COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023
Summary
Part 5 of the printed hearings Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2023, before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, in the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, Second Session. Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania, is listed as subcommittee chairman. The part covers the fiscal year 2023 budget requests of the Department of Justice, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Commerce and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, plus a Members' Day and public testimony submitted for the record. The Department of Justice hearing on Thursday, April 28, 2022 has Hon. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States, as the witness.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/commerce-justice-science-and-related-agencies-appropriations-for-2023-494207365c/
, SHA-256 1adbd1663687750671492f5141dc35774d8852d0ba1ac78b5364ed7802f49c55.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2023
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
_________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE,
AND RELATED AGENCIES
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania, Chairman
GRACE MENG, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
ED CASE, Hawaii BEN CLINE, Virginia
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MIKE GARCIA, California
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Bob Bonner, Jeff Ashford, TJ Lowdermilk,
Shannon McCully, James Wise, and Nora Faye
Subcommittee Staff
______
PART 5
Page
Department of Justice Fiscal Year 2023
Budget Request.......................... 1
------
National Science Foundation Fiscal
Year 2023 Budget Request................ 91
------
Department of Commerce Fiscal Year
2023 Budget Request..................... 157
------
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Fiscal Year 2023 Budget
Request................................. 239
------
Members' Day.......................... 325
------
Public Testimony Submitted for the
Record.................................. 359
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_____
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-781 WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KEN CALVERT, California
TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM COLE, Oklahoma
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DEREK KILMER, Washington ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
GRACE MENG, New York CHRIS STEWART, Utah
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts DAVID G. VALADAO, California
PETE AGUILAR, California DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey BEN CLINE, Virginia
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
NORMA J. TORRES, California MIKE GARCIA, California
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona TONY GONZALES, Texas
ED CASE, Hawaii JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2023
---------- --
--------
Thursday, April 28, 2022.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESS
HON. MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin. As this hearing
is fully virtual, we must address a few housekeeping matters
for today's meeting.
The chair or staff designated by the chair may mute
participants microphones when they are not under recognition
for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and un-muting
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not un-muted yourself, I may ask the staff to send you a
request to un-mute yourself. Please then accept that request so
that you are no longer muted.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until that issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen and make sure you
are in gallery view. The clock will show how much time is
remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn to
yellow; at 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to
remind members their time is almost up. And, when your time has
expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin to recognize
the next member.
In terms of speaking order, we will begin with the chair
and ranking member, then members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority. And, finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
And the subcommittee will now come to order.
Good afternoon. Welcome to the first hearing of the year
for the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies. I am pleased to welcome our Attorney General, Merrick
Garland, back to speak to us on the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget
Request for the Department of Justice.
Attorney General Garland, it has been a very busy year for
you since our last meeting, and we look forward to discussing
the major priorities for the Department of Justice.
As we noted last year, the Justice Department's missions
are far-reaching. The Department helps administer the law and
support the Constitution; protect national security, human
rights; preserve civil liberties; support free and fair
elections; and safeguard our commerce and our economy.
The Department of Justice administers a massive, complex
detention and correction enterprise; it adjudicates immigration
benefits; and oversees a broad and sophisticated criminal
investigative and prosecutorial system.
In addition to its traditional and ongoing missions,
Justice is taking on new work to support our national response
to the Russian invasion of Ukraine with the help of new funding
Congress provided in last month's Ukraine supplemental.
DOJ is carrying out its largest and unprecedented
investigation and prosecution effort into the January 6th
insurrection and related events. And while DOJ is adjusting to
the arc of the COVID-19 pandemic, it must also ensure that
billions in essential pandemic assistance funding are not lost
to fraud.
The Department's task is to ensure that a constitution
rooted in 18th Century enlightenment can safely negotiate 21st
century headwinds, and we hope this committee can help ensure
that you are equipped with a 21st Century toolkit to navigate
those winds. To carry out the Department's broad missions, your
budget seeks $38.7 billion in discretionary funding, about 11.3
percent above the fiscal year 2022 enacted level.
Your budget proposes significant funding to strengthen the
response to a concerning national epidemic in opioid overdoses
and surging gun violence. It also seeks resources to address a
concerning and historic threat from violent extremists,
particularly White supremacists. We hope to discuss these both
in greater detail.
As the Bureau of Prisons begins to come out of the
pandemic, we expect to learn how it is improving its staffing,
reducing overcrowding, and implementing the First Step Act
reforms using the substantial investments provided by Congress.
We also want to hear how the Department would utilize the
significant increases that are sought for the Office on
Violence Against Women, juvenile justice programs, and efforts
to strengthen community policing.
This Administration has proposed a $595 million or 78
percent increase for the Executive Office for Immigration
Review to address significant immigration processing backlogs.
We expect to learn more about how the Department can help make
our immigration system work in the face of an unprecedented
workload.
You have taken steps to identify corruption and capture
Russian kleptocrats, or at least their ill-gotten wealth. We
are going to want to learn more today about the progress in
that effort. We also look to hear more about the proposed
initiatives to bolster antitrust enforcement, support
environmental justice, and defend intellectual property rights
to protect American industry and jobs.
Attorney General Garland, you have a big job that is only
getting bigger, and we look forward to your testimony.
And, at this time, I want to turn to my distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Robert Aderholt, for his statement.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Attorney General. We welcome you to the Commerce, Justice,
Science Subcommittee today to testify regarding the Department
of Justice's fiscal year 2023 budget request.
Of course, your budget request has a total of roughly $38
billion in discretionary resources for the Department of
Justice, which is an increase of over $2.5 billion over fiscal
year 2022 enacted level. But, for reasons that are not really
clear, your budget proposes an additional $30 billion--and for
those who are listening, that is with a B, billion--in new
mandatory spending. The budget submission explains no
explanation of how Congress is expected to fill this request.
What this request signals is that, while American families
all across the United States are making hard choices, they are
seeing their buying power diminish with each passing day, the
Administration is doubling down on spending policies that have
helped bring about the worst inflation that this Nation has
seen really in 40 years.
And while taxpayers are stretching to make every dollar
they retain count, the budget boasts about including $600
million to support free immigration lawyers for thousands of
illegal persons who are crossing the border to illegally enter
our country each and every day. Even more outrageous is the
fact that $450 million is mandatory spending.
Speaking of immigration, Attorney General Garland, I have
many questions about the cost of the immigration policies you
have helped craft. In particular, a new asylum rule that
abdicates the role of immigration courts funded by this
subcommittee and diminishes the value and integrity of
immigration judges, as it trades integrity for expediency and
puts the politics really ahead of border security.
This rule, an interim final rule announced in March, turns
our immigration system literally on its head. It shifts the
burden of filing an illegal's application for asylum to the
U.S. Government. It redirects unauthorized aliens from a path
to removal proceedings to non-adversarial hearings in which
asylum can be granted expeditiously. And it creates the
strongest magnet yet for illegal immigration, an expedited path
to a work authorization.
The new procedures that are set forward go into effect May
31st and it is set to collide with the Administration's repeal
of Title 42 procedures. Yet, ironically, we will no doubt hear
today that the Justice Department is committed to countering
the surge of violent crime that our nation is experiencing, and
that works to combat the human and drug-trafficking operations
of violent cartels. This committee and the American people have
a right to hear whether the request for Federal law enforcement
resources in this budget reflects the surge in migration and
crime that is expected to result from major policy changes that
this Administration is poised to unleash.
In addition, I have got some questions that I will go over
today about DOJ's baffling decision to terminate a China
initiative. FBI Director Christopher Wray has repeatedly
sounded the alarm about the threats that the United States face
from China, and he is correct on that. The biggest threat we
face as a country from a counter-intelligent perspective is the
Chinese Communist Party and, according to Director Wray, they
have stolen more of Americans' personal and corporate data than
every nation combined. Anything that makes an industry tick,
they have targeted. And we need to know why this
Administration, rather than working to counter a false
political charge that the program was targeting Chinese people
or people of Chinese ancestry, simply terminated this essential
national security program.
In your prepared testimony, you state the Department places
a high priority on countering nefarious activities from hostile
nation states like China, like Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
And, with all due respect, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are
nefarious actors, but we know the difference. China presents an
existential and generational threat.
Finally, I am concerned about the excessive level of
federal spending by this Administration. Inflation is at the
highest level since 1981 and yet the President's budget
proposes increases in both taxes and spending, which will
likely grow inflation even higher than we are seeing today.
Inflation is a tax on everyone. President Biden continues
to blame inflation on everything except a failed economic
agenda. I would argue that this budget proves that the
Administration has not learned from its mistakes. Our nation's
staggering debt, along with increasing interest rates, will
diminish future generations' economic opportunities, and it
will hinder the Federal Government's ability to address the
security needs of the country.
Nevertheless, I believe that there will be opportunities to
find some agreement on measures to reduce violent crime, also
to fight the scourge of addiction, and to protect the
vulnerable from those who would seek to abuse or exploit them.
In closing, I do appreciate the hard work of you, Mr.
Attorney General, and your staff at the Department of Justice
to help keep Americans safe. I stand by to work with you and
ensure that the programs you administer are not only effective,
but they are as efficient as possible, but also that they
support the rule of law.
And I look forward to working with Chairman Cartwright, who
has been a great partner on this subcommittee, in support of
funding for many important missions of the Department of
Justice as this year's appropriation process moves forward.
And, again, I do appreciate your willingness to be before
the subcommittee today, and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
At this time, Mr. Attorney General, you are recognized for
your opening remarks. Please try to keep your statement to 5
minutes. And, as always, be assured that your full written
statement will be included in the record.
You are recognized.
Attorney General Garland. Good afternoon, Chairman
Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and distinguished members
of this subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today.
Before I discuss the details of our fiscal year 2023
request, I would like to say a word about the President's
supplemental budget request with respect to Ukraine.
The Justice Department is currently putting all available
resources to use to hold accountable individuals whose criminal
actions are enabling Russia's unjust war against Ukraine.
In March, we launched the KleptoCapture Task Force. Since
then, the task force has been hard at work with our
international partners to enforce sanctions violations;
dismantle Russian criminal networks; and freeze, seize, and
forfeit kleptocrat assets. The proposals the President
announced today will give the Justice Department critical
resources and tools to continue and strengthen this work.
Among other things, they would enable us to transfer the
proceeds of forfeited Russian assets directly to Ukraine to
remediate the harms of Russia's aggression. It would close
loopholes in our sanctions and forfeiture law, and they would
allow us to help the people of Ukraine in their most dire hour.
We have all seen the heartbreaking images coming out of
Ukraine and we have all read the accounts of Russia's
brutality. We urge Congress to quickly consider this request.
The Justice Department stands ready to provide the committee
with additional details and assistance as you consider the
Administration's supplemental request.
With that, I will turn to the primary subject of today's
hearing, the Justice Department's fiscal year 2023 budget
request.
Over the 413 days that I have served as Attorney General,
three coequal priorities have guided the work of the Justice
Department: Keeping our country safe, protecting civil rights,
and upholding the rule of law. These priorities reflect the
Justice Department's mission and our mission is reflected in
the President's fiscal year 2023 budget request.
Our first request and our first funding priority is keeping
our country safe from all threats, foreign and domestic,
whether from hostile nation states, terrorists, or common
criminals.
As our country's chief law enforcement officer, I am
committed to supporting members of law enforcement at all
levels of government as they work to protect our country, while
also safeguarding civil liberties and ensuring our
accountability to the American people.
To these ends, the President's fiscal year 2023 budget
request, more than $20.2 billion, to support the work of DOJ's
law enforcement components and U.S. Attorneys' Offices as they
carry out their complex mission sets. These resources will
strengthen the Justice Department's efforts to reduce violent
crime and gun violence; to counter the multitude of serious and
evolving threats to our country from terrorists, cyber
criminals, and hostile nation states; to combat the violent
drug-trafficking networks that are fueling our nation's
overdose epidemic; and to protect our nation's democratic
institutions, including the one that you are sitting in today,
from violent attack.
In fiscal year 2023 alone, the President's budget also
requests more than $8 billion in grants for states and
localities nationwide to fund the police, including by putting
more police officers on the beat, and by implementing
community-based strategies to prevent crime and gun violence.
The President's fiscal year 2023 budget also prioritizes
the protection of civil rights. We are seeking a 32 percent
increase in funding for the Civil Rights Division, as well as
additional resources for our U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the
Community Relations Service, and our Office for Access for
Justice.
