[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]