, public safety, national defense, and many more. That 
resource must be used efficiently and strategically to support all of 
these important priorities. If I am confirmed, I commit to work with 
you as we work across agencies to help balance these important 
considerations.

    Question 6. Will you oppose efforts to authorize or promote a 
nationalized 5G network?
    Answer. I do not support the creation of a nationalized 5G network.

    Question 7. The OSTP under the Trump Administration was influential 
in the formation of the UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP). The IPP is 
now completed and the FAA recently transitioned into their next program 
called BEYOND. A big question in drone policy is the scope of Federal 
preemption. A September 2020 GAO report noted that both DOT and DOJ 
will soon be issuing a joint opinion on the scope of FAA preemption in 
the context of low altitude drone operations. The FAA has taken the 
position that they control the airspace from the ground up. To my 
knowledge that opinion has not been issued to date.

   Do you think the Federal government has the ability to 
        regulate the airspace a couple of feet above your lawn? What 
        about inches above the blades of grass? Is this a problematic 
        position to take?

   Do you think full and safe drone integration is possible 
        without the ability of state/local police to take real-time 
        action to safeguard the public?

    Answer. I appreciate the importance of innovation for a prosperous 
future on the ground and in the skies. I recognize that we as a country 
have a multitude of interests to balance including individual property 
rights, public safety, integration into existing aviation plans, and 
privacy and civil liberties. Getting the right mix of individual 
liberty, Federal authority, and state, local, territorial, and Tribal 
authority will be important.

    Question 8. Is the Internet a public utility? And should it be 
regulated as such?
    Answer. Every American needs Internet access to share in the 
benefits of online education, healthcare, work, civic engagement, and 
social connections. If confirmed, I pledge to work with Congress to 
identify governance approaches that promote affordable, reliable access 
to high-speed Internet with appropriate consumer protections and 
protections for a healthily functioning democracy.

                                  [all]