Our civil rights work remains vital to safeguarding voting
rights, prosecuting hate crimes, ensuring constitutional
policing, and addressing unlawful discrimination.
Another area of departmental focus is safeguarding economic
security, fairness, and opportunity. This is reflected in our
request for resources to protect the American people from
intellectual property crimes; to reinvigorate our antitrust
enforcement and consumer protection; to combat corporate crime;
and to bring to justice those who seek to profit unlawfully
from the COVID-19 pandemic.
In particular, the Department requests a total of $273
million, an increase of 41.6 percent, for the Antitrust
Division to carry out its critical mission of promoting
competition in the American economy and protecting workers,
consumers, and businesses alike.
Finally, we are requesting $11.7 billion to ensure the just
administration of our nation's immigration courts and federal
correctional assistance. This includes $1.35 billion for the
Executive Office for Immigration Review to reduce the
immigration court backlog by hiring more than 1200 new staff,
including approximately 200 immigration judge teams over the
fiscal year 2022 enacted level.
Our request for $8.18 billion for the Bureau of Prisons
will help ensure the health, safety, and well-being for the
more than 150,000 individuals in federal custody. This request
would allow DOJ to hire 1300 new correctional officers and
First Step Act staff, and will be used to support
rehabilitative programming and improve conditions for
confinement.
I respectfully ask for your support for our budget request
as the Justice Department works to uphold the rule of law, keep
our country safe, and protect everyone's civil rights.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that statement, Attorney
General Garland.
We are going to begin the question period now. Each of us
will have 5 minutes per round, and I am going to begin by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes of questions.
I am going to start with what is news today. You mentioned
in your opening statement about the establishment of Task Force
KleptoCapture. Klepto, of course, is a $50 word that refers to
stealing; is that correct?
Attorney General Garland. By persons affiliated with nation
state autocrats, yes, that is fair to say.
Mr. Cartwright. So Task Force KleptoCapture is to enforce
measures to target oligarchs and other criminal allies whose
resources have helped enable Russia to amass corrupt wealth and
support its military aggression.
We just now received the Administration's new Ukraine
supplemental request and that is the news. In that request, $67
million is proposed to be provided to the Department of Justice
under its general administration account to support that task
force specifically in its efforts to seize high-value assets
from sanctioned individuals, and use the proceeds and assets
seized to remediate harm caused in Ukraine by the Russian
invasion.
Now, the first and most important question I have is, $67
million, Attorney General Garland, is that enough to do the
job?
Attorney General Garland. Well, I always like to get that
question from an Appropriations subcommittee. But you did give
us $59.4 million in the first supplemental, which we put to use
for our KleptoCapture Task Force and also for our concerns
about cyber attack. This $67 million is more funding. We would
obviously appreciate your support for it because it will allow
us to carry forward our current operations.
But we do anticipate, that is, our task force anticipates
at least 30 complex investigations over time, so we would of
course welcome any additional resources and would be able to
put them to good use.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, specifically, asset forfeiture is an
expensive undertaking and there are asset forfeiture efforts
going on right now. How much are you spending on the beefed-up
asset forfeiture efforts now? And what kinds of expenses would
this new request support?
Attorney General Garland. This request would support our
asset forfeiture ability. So, when you seize and freeze, you
have to--I think you are alluding to--we do have to maintain
the assets until we are able to forfeiture them. So some part
of this money would allow us to maintain the assets until we
are able to sell them, pay back the money for maintenance, and
then send the balance to Ukraine.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Attorney General, do you require--under
the law, do you require additional authority to make proceeds
available to fund Ukraine assistance rather than have those
funds tied up in the asset forfeiture fund?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, we do, and that is one of
the proposals in the Administration's supplemental. Right now,
the asset forfeiture fund does not easily allow us to transfer
money for that purpose, but this would allow us to do that.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. We will be in touch with you about
that.
Now, I want to broaden the discussion just a little bit. In
the past decade, there have been spectacular successes by
whistleblowers and investigative reporters such as those in the
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the
Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers, Pandora Papers. It is no
secret that Russian oligarchs represent only a small subset of
the kinds of global corruption we are talking about that could
be of interest to law enforcement. Does this KleptoCapture Task
Force offer a new model for addressing those kinds of
investigations that could uncover broader criminal enterprises
engaged in things like money laundering, trafficking, and even
national security threats?
Attorney General Garland. Yes, I think it can. I want to be
clear that our initial focus now has to be on the Russian
oligarchs and the sanctions against them. But the kind of task
force we have established, which cuts across all departments of
the United States Government--Treasury, Homeland Security,
various Inspector Generals, and our own prosecutors--is putting
together the kind of data to uncover these shell companies that
you are referring to and, the more experience we have in this
area, the easier it will be to apply the model to this kind of
behavior across the board.
Mr. Cartwright. I am glad to hear you say that and I look
forward to working with you on that as well.
At this time, I will yield to the ranking member, Mr.
Aderholt, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question, I want to ask about a situation that
occurred in early April. There were photos of five deceased
babies that were allegedly from the Washington Surgical Clinic
here in Washington, D.C., and it captured national headlines.
It appeared that these fully-formed babies had died in
abortions. The pictures revealed the brutality of abortion and
especially late-term abortions. And I am very concerned about
the allegation that at least one baby may have died in a
partial-birth abortion in violation of federal law.
To my knowledge, these babies have received no official
autopsy to determine whether a violation of the Partial Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 2003 or the Born Alive Infants Protection
Act of 2002 had occurred.
The facts are troubling, to the extent that I think that
they at least warrant an investigation, and since what is
alleged is a violation of federal law, that places the matter
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice.
What my question would be, will you commit to dedicating
appropriate personnel from the Department of Justice and the
FBI to investigate whether any of these babies died in
violation of a federal law?
Attorney General Garland. So my understanding is there is
an investigation ongoing, led initially by the Metropolitan
Police Department. Of course, because of the way the Federal
Government and DC are organized that would include Assistant
U.S. Attorneys who are part of the Justice Department.
I can't really say any more now because there is a pending
investigation, but I believe that investigation has been
announced publicly.
Mr. Aderholt. Have you been able to view any of the photos
of the evidence?
Attorney General Garland. I really don't want to--since
there is a pending investigation, I really don't think it is
appropriate for me to discuss the way in which the
investigation is proceeding.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, are you committed to enforcing 18
U.S.C. 1531, which is the partial birth abortion ban, which is
settled law and is upheld by the Supreme Court to----
Attorney General Garland. The Department is committed to
enforcing all Federal laws.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Well, thanks, and we look forward
to following up as that investigation continues.
As I noted in my opening statement, the China Initiative
was a policy that was created under President Trump in 2018 and
it was in response to the existential threat posed by the
Chinese Government and those acting on the behalf of the
Chinese Government. These efforts were always focused on the
action of the Chinese communist party and their agents, never
on the Chinese people or individuals of Chinese descent.
My question would be, Attorney General, Director Wray
frequently mentions that the Bureau is opening new cases to
counter Chinese intelligence operations every 12 hours. How
does this workload compare to threats that are emanating from
Russia, North Korea, and Iran?
Attorney General Garland. Well, it is a little hard to
quantify. I think that all four of those countries represent
significant threats to the United States, but they are along
different threat vectors.
I think what Director Wray recently said on CBS 60 Minutes,
all of which I agree with, is that the Chinese Government, the
communist party, poses an enormous threat to our intellectual
property, to our cyber systems, with respect to
counterintelligence, and with respect to the national interest
in those ways.
No one looking at Ukraine right now can doubt that the
Russian Government also poses an enormous threat to the United
States. We are bracing for a potential cyber attack from
Russia. We have had numerous criminal cyber attacks which we
have associated with criminal actors operating within Russia.
No one operates in Russia without at least some support or
looking away by the government there. We face a
counterintelligence threat from Russia as well. So that is
enormously significant.
Everyone on this committee is aware of the Iranian threat
and their support for terrorist organizations, which we have to
be very concerned about as well. And of course North Korea is a
threat on a number of areas, one of which is against cyber and
cyber threat.
So I think all four of these countries that you mentioned
all represent substantial threats to national security and we
are focused on combating every one of them.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. And of course--but, obviously,
what we are seeing from China is very disconcerting.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
At this time, the chair recognizes the overall chair of
House Appropriations, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro.
The Chair. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member. And, Mr. Attorney General, it is wonderful to
see you and I thank you for your testimony today.
As you know, far too many families in communities across
the Nation face really very heartbreaking tragedies and a
needless loss of life which is caused by this epidemic of gun
violence, and the lack of gun safety and safeguards. So I want
to say a thank you to you for the focus you have brought to the
issue, as well as the priorities that are outlined in this
year's request, including the billion dollars for DOJ's gun
violence prevention efforts.
This is a personal issue for me and the district that I
represent. In 2018, Ethan Song, a 15-year-old teenager from
Guilford, Connecticut, had his life cut short after being shot
with an unsecured gun. Ethan's story is tragic, but, sadly, has
become a common reality for too many families.
I have legislation--and legislation has passed in the
Connecticut State legislature-- Ethan's Law, it is called
Ethan's Law, it is supported by more than 200 of my House
colleagues, and it is to set federal standards for safe gun
storage. I am hoping that the House will soon take it up and
pass it, which is much-needed legislation.
But while we pursue this congressional action, the efforts
taken by your Administration in the meantime are critically
important. Can you explain your current work, how the resources
included in this request will help curb the epidemic of gun
violence, protect children in communities across the nation.
And without the Congress at the moment, how does this Ethan's
Law, this kind of legislation, fit into the Administration's
agenda?
Attorney General Garland. Well, we are asking for $20.2
billion, which is an 8.2 percent increase, for law enforcement
and U.S. Attorneys' Offices, to fight violent crime and gun
violence. This includes an increase in 757 Assistant U.S.
Attorneys to put federal statutory penalties on gun violence
and to investigate, to run the kinds of task forces of state,
federal, and local law enforcement necessary to most
effectively do this.
We have asked for a $605 million increase for the FBI to
fight a number of areas, which includes $20.6 million for
violent crime and $6.2 million for expanded NICS background
checks.
We have in our request $173 billion, which is a $201
million increase for ATF to expand the number of agents so that
we can expand our gun trafficking strike forces. Last year, we
introduced five gun trafficking task forces to interdict the
pipeline of guns that go north and south on the east and the
west coast, and through the center of the country, focused on
Chicago. This would allow us to expand those. It would also
improve the National Tracing Center and the NIBIN Center that
ATF runs.
And then we have asked for quite a lot of money, additional
$5.48 billion for grants to state and local communities, and
law enforcement to prevent gun violence and to enforce those
laws.
The Chair. In the context of what you were just talking
about of grants, etcetera, what Ethan's Law essentially says is
that individuals have to secure their guns. They can secure it
with ammunition, but the weapon has to be secured. It is a
public health issue. This is not--we are not trying to take
anyone's guns away from them. We are not--you know, it is very
simply store the weapon and the ammunition in a safe place so
that it is not accessible to kids. We are seeing an increased
number of kids who are dying of--accidentally.
And just the concept of this, as I say, it is past the
state legislature in Connecticut. Bipartisan support--
overwhelming bipartisan support. So again, it is about gun
storage. Does that fit into your agenda with regard to the gun
safety safeguards and the billion dollars in the gun violence
prevention effort? Is this something that would fit into your
structure?
Attorney General Garland. So I have to consult our experts
as to whether the existing grant programs cover that. They may.
I just don't know. As you no doubt know, we did have model red
flag laws that we put out, and with help with respect to grants
for state legislatures that were interested in that.
It might be the similar program, but I don't know. But I
will ask our technical staff to speak with your staff.
The Chair. I would much appreciate it, and I much
appreciate the initiative on gun violence prevention. And it is
overwhelming. And as I say, the issue that I am speaking about
is purely and simply a public health issue. It doesn't remove
anyone's guns. It doesn't--the restriction is to make it safe.
Get it into a safe storage place.
So thank you very, very much. Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, thank you for the opportunity to speak at the hearing
today. I appreciate it. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chair DeLauro. At this time, the
chair recognizes Representative Ben Cline for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
attorney general for joining us today. General Garland over the
last two years, the last two years, the CDC has exercised
enormous power, including power to shut down the cruise ship
industry, stop landlords from evicting tenants who have not
paid their rent, require that persons using public
transportation wear masks.
Since the Justice Department has decided to appeal the case
in support of the administration's authority to implement these
mask mandates, I would like to understand your basis for the
belief that the CDC was acting within the scope of its
authority, given that the authority of the Public Health
Services Act, which is allegedly the basis for the government
mask mandates, has generally been limited to quarantining
infected individuals and prohibiting the import or sale of
animals known to transmit diseases.
Is it the administration's interpretation that mandatory
masking is a form of sanitation, and how so?
Attorney General Garland. As you correctly know,
Congressman, this is a matter in litigation that precise
wording that you mentioned, sanitation, is one of the issues in
that litigation. I just want to be clear what the Justice
Department's role here is. It is the CDC that makes the public
policy and public health determinations. And our only role is
to determine whether it has statutory authority.
And we have taken that position now for quite some time
that it has statutory authority for masking with respect to
interstate transportation. And the analysis is laid out in the
briefs that we filed in numerous courts on this subject.
Mr. Cline. Well, not only did the judge rule that the CDC
went beyond its authority, they also found that they violated
the APA in the process of implementing this mask mandate. As
you know, back in February of 2021, when they published the
mask mandate without allowing public participation through
notice and comment procedures as the basis for dispensing with
the ordinary APA requirements, the CDC said that it would be
impracticable and contrary to the public's health to delay the
mandate to seek public comment.
So I think that we have several problems with the mandate
that was put in place. Do you know, General Garland, excluding
the last two years, when this authority that they are claiming
was last enforced and what the purpose of it was?
Attorney General Garland. So I don't know the history. I
imagine it was discussed in the litigation. Of course, this is
the first major pandemic the country has suffered since the flu
epidemic at the beginning of the 20th century. But I could get
back to you on what the history has been with some of my staff,
if you would like.
Mr. Cline. Well, it has been rare, in fact, from the
decision. I am just looking at page 29. The provision has
rarely been invoked and never before to justify a mandate to
travelers on every form of commercialized travel wear masks.
And perhaps the most notable use of the statute so far,
excluding the last two years, of course, was a decision to ban
small turtles due to a risk of salmonella back in 1975.
So I think what we are seeing here is a broad
misinterpretation of the statute and a mis-application. Not to
mention, the failure to follow the APA in the process. So I
would hope that the Justice Department would reconsider that
decision.
Let me move on to another subject. American citizens and
legal immigrants are in civil cases not entitled to free legal
representation, correct?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. As a general matter, that's
right, although many states have different rules in that
respect, but that is correct.
Mr. Cline. Federal--from a federal perspective, not in
family court, not in tax court, not in bankruptcy proceedings,
correct?
Attorney General Garland. That is correct. That is correct.
Mr. Cline. And as you would probably agree, legal
representation can be expensive. An American can lose their
children, or their life savings, or become homeless without the
government paying for their attorneys. But it is my
understanding in your budget request, you are requesting $600
million a year to pay for attorneys for unauthorized aliens; is
that correct?
Attorney General Garland. So the Legal Services
Corporation, with funding for Congress, does also provide money
for the states for all kinds of things that you are talking
about: small claims court, tax court, bankruptcy court,
landlord/tenant court.
We do have a tradition of trying to provide money for legal
services for the poor. That is----
Mr. Cartwright. Time. Back to this line of questioning in
the next round.
Mr. Cline. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright [continuing]. The chair recognizes
Representative Grace Meng for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here. I am
grateful that the fiscal year 2023 budget request includes $3.2
billion in discretionary resources for state and local grants,
in addition to funds to support law enforcement, crime
prevention, and community violence intervention.
As you know, I helped secure $5 million in the fiscal year
2022 omnibus for a new grant program to go to community based
organizations and civil rights groups, who are providing
services to victims of hate crimes. These organizations are
working at the local level to prevent and counter the
proliferation of hate crimes and bias incidents.
Over the past few years of the pandemic, the critical work
of local organizations in helping prevent hate crimes, and
assist those left in their wake have been proven repeatedly in
my district. I am concerned that we are not engaging community
organizations and local efforts in the administration of these
larger grant programs to prevent violence and crime. Are there
ways that we can ensure that community-based organizations have
equitable access to the discretionary grants that Department of
Justice administers, and where are areas that it can improve
collaboration with community-based organizations?
Attorney General Garland. Yes. Thank you. And thank you for
the legislation, which we are very much supportive of. So we
are asking for $20 million in Office of Justice program grants,
which would go to state and local law enforcement, but also
community organizations for the investigation, and prosecution,
and for community engagement and outreach, which I take it are
some of the things that you are talking about. For example,
providing state hotlines for hate crimes and hate incidents.
This general concept is included in the money that we are
requesting for grants.
Ms. Meng. Thank you. And if there are any ways that our
office can be helpful in reaching out to even more community-
based organizations, please let me know.
The other question I have is about an issue that I have
been working on for many years. It is the issue of period
poverty, or a lack of access to affordable menstrual products.
An opinion piece published in the Washington Post last
month highlighted some horrifying stories of incarcerated women
being forced to trade favors with the guards in exchange for
menstrual products. And stories of prison staff withholding
products as a form of intimidation or punishment in state and
local facilities. Not only are these reports damning, it is
completely unacceptable that such practices occur in our
carceral system.
No one should face abuse in order to access a basic
necessity. I know the special litigation section of your
department has investigated a few facilities for violating the
civil rights of incarcerated women under the civil rights of
Institutionalized Persons Act. Are there additional resources
needed to support the work of the special litigation section,
or the division on civil rights to ensure that we are
protecting their civil rights?
Attorney General Garland. So if I can talk separately about
the federal side of this with respect to Bureau of Prisons and
then with respect to the state and local side.
On the federal side, there is a statute which requires
provision of female hygiene products, and BOP endeavors to do
that. There are site visits to ensure that that is occurring.
On the other side that you began to talk about in the
second half of your question about the Institutionalized
Persons Act, that is an object of focus of the civil rights
division, and so the 32.4 percent increase in funds that we
have requested for the civil rights division would enable
resources to go across the board for the division, but
including in the area that you are talking about.
Ms. Meng. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. At this time, the chair recognizes Mr.
Garcia from California for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Attorney General Garland for your service to our beautiful
nation.
I was looking forward to having some detailed questions
regarding this budget, and the nuances of it, and where we are
going. As an appropriator, that is what I would like to spend
my time. I will put those through formal correspondence,
because frankly, something you said in your written testimony
in your opening statement really kind of disturbed me. And I
want to talk about that a little bit. But I want to start first
by just reading the mission statement that is on your DOJ
website.
It says that you are to enforce the law and defend the
interest of the United States according to the law, to ensure
public safety against threats, foreign and domestic, to provide
federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek
justice for those guilty of unlawful behavior.
What disturbed me in your opening statement, your written
testimony, there is a line in here where you said that ``I am
pleased with the progress that the department has made since I
appeared before you last June.'' And I can't wrap my brain
around why you would be pleased with what has gone on in the
last call it year to 18 months.
In the last year, we have seen crime spikes like we have
never seen before, 54 percent increase in shoplifting, 43
percent increase in police officers shot around this country in
the line of duty, 59 percent increase in officers killed since
2021.
Eighty percent of Americans report that they are concerned
about the crime and violence. Homicides nationally increased by
five percent in 2021, when compared to 2020, that number is 44
percent compared to 2019.
Gun assaults jumped eight percent. Twelve cities nationwide
broke annual homicide records in 2021, and car thefts rose by
14 percent. I don't know what is pleasing about that progress.
In addition to the crime rates, we are seeing record
inflation approaching nine percent now, and a budget increase
of only six percent, which is effectively defunding our law
enforcement agencies and the grants we give them.
You dissolved a couple of months ago inexplicably this
China initiative that allows the U.S. government through the
DOJ to prosecute China's espionage cybersecurity threats, as
well as their IP theft. They are currently stealing roughly
$400 billion to $600 billion of IP from the United States in
its aggregate in terms of economic impact to our businesses,
yet the DOJ dissolved the China initiative.
I don't understand what is pleasing about that. We have an
executive branch and a president who is effectively opening our
southern borders, looking to revoke Title 42, has already
revoked in principle the remain in Mexico policies that were
instated in the last administration. And this is literally
leading to the deaths of Americans nationwide with this
national fentanyl problem and this record breaking rate of
deaths as a result of this fentanyl coming across our southern
border.
This last week, we saw Texas National Guardsmen Bishop
Evans killed while trying to save an illegal immigrant who was
smuggling drugs into our country. I don't know why you are
pleased about this progress. I want you to explain that, if you
can. But I also just don't understand. This is all inexplicable
and inexcusable to me. What is, in your opinion, if this is
good progress, what is the biggest threat to the United States
right now?
Attorney General Garland. Look, the enormous increase in
violent crime, which began in 2020, before we came into office,
is enormously concerning to me. And that is why as soon as I
did come into office, we developed a major strategy to fight
violent crime, which focuses very heavily on our joint task
forces, the state and locals, who are responsible at the first
level for every kind of violent crime you described.
That is the reason that we have asked each year for more
money for grants for state and local law enforcement to fight
that violent crime, and with our assistance at the federal
level. So we are asking for $8.2 billion in grants for the
police to be able to do that. And we are asking for $20.2
billion for our own federal law enforcement on that regard.
That is what I am pleased about, the way in which we are
reorganizing ourselves to fight this terrible violent crime
threat.
I also--it is not correct that we have dissolved our
attacks--our response to China. Quite the opposite. We have
stepped them up. We are asking for even more money for
counterintelligence and cyber defense, but we are worried not
only about China, but about Russia, and about its immediate
threat to us, and about North Korea, and about Iran. All of the
things that you are concerned about China, I remain concerned
about. Nothing in our program reflects a diminution in that.
Mr. Garcia. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I will yield
back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
And at this time, the chair recognizes Congressman Case of
Hawaii for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney General, thank
you.
I wanted to follow up on your notation that your budget
includes reinvigorating antitrust enforcement. As you know,
this issue is top of my committee in Congress. My observation
is there is a heck of a lot of different perspectives on it,
ranging from we don't have a problem to we have a severe
problem with both our laws and with enforcement.
And I guess I wanted to explore your views on that, because
frankly, I am trying to sort it through myself. But you have
asked in your budget for a huge increase in antitrust
enforcement of 41.6 percent. I mean, I guess first of all, I
don't see any other part of your budget which asks for an
increase of that scope. I mean, is that generally correct? Is
this one of the largest percentage increases anywhere in your
budget?
Attorney General Garland. I would have to look over the
whole budget to tell you that, but this clearly is a large
increase, and I would be happy to explain why.
Over the last 4 or even more years, the antitrust division
has been depleted. We actually I think have fewer lawyers in
the antitrust division than we had in the 1970s. On the other
hand, we are facing an enormously increased number of mega-
mergers, each of one of which takes enormously sophisticated
and complicated analysis, requires skilled lawyers, but also
requires IT at a level that we have never had before.
So $38.5 million of the request is for IT so that we can
come into the 21st century in our ability to analyze these
mergers. And $27.4 million, which is an increase of 112
attorneys for antitrust enforcement.
I will tell you, when I came in, I was shocked to learn
that the only way we are able to cover the investigations that
we were doing was by hiring 2-year lawyers--2 years at a time.
I can tell you that the companies we are investigating and
going to trial against are not hiring 2-year lawyers. They are
hiring the best of the best from Wall Street, and we need to
have lawyers who can match that. And we need to have as many
lawyers as we can.
So it looks like a large increase, but it is from a very
small base.
Mr. Case. And I am just reading your testimony here. Not
only are you down lawyers, but it says here in your testimony
that you have nearly 400 fewer staff today than 1979. I mean,
that is kind of shocking to me. And frankly, I don't think you
can--you know, if it is a time spent of 1979 to present, I
don't think you can get into what administration did what. It
seems to have been a systematic depletion of antitrust.
And I guess my obvious question there is, well, why was
that? I mean, presumably, companies were getting larger. I
think it is fair to say that we have seen more mergers at an
accelerating rate. We have seen much more complicated
companies. We have seen much more complicated mergers.
And it would seem to me that if we were realistic about our
antitrust law enforcement, we would have kept up with that, and
then--and yet, we seem to have gone in exactly the wrong
direction on it. I mean, why is that? And I guess a corollary
to that is it would seem to me that companies are pretty
actively taking advantage of the fact that justice is forced to
be highly selective in terms of the antitrust enforcement that
it chooses, just because of the lack of resources.
Attorney General Garland. I think you make a very fair
point, which is this really is not one administration versus
another. This is a number of reduction in staff, going all the
way back to the 1970s. I think it reflected a lack of priority
of antitrust, a lack of understanding of the way in which
antitrust helps our economy, the way in which it helps
businesses to compete and not get foreclosed by their
enormously large competitors, the way in which it helps labor
achieve wage increases without there being agreements against
those, the way in which it helps consumers accomplish--
ordinary life at reasonable, competitive prices.
I think what we have seen now recently, of course, is with
the big tech companies and with the way in which the technology
companies in many ways change what we see about antitrusts,
with network effects, with the two-sided platforms. These are
all issues which were only recently coming into focus, and I
think bipartisan focus. And we think it----
Mr. Case. Can I just ask you a quick question?
Attorney General Garland. Of course.
Mr. Case. Sorry. Just on that subject, since my time is
running out. To make the point, I mean, you are not just
talking about the addition of lawyers. You are also talking
about the addition of highly sophisticated forensic accounting
systems that can actually get inside a company, and frankly
also match the company's resources in court, correct? So this
is not just about more lawyers.
Attorney General Garland. No. You are exactly right, and
particularly economists. So you are exactly right in all of
that respect.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much, I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case. At this time, the
chair recognizes Mr. Crist of Florida for 5 minutes of
questions.
And you are muted, Mr. Crist.
We are going to move on to Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland
while Mr. Crist works out his technological issue.
Mr. Ruppersberger, you are recognized for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. Mr. Attorney General, I
respect your career. I know you have a very difficult job to
do, and this is clearly an area where we, as members of
Congress, need to work in a bipartisan way to deal with most of
the issues that you have talked about.
I am going to go local. We--I am from the Baltimore region.
I was a former--homegrown Baltimore. My family has. I was a
former prosecutor. And one of the things you started out with
today was that it is so important when we have high crime areas
that we need teamwork. And that teamwork, it seems to me, works
a lot. It worked when I was a prosecutor. Federal, state, and
local working together. The taskforce seemed to work together.
So that is where my questioning today. We have another round. I
hope to get into cybersecurity.
This past week, the Department of Justice released their
five-year review of the Baltimore consent decree which said
Baltimore had made significant achievements. I appreciate that,
but I have heard from residents throughout the Baltimore area,
and my constituents have said they haven't seen any of the
reforms called for in the consent decree.
Can you talk a little bit about the next steps, like how
the independent monitoring works, and possible recommendations
that might come out of it? Now, what can a department do to
help with the cost of compliance with a consent decree?
Baltimore has a lot going for it, but affording the cost of
complying with a consent decree and fielding a better trained
community listen approach police is costly--it is very costly,
and I would appreciate your thoughts on DOJ helping with the
cost of compliance or alternate ways to help with the cost.
Attorney General Garland. The civil rights division is
pleased with the progress so far with respect to the Baltimore
consent decree. But as your constituents are pointing out, we
still have a considerable ways to go.
In the announcement, I believe the civil rights division
identified a number of the areas that the independent monitor
is continuing to work on. I don't have those in my head,
specifically with respect to Baltimore, but I can make sure our
staff gets back to yours with respect to that.
But this is a continuing set of improvements, and we are
hopeful that that will continue. And with respect to the money
for these kind of things, taking a step back from Baltimore for
just one moment, we have announced a series of different kinds
of grant programs to help police departments with reform. These
range from everything from technical assistance to assistance
with respect to crises, to our collaborative--intensive
collaborative reform initiative, all of which provide money,
and to the new laboratory that the associate attorney general
just announced in California, and I believe the Baltimore
police chief was there was well, with respect to money
available for making the improvements that are generally
required under the decrees.
So I can't give you a specific Baltimore--that is a
Baltimore-specific answer, but again, on this one, I could have
our Office of Justice program staff get in touch with your
office.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That would be great. And a lot of the
issues--am I unmuted? A lot of the issues, too, are not yours,
but a major part of the crime has to be. And I think--you talk
about social issues. Schools, and young children, and the
conspiracies that are going on on a regular basis, that is in
your field.
So we will work with you. I think we are moving ahead, and
I think this concept works at federal, state, and local working
together. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger. And at this
time, the chair is going to attempt to recognize Mr. Crist of
Florida again. If he can get unmuted this time.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Crist.
Mr. Crist. Sorry about that. I thought I was coming later
in the agenda, but I appreciate the opportunity to be with you,
my colleague from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Attorney General, it is great to be with you. Can you
hear me okay? I can't hear him.
Attorney General Garland. You can't hear me?
Mr. Crist. I can now. Okay. Great. Well, again, thank you
so much for being with us today. I really appreciate it.
I really wanted to ask you about the former president and
whether or not the Department of Justice has had an opportunity
yet to look into his role in the insurrection, and you know,
what his role was, if there is any criminal implication to it,
if you have started to look into it, and if you could share
that with the committee. I think the committee and the country
would be grateful.
Attorney General Garland. So the Justice Department has a
long standing and I think very appropriate policy of not
commenting on the existence or progress of investigations,
other than through what we say in court, at least in general,
other than what we say in court and through the various filings
and procedures that we make. And I am afraid that that has to
continue to be my answer whenever I am asked that question.
Mr. Crist. And why is that the policy?
Attorney General Garland. That is a very appropriate
question and it derives from two different things. On the one
hand, it respects the civil liberties and civil rights of
Americans who may be under investigation to prevent publicity
about investigations before filings are made. It prevents trial
by publicity. And second, it protects our investigations.
Our investigations often depend on us being develop--being
able to develop evidence and facts as we go along without
potential witnesses learning where we are or what we are doing.
This--I do not mean this in reference to any particular
investigation. This is our standard. This has been our standard
as long as I have been involved in the criminal justice field,
and I have been involved in that field for an extraordinarily
long time, having been a prosecutor, having joined the Justice
Department in 1979, and having been a prosecutor throughout the
1980s.
Mr. Crist. Yes, sir. And thank you for your service, I will
add at that juncture as well.
Having been Attorney General of Florida, myself, we would
conduct investigations and would sometimes be able to share it
with the public, and sometimes not be able to. So I certainly
respect your answer, sir, of course. But I just think that, you
know, the country is probably pretty curious about the question
I posed to you. And again, I want to emphasize, I mean no
disrespect to you, sir, at all, or anybody. But I just think
that, you know, what happened that day and what the public at-
large does know, through journalists and other media outlets,
about a lot of phone calls, a lot of text messages with the
former Chief of Staff Meadows, I believe it was, you know, have
really raised the level of concern about a sitting president
potentially having participated, and it certainly looks like
that is what happened, given the speech that he gave before
they rushed up Capitol Hill on January the 6th, and you know,
to what degree and what level of concern should Americans have
about a sitting president potentially being involved in
something that came so close to taking down our democracy.
I mean, you know, to sort of mount a coup, if you will,
from the White House is pretty strange stuff. I think we all
can agree to that. But if you can't comment on it, because of
the policy you stated, I certainly understand it, and I have
all the respect in the world for you, sir. I think you are
doing a great job as our attorney general.
I would only encourage you to pursue what you believe is
justice in regard to the topic I am addressing. I am sure you
will. You may already have. But I want to thank you again for
being before the committee, and we want to provide to you, as I
am sure the chairman does, my great colleague from
Pennsylvania, the resources you need to do whatever you need to
search for the truth, to find the truth, and to bring justice
to bear on those who deserve it.
And thank you again for being here. And I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Crist. At this time, the
chair recognizes Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence of Michigan for
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Crist.
At this time, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Brenda
Lawrence of Michigan for 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the 2020 presidential election, my hometown of Detroit
and the state of Michigan, as a whole, was subject to
outlandish claims of voter fraud that were unsurprisingly all
proven to be false.
As a result, dozens of so-called voter-rights bills have
been introduced in our State Legislature, seeking to suppress
the right to vote of many of my constituents. Unfortunately,
several states across the country have also followed that
trend, even when there is case after case showing that there
was no voter fraud, saying that they need to protect the vote,
and we still don't know what they are protecting it against,
resulting in the Department filing lawsuits to protect the
right to vote.
Attorney General, my colleagues and I in the Congressional
Black Caucus recently sent you a letter urging the Department
of Justice to do whatever is necessary to ensure that every
American has their right to vote and have their vote counted,
regardless of where they live.
How will be the President's budget empower you to do that?
Attorney General Garland. I think the right to vote is the
fundamental pillar of American democracy. Every qualified
American should be able to vote and we should do everything we
possibly can to ensure that that right can be exercised.
The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is the
unit responsible since the late 1950s for ensuring the right to
vote. We have asked for a 32, more than 32 percent increase to
the Civil Rights Division. I, personally, from the very start,
have committed to doubling the size of the voting rights
section, partly because we had lost the ability under Section 5
to preclear potentially discriminatory changes in voting
practices and procedures.
We have doubled the voting right section, but we now need
more money for the Civil Rights Division to do that. The
specific request for the Civil Rights Division will increase
the number of lawyers in the division and analysts in the
division and, particularly, including in the voting rights
section.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
I am the founder and co-chair of the Black-Jewish Relations
Caucus in Congress. I am very active in addressing and trying
to find ways to protect Americans from hate crimes.
Last year, our caucus requested a briefing from the FBI on
the latest finding of hate crime statistics. Like many of my
colleagues, I am extremely concerned about the alarming rate of
increase in hate crimes.
How will the Department leverage relationships with other
federal, state, and local, non-government agencies to address
and combat the rise in hate crimes and what steps can be taken
to encourage enhanced relationships between the local and
Federal Government, as we continue our fight to protect
Americans?
Attorney General Garland. Well, on the federal side, just
for a moment, before I get to the states' side, we are asking
for more money, of course, for the Civil Rights Division and
for the FBI's Civil Rights Unit to pursue these crimes. The FBI
has elevated hate crimes and civil rights violations into the
top band of concern.
Again, one of the very first things I did when I came to
the Justice Department, because we had--I saw the rise in hate
crimes, was to review what the Department was doing and then
launch a hate crime initiative, which coincided with the
passage of a hate crime bill that year. And that same summer, I
appointed the head of the Criminal Section of the civil rights
Division to be the coordinator in charge of criminal
investigations and a woman in the Associates Office to be the
Department's overall coordinator, with respect to hate crimes.
Now, the particular topic you asked about, which is the way
in which we can engage state and local law enforcement and
communities. In the budget request, we have asked for $20
million in OJP grants, which is an increase of $8.1 million in
additional resources. This money would, among other things, go
to state, local law enforcement and community organizations for
investigation and prosecution.
We do need more outreach to the community. And one of the
problems with respect to hate crimes is sometimes people are
afraid or otherwise unwilling to report hate crimes. So, we
have to improve our reporting. One way to do that is through
state hotlines and some of this money could be used in that
way.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much.
And we really need to pay attention to that, and reporting
is an issue.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Lawrence.
At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Trone of
Maryland. And it is the chair's intention to adjourn for the
one vote, to recess for the one vote that we have been called
to make one vote on the House floor and we will recess after
Mr. Trone's 5 minutes and return in approximately 20 minutes.
Mr. Trone, you are recognized.
Mr. Trone. Great.
Thank you, Attorney General Garland for joining us today
and Chair Cartwright and Ranking Member Aderholt, for holding
this hearing.
One of my top priorities in Congress to ensure returning
citizens have a job; have a job is the key when they are
released from prison. The data is clear, the best way we cut
recidivism is a job.
So, to that end, Mr. Attorney General, I believe the Bureau
of Prisons is too understaffed and underresourced to fully
implement the First Step Act. We spent a lot of time on this
and this is clearly the case.
We hear stories after stories of case managers and support
staff doing double duty as correctional officers. Tremendous
burned-out staff, inmates without vital services.
So, we believe BOP needs strong leadership from the top.
The job is currently open. You have an opportunity to find a
new director and turn this ship around.
So, if you could elaborate on the status right now of the
leadership, future leadership at BOP and how we can
effectively, then, get that individual to move forward with the
First Step Act.
Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, I don't want to go too
far in detailing our personnel work, but the program for
applying for that at the Bureau of Prisons has closed, so we
have all the applicants; they are under intense review right
now. I am very hopeful that we will be able to announce the new
director in the relatively near future.
On the staffing question, I can say I completely agree with
you and that is why our fiscal year 2023 budget request seeks
1,300 new staff; 700 new corrections officers and 600 for the
First Step Act program that you were talking about.
I am also in complete agreement with you that an important
part of fighting recidivism and easing re-entry is getting
people a job. Both, our Department and the Department of Labor
are asking for money; particularly, $100 million for a joint
Department of Justice-Department of Labor workforce initiative.
We are going to have the Department of Labor to help us in
getting people jobs and getting them lined up before they leave
custody.
So, I think all the things you said, I agree with.
Mr. Trone. In my company in private business, we have hired
over 500 returning citizens and we get a double-digit better
number on retention rate. So, these folks will take a second
chance and succeed. And the job is what we have to stress with
the new director of the BOP.
Only 50 percent of the individuals in federal custody are
completing or they are enrolled in programming; the DOJ has
determined, reduced the likelihood of recidivism.
What steps can we take to get BOP's funding again on
programs that DOJ has said won't reduce recidivism, but only
less than 50 percent are participating in those programs that
you have outlined?
Attorney General Garland. So, I am not sure whether that
number is still accurate. We issued our report under First Step
Act within the last month, which details the significant
increases in the number of these evidence-based recidivism
programs, which are now available, because the work we have
been doing over the past year to make those programs available.
I don't recall what the current participation rate is, but it
is reflected in that report that was available.
We are working very hard on improving those numbers and
First Step Act money that we are asking for will assist us with
that, as will the increase in First Step Act staffing for the
Bureau of Prisons.
Mr. Trone. Another point that would be great if we could
have the BOP, as directed by First Step Act, to help inmates
obtain a valid government ID prior to release. It is one of the
primary barriers of returning citizens from accessing
employment, housing, public benefits.
We frequently hear from employers, and even BOP officials,
that this program is not running at the capacity which it
should be running. We would appreciate if you could take your
staff and take a look and figure out how we get to 100 percent
of our folks that are returning citizens have that government
ID when they head out into the workplace.
Attorney General Garland. I would be happy to do that. We
have instituted some programs of working with the Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, the Government Publishing Office,
Transportation Security Administration, and DHS to develop a
federal ID for inmates who are unable to obtain state-issued
ID. And we drafted an interagency agreement between the Bureau
of Prisons and the Marshals that includes language allowing
prisoners to maintain personal identification upon transport
and, therefore, they will have their state IDs upon their
transfer to a facility. So, we don't have to start all over
again after they have re-entered.
But I think your point that we need to increase the
percentage who are able to get that identification is
fundamental to be able to operate in our society nowadays.
Mr. Trone. Well, thank you, Mr. Attorney General, very
much. And please keep an eye on automatic expungement laws. Any
dollars we can get to expunge automatically, the states are not
keeping up with this. That would help folks get employment.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
And ladies and gentlemen, we will recess for 20 minutes to
take the vote on the floor and return at 4:24 p.m. See you
then.
[Recess.]
Mr. Cartwright. And we are gaveled in and reconvened.
Now, Attorney General Garland, I want to pick up on the
subject that Congressman Trone was just talking to you about,
and that is the Bureau of Prisons. The fiscal year 2022 enacted
appropriation for the BOP included $195 million above the
President's budget request to help maintain staffing levels,
improve officer-inmate ratios, and reduce reliance on the
augmentation, which is a fancy word for fudging the numbers,
and I think that is so important.
I have federal prisons in my district and I am concerned
about whether this is enough, what we are doing on a couple of
scores. First, it is very difficult to hire people to be prison
guards right now, to be correctional officers. There are other
opportunities to go to work outside of the realm of
incarceration work.
But even within the job of being a correctional officer,
there are other opportunities; for example, in Northeastern
Pennsylvania, we have seen correctional officers get wooed away
by state prison systems that pay better or even county jails.
So, I am concerned about whether current salaries are
competitive. I mean, we--I have heard particularly from the USP
Canaan management and staff, that it is very difficult to hire
people. Billboards are not working. Job fairs are not working.
People are going other places to get better pay. I want to hear
your thoughts on that.
And the other score is that there still is overcrowding.
You know, BOP's inmate population has fallen to 156,000 from
its 2013 peak of almost 220,000, but overcrowding--that is
overall. In particular categories, overcrowding persists, such
as in medium- and high-security facilities, and that is
according to BOP's request.
The question is, will BOP be able to reduce this
overcrowding in fiscal year 2023 with the funding request to
ensure the safety of both, staff and inmates, because that is
what we are talking about; keeping both, the correctional
officers and the inmates safe by making sure there is enough
staffing.
Go ahead, Attorney General.
Attorney General Garland. Well, you are right.
We are in a competitive marketplace. I want to say one
thing about the augmentation, which, I am sorry, I can't agree
that it means fudging the numbers. What it means--and I am sure
you didn't quite mean it that way--it means using staff that
are not officially correctional officers for some correctional
officer tasks.
They are supposed to be trained to be able to pick up on
those tasks. But, look, we would rather that not be the case.
We would rather have more correctional officers.
We are--so, in the first 6 months of fiscal year 2022, the
documented augmentation hours decreased by 15.1 percent,
compared to fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021. So, we are
definitely making considerable progress in that regard. It is
not as good as it should be.
Since January 1st, we have hired 300 new staff, including
236 correctional officers. And as you know, we are asking for
appropriations to add 1300 new staff; 700 correctional officers
and 600 FSA, First Step Act staff. The more officers we have,
the better the safety issue that you are concerned about, will
be able to be protected.
Now, we are offering official recruitment incentives in
order to get people in, because you are right, it is hard to
compete. We are also seeking from OPM, Direct-Hire Authority,
which would allow us to streamline hiring at six BOP locations.
So, I think we are not, you and I are not in disagreement
on this question. That is why we are seeking more people, why
we are seeking more streamlining and efficiency in the hiring,
more assistance from OPM to let us do direct-hires and more
incentive pay.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, I thank you for that.
And at this time, I recognize our ranking member, Mr.
Aderholt, for 5 minutes of additional questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, it is good to be back. It is good to have you
again, here, Attorney General.
And let me just start out with a question that was an issue
a few months ago. And we have not heard it quite as much in the
news lately, but late last year, Congress and President Biden
became aware that the Justice Department was negotiating
settlements with certain illegals who were separated from their
families when they entered the United States illegally.
At this time, is the Department of Justice contemplating or
are they, at this point, negotiating any compensation for these
aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully?
Attorney General Garland. We are engaged in extensive
litigation right now from migrants who were subject to the
family separation program, which came under bipartisan attack.
But we are in litigation with them, and I am not able to
discuss, you know, further since the matter is under
litigation.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. All right.
Well, if you could keep us posted on that because that is
an issue that I think many members of Congress are very
interested in. So, what you can disclose to members would be
very helpful.
We know that current Immigration Court caseload stands at
well over, and correct me if I'm wrong, but well over 1.5
million cases. But there is recent statistics that have shown
that less than 17 percent of these cases originated as credible
fear referrals.
So, in light of that, on those statistics, anyway, it is
hard to see how eliminating future asylum case work will have a
significant impact on the flow of pending cases. And I think
this leads one to wonder if reducing the caseload is a mere
pretext for a political decision.
My question is, what other justification is there for
giving up the Department's authority to adjudicate these
different cases?
Attorney General Garland. So, I don't know about the number
that you are speaking of, unless what you are talking about is
a relatively low percentage of people who claim asylum
ultimately get it and that plainly is correct, but those have
typically gone through the Immigration Court system.
Now, the reason for the asylum officer role is to
streamline the process to make sure that the officers who know
the most about asylums, which is the DHS officers involved in
asylum, make the first two determinations, whether there is
criminal fear and then whether they are able to prove
persecution necessary to achieve asylum.
We don't give--I am not sure--we don't give up
adjudication. Somebody who loses can appeal in a streamlined
process to the immigration judges. But we think that this will
reduce, you know, how long it takes for determinations of
asylum and the ultimate removal, from the current over 4 years.
We are hoping it to be around 6 months.
So, that is the purpose of that; it is a combination of
putting the first asylum issues to the asylum officers and then
a streamlined record for a decision by the IJs. This is part of
a series of moves that the executive office of immigration and
reform have taken in order to speed up the process to reduce
that backlog that you mentioned.
Mr. Aderholt. Wouldn't you agree, though, that it
diminishes the value and integrity of the role of your
immigration judges and the Immigration Court system?
Attorney General Garland. No, quite the opposite.
I think it gives us a chance to have immigration judges
focus on the most difficult cases. And we want to bring that--
they are operating under a backlog that is almost, you know, as
a former judge, the idea of having that many cases on my docket
would make me quite miserable as a judge, so I don't think in
any way, this diminishes the importance and integrity of the
immigration judges.
Mr. Aderholt. But don't you think it is important for the
record to be developed?
Attorney General Garland. Oh, I see. Yes, well, there, the
record is developed. So, the way in which the record is
developed is the migrant gets to put in whatever the migrant
wants at the administrative judge level--I'm sorry--at the
administrative officer level. Then, if there is an appeal made
to the immigration judges, if there is additional information
or new information that can be put into the record by both, the
Department of Homeland Security, which are the prosecutors in
these cases, or the migrant.
So, it doesn't eliminate it, but it streamlines it and it
streamlines the amount of time they would have to build that
record.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. I think my time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Meng for
5 minutes.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask about gun trafficking. Last April, the
President called for the release of a new gun-trafficking
report, which is welcomed news, because the public and
policymakers have largely been in the dark when it comes to the
source of illegal guns and the trafficking channels used to
supply them.
ATF used to provide cities with data and analysis on the
source of illegal guns. Releasing 50 reports, that helps shed
light on interventions to stop the illegal flow of guns.
Do you know, or can you provide an update on when the
report will be released, whether we will be seeing concrete
data and analysis on where these guns, illegal guns are coming
from, and a commitment to work with cities like my home City of
New York to provide city-specific analysis.
Attorney General Garland. Well, you are quite right; it has
been a very long time since ATF has produced this kind of
report. That is why we determined last year that ATF would get
back into the business of producing these reports. I believe
that they have organized this into three volumes of report, in
order to get to the first volume out as soon as possible.
So, my understanding is they are using May as a target
date, sometime in May to produce the first volume of the gun-
trafficking report. The next one by the end of the year. And I
am not sure when the third one would be.
Ms. Meng. And then if I could also ask, community gun
violence is a public health crisis that disproportionately
impacts our Black communities, reflecting our nation's racial
inequities and underinvestment in communities of color.
The pandemic has also had a pronounced impact on gun
violence in the U.S., as homicides increased to record levels.
This kind of violence undermines community confidence and
safety, depresses economic recovery, and restricts community
development and opportunity.
President Biden's proposed budget includes $500 million in
support for community violence intervention programs; $250
million of which would be dedicated to CVI work at the DOJ.
Can you talk about the importance of community-based
violence intervention programs in reducing gun violence and
building resilience in our communities and why it is important
for both, the CDC and the Department of Justice to be involved
in this effort.
Attorney General Garland. Yes, I would be happy to talk
about that.
I personally visited community violence interrupters in
Chicago and in New York City; indeed, an extremely successful
program in Chicago. The head of that, Eddie Bocanegra, is going
to be in our Office of Justice program.
Sometimes, that is a good thing, you take somebody who is
really successful in the community and you bring them to
Washington. But he has assured us that he has good
replacements.
These programs have been quite successful. The one in New
York was also very successful in almost totally eliminating gun
violence for a year or two after they immediately started. You
know, these are basically, they bring in people who have been
previously incarcerated and been involved in gangs and have
wanted to go straight and wanted to persuade members in their
community to do that, with wraparound services to help people
stay in the community, stay away from the gangs and the crews,
and stay away from violence, visiting hospitals, so that they
come across victims who might turn around and retaliate, and
persuade them not to do so.
The University of Chicago actually did a study of their
Chicago community violence interrupters and found an amazing
statistical random study between those who have the benefit of
assistance and those who did not; a material reduction in
violence, particularly gun violence.
So, we believe these are effective programs. They have to
be done. And, you know, the question is, can we bring them to
scale? But we can spread them across the country and it is one
more way in which we are trying to fight the scourge of violent
crime in our communities.
Ms. Meng. Yeah. And I want to thank you publicly, Mr.
Attorney General, for coming to New York City after two of our
honorable police officers were killed, and just for visiting
important programs like the one you mentioned, and also your
team working so closely with us to address ways to decrease and
eliminate discrimination and violence against Asian-Americans,
as well.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Meng.
At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Steven
Palazzo for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for
holding this hearing. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for
joining us today.
With the possible and pending cancellation of Title 42, the
border is at a breaking point and we need to do everything we
can to stop the flow of crossing.
President Trump completed more than 400 miles of the wall
along the southern border before he left office.
This current administration halted the construction costing
taxpayers $72 million. Barriers are an absolute necessity and
part of a comprehensive solution to the crisis at our southern
border along with additional personnel and using the technology
that we have at our tools.
The Justice Department's efforts are also crucial to
addressing the southern border. Illegal immigrants who have
crossed the southwest border are then released and manage to
fly around the country while they await a trial, hearing at a
future date.
Has your department done any work or investigation
regarding these illegal immigrants connecting back to the
cartels that ushered them across the border?
Let me clarify. There is a lot of concern and speculation
that the relationship does not end once the immigrant crosses
the border; that they get into America and the cartel they paid
to get them here, then continues to use them as a mule or a spy
to get dangerous drugs into our country.
Attorney General Garland. So one of the first things I did
last year was establish what we call task force alpha which is
a task force of the border state U.S. Attorneys' Offices, the
criminal division of the Justice Department and our federal law
enforcement and state local task forces in those offices to
work on the problem of human smuggling that you are talking
about.
At the same time, we set up offices in the northern
triangle where some of that human smuggling is originating to
go after these human smuggling networks and human trafficking
networks.
The DEA is, you know, one of requests before you right now.
It is $414.9 million for the DEA's counter drug efforts at the
border which includes intelligence and enforcement against the
cartels.
As you no doubt saw, I did press conference just within the
last week on--regarding our successful extradition of the
former President of Honduras to face charges for organizing and
turning parts of his government into a narco state and enabling
drug smugglers to move up through the United States and he is
going to be going to trial in the Southern District of New
York.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you. Was your agency provided any
additional funding or support when Biden halted construction of
the border wall and opened our border to incite a flood of
immigrants?
Attorney General Garland. Well, we have been asking for, in
each fiscal year, money for our law enforcement at the border.
This year we are asking for $2.1 billion, a total of 6,231
positions for our--this is just for the Justice Department, not
for Homeland Security, at the border.
You know, I want to obviously be clear here that the
principal agency responsible for border protection, CBP, is
part of our Department of Homeland Security. So most of the
request for increase resources will be coming from that
committee, not ours.
But we have DEA, the Marshals, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices,
ATF, FBI, our organized crime, drug enforcement task forces,
our Criminal Division and our detention facilities for the
Marshals and BOP. Those are the areas that we are asking for
money from this subcommittee for.
Mr. Palazzo. And, lastly, in previous years, we have seen
the DOJ shape its efforts by political party. What are you
going to do to ensure that the Department of Justice, which is
the Department of Justice for all, not for one party, stays
unbiased and non-partisan?
Attorney General Garland. That is my mission for the
Justice Department since the day I came. That is the only
reason I agreed to step down from life tenure to be able to
ensure that the Justice Department is separate and independent
from politics with respect to its criminal investigations and
civil law enforcement investigations. That is my job.
I talk about that every place I go among the U.S.
attorneys. They get it. This is part of the DNA of the Justice
Department and I think that is the way we will continue our
prosecutions and investigations.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, General Garland, thank you for your
service and please pass on to your law enforcement officers and
others that they do honorable work and that we appreciate them,
you know, not just keeping us safe at home but also identifying
threats to our homeland.
So thank you. And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo and the chair
compliments you on your excellent headset, Mr. Palazzo.
At this time, the chair recognizes----
Mr. Palazzo. Sir, I'm low tech over here. I apologize. We
will have that fixed before the next hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. The chair recognizes Mr. Case for 5
minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair, Mr. Attorney General.
I asked you earlier whether your anti-trust enforcement
increase was one of the largest in the budget and you rightly
said there may be others and I have found one that I wanted to
ask you about and that is that you are proposing an increase in
your funding of the community oriented police standards program
by 118 percent about fiscal year 2022 enacted to expand the
COPS hiring program and you are noting here, in your testimony,
that that is for the purpose of supporting the hiring of police
and sworn law enforcement personnel nationwide and the
implementation of community-based strategies to combat violent
crime.
And, so, I assume that that is a response to the chronic
and growing staff shortages in our police departments across
the country and this is the Federal Government's response to
assisting local law enforcement in essentially trying to return
a more full complement of law enforcement officers.
Attorney General Garland. So it is part of our overall
response that I was describing to Congressman Garcia to the
scourge of violent crime and the rise of violent crime.
So we have a two-part response. One is with our own federal
law enforcement and we have asked for significant increases in
our own law enforcement to fight violent crime. But we also
believe that our involvement with the State and local
communities is our best way of preventing and bringing down
violent crime.
And, so, the COPS hiring, which goes directly to fund the
police departments is a very important aspect of that and you
are right, that is a very large increase.
But, to be clear, it is not the only additional money that
we are asking to fund state and local police. We have also
asked for an increase for Byrne and JAG grants.
Mr. Case. Right.
Attorney General Garland. And other things. For our project
safe neighborhoods, which is, you know, our standard core of
the way in which we work with U.S. attorneys, federal law
enforcement, state law enforcement and communities.
There are grants in the office for violence against women
which will support law enforcement as well.
And then we also have money in health and wellness grants
and public safety benefit programs for police officers to help
them do their jobs under the incredibly difficult circumstances
they face.
Mr. Case. Right. But the COPS program, just focusing on
that in particular, because that is what you propose to
increase by 118 percent.
I mean, that, just correct me if I am wrong, that is not so
much about hiring additional federal law enforcement. That is
about assisting state and local governments with their own
hiring and retention issues.
Attorney General Garland. Exactly. It is not actually about
federal at all. This is money that goes directly to states and
localities for their police departments and to assist in their
hiring for community-oriented police. You are exactly right.
Mr. Case. Thank you. Let me just switch to your proposals
to increase rather your office--I'm sorry, your environment and
natural resources division where you propose an 18 percent
increase to focus on climate change and environmental justice.
And I guess this just prompts the question where does DOJ
actually--where do you touch the climate--why do you touch the
climate change debate?
I mean, I can see it if what you are doing is prosecuting
on existing environmental laws for violations that are related
to climate change.
But where--is there some other place that you are actually
engaging from a climate change perspective?
Attorney General Garland. Well, I think the principle
engagement is the one you just said. Of course, we coordinate
with EPA because the cases come from EPA. But there is, again,
two sides to this. On the one hand, we are responsible for
defending the EPA administration's climate--anti-climate change
programs.
So whenever there is a lawsuit about an EPA regulation
which is oriented towards reducing climate change gases, that
is--we are the lawyers for the EPA.
Mr. Case. And--excuse me, sir. Have those lawsuits
increased in volume and complexity that you really do see a
need to kind of beef up your defense capabilities?
Attorney General Garland. Yeah. So, you know, as I said, I
been--I was a judge for 25 years and in the part of the
judiciary that reviews those specific kinds of lawsuits and
these come with each new administration.
Each new administration promulgates new regulations. They
come under attack and there is a big increase then in the
number of lawsuits.
So we have a number already pending. There are EPA
regulations pending and we certainly expect those to happen.
And then there is the affirmative enforcement side that you
mentioned before, violations of the clean air act, clean water
act, et cetera that are related to climate change.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case. And the Chair
recognizes Mr. Garcia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, again, Attorney
General Garland, thank you for your time and your patience with
us in the votes.
I just want to touch base. We are having a hard time in
L.A. County right now. We talked about the rising crime rates
nationally but, in California, specifically in L.A., we are
seeing homicides up 12 percent, property crimes up 4 percent,
violent crimes up, shootings up 9 percent.
I try to make a point of talking to local law enforcement
agencies and officers as much as I can, usually, you know, 6 to
a dozen a week, within my district.
Do you get a chance to talk to the lower level officers
within local law enforcement agencies much or do you not get
that opportunity?
Attorney General Garland. I do and, since you and I last
spoke at our last hearing, I have visited every U.S. attorney
district in California, including Los Angeles.
Mr. Garcia. Awesome. Fantastic.
Attorney General Garland. And every time I go, I insist not
just talking to the U.S. attorneys but to talk to, and not
just, FBI, DEA, marshals and ATF but all the local police
departments and sheriff departments because that is the----
Mr. Garcia. Thank you for doing that. I think that is very
important obviously to get the pulse on the ground. In L.A.,
specifically, we are dealing with what is looking like almost
irreparable damage from this defund the police movement that
the sheriffs, LAPD, were, in fact, defunded to the tune of $100
million or so. Much of that has not come back. The board of
supervisors has put in place hiring freezes and we are seeing
now our sheriffs, specifically, hitting about 80 hours of
overtime a month in addition to their regular up tempo. Driving
them into the ground.
If you have been talking to them, you would have heard, for
sure, the issues they have with early retirements.
I know, Chairman Cartwright, you mentioned frustration with
hiring and how hard it has been to bring people into law
enforcement in the prisons.
I do not think it is cosmic. I do not think it is a
mystery. We have mistreated law enforcement over the last
couple of years and we have disincentivized them to stay on the
force. We have disincentivized new recruits to come onto the
force and now we have massive retention and recruitment
challenges being realized in these major cities.
I think this is the source of the crime problems that we
referenced. We need to reverse this cultural trend of defunding
the police and, instead, defend the police and back our blue
while holding the bad apples accountable, obviously, and we
need to double down on that.
In L.A. County, we also have this problem with our D.A.,
this guy named Gascon. He is behaving like the penguin from
Gotham City almost in Batman movies. He is almost enabling the
bad guys to get away. He is choosing not to prosecute. He is
choosing not to apply enhancements.
And, so, I would encourage you to look at that. That is
what is going on in L.A. He needs to be reprimanded and
anything within your control to help us within that realm.
But I do want to touch on this overtime problem. We had an
issue with illegal marijuana grows being led by the cartels
with indentured servants. People who were smuggled across the
border manning these illegal marijuana fields in my district.
You were very intimate with it.
I want to thank you, first of all. Actually, we had a three
levels of government cooperative engagement to help us
eradicate as much as we can in L.A. County this illegal
marijuana operation.
One of the challenges we ran into though is that at the
federal level, there is a stipulation that says local law
enforcement cannot charge more than $19,000 a year of overtime
to the federal grant buckets of money, right? And I think you
are familiar with this.
We did ask DOJ, specifically through the organized crime
drug enforcement task force office for relief on that because
what we have in L.A., besides a lot of folks hitting this
overtime, is massive inflation. We are losing folks.
So what was happening is these sheriffs would hit this
$19,000 a year cap of overtime and then they would be rotated
out of the marijuana eradication team. We would lose that
subject matter expertise and someone who had learned a lesson,
valuable lessons, over the last year because they simply hit
this artificial cap. It is an artificial kind of a capricious
cap being applied by the federal government.
We asked for relief. Long story short is a year later we
get a response from OCDETF, the task force I was talking about,
and they basically said, sorry. We cannot do it.
They literally said a standard national officer state and
local overtime cap is operationally and managerially optimal.
Meaning this is too hard.
I implore you, sir. Please help us remove this artificial
cap. In L.A., $19,000 a year doesn't do anything. We are short
on cops. We are not short on crime. We have really major and
serious problems with rising violent crime rates. We need to
enable our officers.
You do not support defund the police, right?
Attorney General Garland. Take a look at our budget and you
can be absolutely sure that we do not support defund the
police. We are asking for $8.2 billion in grants that we can
give to the police.
Mr. Garcia. Fantastic.
Attorney General Garland. Particularly----
Mr. Garcia. That is music to my ears, Attorney General. I
am over time.
But I just ask for all the assistance you can with helping
us with the cap nationwide. Major cities, like New York and
L.A., $19,000 is woefully anemic compared to what we have as
needs right now given our short staffing problems.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. At this time, the
Chair recognizes Mr. Ruppersberger for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Attorney General Garland, my next
subject matter that I want to discuss is cyber security.
We know cyber security is a very serious issue and it gets
worse every day. We have a lot of good people and good
positions and it could work. And I think teamwork is really
important here. Chris Inglis, as an example, who I work with at
NSA and we have to--I just met the new person today, the
secretary of CISA.
But what my question is is, just last week on 60 Minutes,
both DOJ and CISA explained to the country about the imminent
cyber threats posed by Russia against supporters like Ukraine.
Putin, in my opinion, is weak, unstable and profoundly
upset about how his invasion is progressing. So now Putin has
unleashed cyber capabilities on any country that opposes his
efforts in Ukraine.
We know Russia has been probing a critical infrastructure
systems that could do real harm and damage to the U.S. But it
seems like Russia is no longer just looking to shutdown a power
plant or shutdown communications.
Cyber experts are now concerned that Russia is actively
looking at ways at hurting people and that includes hurting
Americans.
You recently announced some successes against Russia
intelligence operations that could have created a hot net army
that could have done real damage. DOJ often talks about
shutting the door on the bad actors.
Now, Mr. Attorney General, we were then able to disable the
GRUs military intelligence agency control over those devices
before the botnet could be weaponized.
Two questions. DOJ has a thousand person strong cyber
division. What more can Congress do to help you fight cyber
attacks that are getting more supplicated that attack any
vulnerabilities? How do we stack up person-to-person against
Russia or Chinese state actors?
And, number two, can you talk about DOJ's evolving cyber
strategy? I know previously it was not an emphasis at naming
and shaming but has the strategy changed?
Attorney General Garland. Well, I will start with the last
part and then I will move to the first.
So the--what we succeeded in doing against the GRU, that is
the Russian military intelligence unit, was to sever the
connection between their command and control network and the
thousands of hardware botnets that they had implanted the
botnet control in.
So they had used a similar arrangement of command and
control over hardware devices to attack Ukraine. We do not know
what this one was aimed at but could easily have been aimed at
the United States and we succeeded in doing this. We did this
by getting court authorized search warrants to seize the
command and control nodes.
So this is where we are well past name and shame now.
Whether that remains part of the toolkit, that is one good
example. Another good example is the ability we have had to
steal back the money that ransomware actors have stolen and put
in crypto wallets. We did that with respect to the--our evil
ransomware last year.
So we have an array of different weapons, we now have. Of
course, in coordination with our intelligence community
partners.
With respect to what we can do about this and what Congress
can do about this, well, give us the--give us money. We have
asked for more than $1.2 billion across DOJ to address cyber
security and cyber crime. That includes an increase of $15.3
million for the U.S. Attorneys' Offices to pursue malicious
cyber actors and train cyber prosecutors. An increase in $88.3
million for the FBI for cyber threat response and cyber
security. An increase in $115 million for our own cyber
security across the Justice Department.
And, then, in the first Ukraine supplemental that you did
provide for us we got $59.4 million in supplemental funding and
we used a significant chunk of that to stand up the FBI's 24/7
cyber ops unit against Russia.
So all of these are examples of things that you can do. But
I think your overall concern is exactly right. Several months
ago, right after the Ukraine invasion began, I addressed a
group of members of Congress; I think mostly the House, and
warned about the increasing risk and threats of cyber attack by
Russia.
I think what you are referring to from the CISA and FBI
discussion on 60 Minutes has only made further true what I had
warned about originally.
So we need to do everything we possibly can in this
respect.
Mr. Ruppersberger. One of our biggest threats, security
threats, when you are in law enforcement or in jobs to protect
our country, national security, it is so important that we work
together and I think a lot of this partisan politics is totally
out of control. It hurts our country.
And we really in this area we have to focus on the job and
I know you believe that. You were a former judge. You know how
important that is. We have to work as a team and, if I have
anything to do with it, I am going to oversee anything I can
when I feel that there is any politics other than finding the
facts and bringing justice and protecting our country and
allies in this regard.
So I have confidence you are the right person to lead us
here and just keep us involved as much as you can especially in
the area of cyber security because it is going to keep growing
as we know and we have to be on top of it.
Attorney General Garland. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger and I know the
rest of us on this subcommittee feel very strongly the way you
do on that subject.
In the absence of Representative Lawrence turning her
camera back on, we are going to conclude this hearing.
Attorney General Garland, thank you for taking your time to
appear at this hearing and to answer our questions and thank
you for your service to our nation in the Department of
Justice.
We stand ready, willing, and able to work with you to make
sure you have the resources you need to make sure justice is
enforced in the United States of America.
With that, I thank our ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, and I
hereby declare this hearing adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 11, 2022.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WITNESS
HON. SETHURAMAN PANCHANATHAN, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION
Mr. Cartwright. Let us gavel in and begin.
As this hearing is fully virtual, we have to address a few
housekeeping matters.
For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating background
noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice when you are recognized that you have failed to
unmute yourself, I will ask the staff to send you a request to
unmute yourself. Please then accept that request.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired.
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize next member.
In terms of the speaking order, we will begin with the
chair and ranking member; and then members present at the time
the hearing is called to order will be recognized in the order
of seniority; finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized.
House rules require me to remind you that we have set up an
email address to which members may send anything they wish to
submit in writing for any of the subcommittee's hearings or
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to
your staff.
Now the subcommittee will come to order.
In the interest of time, because we have a vote on the
floor swiftly approaching, I am going to omit my opening
statement, and I will recognize Mr. Aderholt, if he wants to
give his opening statement.
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Chairman, I just thank you for yielding,
and I appreciate you holding the hearing.
And I just want to say we welcome Dr. Panchanathan to the
subcommittee today, and I will suspend my remarks as well.
Mr. Cartwright. And I thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
Dr. Panchanathan, we all welcome you to the hearing this
afternoon. And this is not your first rodeo; you have been
through this.
You are recognized at this time for your opening remarks.
Please try to keep your statement to 5 minutes. And, as always,
your full written statement will be included in the record.
You are recognized, Dr. Panchanathan.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you so much. Good afternoon,
Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member Aderholt, and members of
the subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you again to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2023 budget request and the
many ways in which NSF can accelerate discovery and innovation
at speed and scale for the benefit of all Americans.
First, I want to thank all of you for your continued
support for NSF. Your leadership is central to keeping the
United States the global leader in science, engineering, and
technology.
For more than seven decades, NSF has been a catalyst for
economic growth and job creation in the United States. The
internet, 3D printing, smartphones and the networks that power
them, and even the CRISPR technologies that were foundational
in the development of COVID-19 vaccines are just a few examples
of how NSF investments have benefited every American.
However, we currently face challenges to our scientific
leadership. Other nations are seeking to replicate our success
and to control the future of critical technologies like
artificial intelligence and quantum information science. Our
economic and national security depends on our ability to invest
heavily in the technologies of today while making the
discoveries that are the foundation for the technologies of
tomorrow.
We must seed growth everywhere by building ecosystems of
innovation in every region of our country, and we must harness
our domestic talent across every demographic and geographic
background to unlock the true potential of our workforce.
The $10.5 billion fiscal year 2023 budget request for NSF
makes historic investments in each of these areas.
First, the budget funds critical exploratory, curiosity-
driven research, which is an engine of economic growth. The
request includes $9.8 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion
above the fiscal year 2022 enacted level, to support research
across the spectrum of science, engineering, and technology in
STEM education. With this additional funding, NSF will continue
to be the champion of the fundamental research that is the
bedrock of our future.
Second, the budget invests nearly $1.4 billion in support
of scientists and engineers of today and tomorrow. There is
tremendous untapped STEM talent across every demographic and
socioeconomic group in every geographic region of the country.
Every person needs access to quality STEM education
opportunities, from K-to-12 to community colleges and at our
universities.
The fiscal year 2023 request includes a new program aimed
at advancing the geography of innovation and engaging the
missing millions. Growing Research Access for Nationally
Transformative Equity and Diversity, as it is called, GRANTED,
will focus on breaking down barriers to competitiveness of
underserved institutions within the Nation's research
enterprise and building lasting institutional capacity.
Finally, this budget makes substantial investments in use-
inspired, solutions-oriented research. With the support of the
administration and the Congress, NSF has launched its first new
directorate in more than 30 years. The new Directorate for
Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships, or TIP, sits at the
crossroads of exploratory, curiosity-driven research; use-
inspired, solutions-oriented research; and translational
research across all scientific and engineering disciplines.
Significant resources are needed to ensure that TIP will
have the transformative impacts it is designed to achieve. That
is why the fiscal year 2023 budget request includes $880
million for this new directorate to leverage NSF investments,
expedite technology development and translation, and cultivate
new education and entrepreneurial pathways.
NSF recently announced the first new major funding
opportunity through the TIP Directorate. The Regional
Innovation Engines Program, as it is called, offers a unique
opportunity to spur economic growth by investing in
partnerships that will stimulate the creation of technology-
driven products and solutions to serve the corresponding
regions' and the Nation's needs.
NSF takes seriously the need to safeguard taxpayer-funded
research and is playing a leading role in developing processes,
training, and policies to do so. We are committed to strong
partnerships across the Federal Government, with academia, and
with our like-minded international partners to uphold the
values of openness, transparency, and reciprocity that have
made the global research environment so successful.
I am amazed every day by the ingenuity and dedication of
the NSF workforce and the incredible innovations NSF makes
possible. During the pandemic, we saw no decrease in
productivity. In fact, it was the opposite. And thanks to the
support of the administration and Congress through the CARES
Act and ARP, we have been able to support those in the research
community most impacted by the pandemic.
Again, I thank you for your support of NSF. The fiscal year
2023 request positions the agency to ensure U.S. leadership in
science, engineering, and technology for decades to come, and I
look forward to working with you to achieve that goal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for the
opportunity to share a few words with you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Dr. Panchanathan.
At this time, we will proceed to the questions of members.
As is our practice, we will alternate back and forth between
majority and minority until all members present have had an
opportunity to have a round of questions, with priority and
recognition given to members who were logged on at the start of
the hearing.
At this time, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questions.
Dr. Panchanathan, in prior congressional hearings, NSF
officials have noted that the National Science Foundation is
unable to fund all project proposals that are deemed worthy of
funding. That much is clear.
The question is: How much additional funding would be
needed to fund all such meritorial proposals, and to what
extent does the administration's proposed budget help close
that gap?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for this question,
Chairman Cartwright.
I agree with you 100 percent. As I said, even in my last
testimony, typically, we receive about, 42,000, 43,000
proposals in a year, and we get to fund about 11,000 to 12,000
in a year. And that would be a success rate of 25 percent. If
you look at the merit review process and what the merit review
process recommends for funding--and they typically will call it
a competitive proposal, a highly competitive proposal, and so
on--that will typically fall about 30 percent to 33 percent, in
the range of that, as recommended for funding. And, therefore,
we fall short by not being able to fund all the proposals that
are being recommended for funding.
And you asked for a number. I would say approximately $2
billion would be needed to fund those proposals that are
recommended for funding, that are eligible for funding because
of the highest-quality ideas and the highest-quality talent
those proposals, you know, are focusing to generate.
So this is a missed opportunity, in my view, because I
worry that, when we don't fund those proposals, then those
ideas and talent are either not elevated to benefit our Nation,
or sometimes even it can become a national security issue
because our competitors may choose to fund some of them, and
thatis not what we want.
So this proposal that the President has proposed would
definitely address that and to, you know, close that gap. So
our success rate will go from, you know, where we are right
now, from 25 to 26 percent, by a percent more, and it will make
possible about 2,800 proposals that would be funded because of
the fact that this additional funding will make that possible.
So I am very pleased that we are on a trajectory that would
make it possible to address this, you know, issue which has
been creeping up over the many years, Mr. Chairman. And I am
glad that you asked this question, and I look forward to
working with you to see how we can make that a reality.
Mr. Cartwright. All right.
As you know, Dr. Panchanathan, the House and the Senate do
talk to each other from time to time, and that is called
conferencing. And, right now, Congress is in the midst of
conferencing the House and Senate versions of the America
COMPETES Act. And both versions include a new directorate
focused on more applied research, similar to the one you
recently created called the Directorate for Technology,
Innovation, and Partnerships, or TIP.
The budget describes TIP as aiming to advance emerging
technologies, accelerate research translation to market and
society, and cultivate new education pathways for the future
technical workforce.
So, first, I want to give you the opportunity to make any
comments you would like to get on the record about the America
COMPETES Act for Congress's consideration.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is, again,
a wonderful opportunity for us to talk about the amazing
innovations that NSF makes possible.
I talk about the DNA of NSF, Mr. Chairman, which is: The
one strand of DNA is curiosity-driven, discovery-based
explorations that NSF makes possible, but NSF also makes
possible the other strand of use-inspired, solutions-focused
translations and innovations.
This is the time, Mr. Chairman, that we need to translate
all of those fantastic technologies and emerging technology
ideas so that we might benefit from them here at home, and we
can solve some of the societal challenges, as well as build the
economic progress through new industries of the future, and
augmenting the current industries, like the semiconductor
industry and so on.
So, to me, this Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships
Directorate is going to unleash innovations, not only in the
places that innovations are there now, but to make possible
innovations in the places that we do not have them scaled
enough.
And, you know, Mr. Chairman, I had the pleasure of being
with you in Scranton, Pennsylvania. And watching Schott Glass
was truly--I mean, it made my heart warm. Because that is the
kind of company that we need everywhere, scaling up in numbers,
in size, and therefore creating the best jobs that we need to
create for our citizens. And that is what this TIP Directorate
is aiming to focus, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, it was a pleasure having you in
northeastern Pennsylvania, Dr. Panchanathan, and I was glad you
were able to make the trip.
At this time, I am going to yield to our ranking member,
Mr. Aderholt, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Again, Dr. Panchanathan, thank you for being
here, and good to have you before the subcommittee.
My first question, I want to ask about foreign government
talent recruitment programs.
Texas A&M University is highly regarded by the FBI and the
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency for its
leadership in its activity in its research security areas. In
February, Texas A&M leadership wrote a letter to the vice
chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee noting that the
university's Research Security Office identified and mitigated
more than 200 instances of foreign talent recruitment
activities across the Texas A&M University system and State
agencies.
One of these instances involved a partnership with a
Chinese university and the National Science Foundation's
National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR. According to
press reports, NCAR stated that the decision to terminate the
partnership was Texas A&M's decision and not NCAR's decision.
My question to you is, did the NSF and NCAR review the
partnership and determine that it was not a security threat, or
were the agency and the program just not paying close enough
attention to that particular situation?
Dr. Panchanathan. Representative Aderholt, you bring up a
very important question which is something that I have been
spending a lot of my time on. Even at the time when I was on
the National Science Board, before I took this job, we were
focused on how we could enhance research security. In fact, we
had JASON as a group of research security experts to weigh in
externally and provide advice in terms of what we need to do.
And so, we have filled many of the protocols that JASON has
suggested.
One of the important things that we did was to have a chief
officer responsible for research security strategy and policy.
We call it CRSSP. And this officer works very closely with the
intelligence agencies, with academia, with the administration,
and with the Hill and with other agencies so that we have a
coordinated approach to addressing the challenges that you talk
about, Ranking Member.
Because we need to make sure that we cannot let any foreign
competitors take advantage of our situation by, you know, not
engaging in the manner in which they share values and have the
fundamental principles of reciprocity and respect for research
and development.
So I want to start off with that. And there are a number of
things that is there that I can talk about. I don't want to
take too much of your time.
But, to address your specific question, I can tell you that
we work very closely with our academic partners. We work, of
course, very closely with entities like NCAR and others to make
sure that research security is something that we are paying
very close attention to.
In fact, we have been putting out guidelines in terms of
how people can declare their conflict of interest their
conflict of commitment. And we even have analytical abilities
that we have built even since we spoke last time a year ago,
analytical abilities to unearth some of those, you know,
conflicts that we might be able to find.
And therefore, through education, through training, as well
as through the mechanisms working in partnership with our IG,
the Office of Inspector General, we are making sure that where
it is not a slip-up but where it was intentional that we take
appropriate actions to address that.
So I can assure you that we are really focused on this and
this is something that I communicate to the Hill, to the Senate
also.
And I am happy to take this specific question that you have
and get back to you with an answer on that NCAR-Texas A&M
interface. I am happy to get back on the details of that,
Ranking Member Aderholt.
But I can tell you I am taking a very strong view of how we
need to make sure that, while global collaborations need to be
fostered, that it will be with like-minded partners. And if
they are not, you know, aligned with our values, then we need
to take a close look at it.
[NSF provided the following information for the record:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
My next question: Last October, the Office of Inspector
General reported that mitigating threats posed by foreign
government talent recruitment programs remain a serious
management challenge for the NSF. And, while noting that the
NSF had begun to take action to confront these challenges, the
IG recommended that NSF should continue to assess and refine
its controls in this area and should work to ensure that it had
sufficient staff and resources to respond to this challenge.
When I raised this same question last year, the agency
reported that it had, I believe, three staff that are doing
this work and planned to hire additional staff for fiscal year
2022. Can you give us an update on the hiring for fiscal year
2022?
Dr. Panchanathan. Absolutely, Ranking Member.
We have assigned additional resources, not only
specifically to the Chief Officer for Research Security
Strategy and Policy, but I want this to be permeating all parts
of the agency so that this sensitivity is not in one office
only, as important as that office is and that officer is, that
we want this to be across the agency. So we have a number of
folks across the agency who are also partnering with the Chief
Officer for Research Security Strategy and Policy. So we are
making sure that they have the resources necessary to be able
to do the job.
I meet with the Office of Inspector General, Ranking
Member, every month, and we go through every one of these
things so that we are working in partnership. It is a wonderful
partnership. They have their domain, and we have our domain,
but we want to make sure that we are working together because
we have a common goal. We have a common goal of making sure
that, you know, bad foreign actors do not take advantage of our
agency or any scientific project or an investigator.
So that is what we are working hard on, and I can tell you
that we are assigning NSF resources to make that happen.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
At this time, the chair recognizes Congresswoman Grace Meng
of New York for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt.
Thank you, Dr. Panchanathan, for being here today.
As you may know, there have been a lot of proposals in
Congress recently aimed at ensuring that a broad range of
students at both minority-serving and emerging research
institutions have access to NSF research and programming.
New York has some of the best research universities in the
world, and research coming out of these institutions have paved
the way for the U.S. being the global leader in developing new
technology and innovation.
New York also has a diverse range of institutions, large
and small, that received $62 million in NSF STEM education
funding in fiscal year 2021. For example, the City College of
New York, with a Latino population comprising nearly a third of
its 16,000-student enrollment, has received numerous NSF STEM
grants for programming.
I also appreciate that NSF has led the way in adhering to
the gold standard of the peer-review process, where subject-
matter experts decide which grant proposals have the strongest
scientific potential. And countries around the globe work to
emulate this peer-review process to ensure that their best
science gets funded.
At the same time, NSF has a number of programs that ensure
that a variety of institutions have access to NSF programming,
whether they are located in upstate New York or Queens or in
the Bronx. I think it is important for NSF to support these
sorts of institutions, regardless of whether they are in an
EPSCoR State.
I agree with your comments that innovation can and does
happen anywhere. Talent is everywhere, and we need to ensure we
are encouraging that talent to innovate, regardless of where
they are located. I am concerned that minority-serving
institutions in underserved urban areas and emerging
institutions in rural New York communities are being harmed by
dedicated funding programs that only help certain States.
So, while we have heard about the EPSCoR program, could you
speak to how NSF plans to help all minority-serving
institutions and emerging research institutions regardless of
which State they are in?
Dr. Panchanathan. Congresswoman Meng, I am glad you asked
this question because, since we met last, I promised all of you
that, as part of my original visioning, the central pillar of
my mission is to ensure accessibility and inclusivity. Because
I firmly believe--and I keep repeating this--talent and ideas
are democratized all across our Nation, in every part of our
Nation, rural, urban, across the socioeconomic, demographic,
and the rich racial diversity of our Nation. So let's start
right there.
So, as you said, you know, the NSF's gold standard merit
review process ensures that the best ideas do get the
investment so that we can get those best ideas to translate to
unbelievable innovations and, therefore, resulting in societal
and economic prosperity.
Just to give you a number, just in last year, in fiscal
year 2021, NSF invested over a billion dollars in minority-
serving institutions across the Nation.
Now, in order that the best ideas might elevate, be
elevated even more, all across the Nation, including EPSCoR
States, what I have launched--and you will all be very happy to
hear this--is a new program, which I announced in my remarks,
called GRANTED, G-R-A-N-T-E-D, GRANTED. It is an acronym for
Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Equity
and Diversity.
So what does this program do?
Having come from an institution where I built a significant
research infrastructure for proposal writing, for pre-award,
for post-award, for ensuring IP transactions, and a whole host
of other services that--you know, institutions that have the
resources to do that are able to build those kinds of
infrastructure to benefit the faculty and students. But not all
institutions can do that, particularly students at community
colleges, Tribal colleges, the Research 2 institutions, and
other institutions that don't have the ability to have this
kind of research infrastructure, which means those ideas that
are coming from those institutions would not have the chance to
be lifted up in the merit review process.
To change this, this program, GRANTED, which I have
launched--which we have launched, is going to make sure that
that research infrastructure is available to anybody and
everybody all across our Nation.
I am confident--I am confident--that the ideas in EPSCoR
States will be lifted up and will achieve the aspirations, as
much as the institutions from rural areas from other States,
non-EPSCoR States, will also benefit from this.
So this is something--and particularly the minority-serving
institutions, where these resources are not available, and
Tribal colleges and community colleges, where these resources
are not available, will benefit from this.
I am very proud of this program. And this is one of the
things that you will see in the request in fiscal year 2023. We
have asked for $50 million to launch this program at scale,
fast, so that we can get the impact realized right away.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Doctor.
And thank you, Ms. Meng.
At this time, the chair recognizes Congressman Ben Cline
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Aderholt. Appreciate you having this hearing.
I want to thank our witness for coming before the committee
as well.
Ensuring that America continues to lead in science and
technology is critical for our continued economic success. And
it is vital that we continue to innovate here in America and
promote policies that enable the private sector to flourish
from breakthrough discoveries at our research facilities and
universities.
At the same time, we have to ensure that taxpayer dollars
are being used effectively and transparently to ensure that the
trust citizens have in their government-funded research is
secure.
I want to ask, Dr. Panchanathan, last year in your budget
request, you asked for $1.2 billion for climate and clean-
energy research, which was $345 million above fiscal year 2021.
This year, you are requesting $1.5 billion, which is another
$300 million increase, totaling--and that increase is more than
$645 million in the last 2 fiscal years.
Can you explain why this is necessary and how you plan to
use this additional funding?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for this question,
Representative Cline.
You know the way I look at the problem of finding solutions
in climate is: We need to look at climate mitigation, climate
adaptation, climate resilience, and there is a lot of work that
can be done. But, even more importantly for me, with the launch
of the Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships Directorate, I
find that this is an opportunity for us, when we find those
solutions that we need to build the industries of the future in
these areas, and, therefore, we can be in the vanguard of
innovation and can lead the world. And therefore, this is a
tremendous economic opportunity as well as it is an opportunity
for us to be able to solve the challenge that is ahead of us.
And so that is how we look at this. Therefore, the
investment that we are doing is not just in one particular
directorate of NSF. I want to make sure that that is very
clear. We are trying to bring all directorates of NSF.
For example, one of the programs that we are looking at is
a national discovery cloud through our Computer and Information
Science and Engineering. So that all of these that we do are
guided by data and information so that we can make the right
decisions at the right time. And so, likewise, Engineering
Directorate is participating on how do we do--you know,
understand, how does technology and engineering and science
interfaces work really well for the benefit of society as well
as the economy?
So these investments, therefore, are targeted squarely on
trying to find the adaptation strategies, resilience
strategies, and as well as building the new economy and new
industries of the future.
Mr. Cline. The inspector general's report on ``Management
Challenges for the NSF'' states that, back in fiscal year 2020,
NSF spent almost $154 million constructing major facilities and
more than $900 million operating them.
Can you tell me what percent of each of your facilities
were operating in person throughout the pandemic? Were any of
your facilities in person?
Dr. Panchanathan. So many of our facilities were clearly,
you know, having minimal staff, Representative Cline. For
example, in our Antarctic facilities, we ensured that, you
know, with the COVID challenge, that we didn't want any
problems there because it would be very, very hard to manage
COVID there. And I am happy to say that we are mostly COVID-
free in the Antarctic continent. Likewise, in the case of our
telescope facilities in Chile, we had to stop some of the
construction activity and delay them because we could not do
this at the COVID time.
So, in terms of operations, we had minimal staff in some of
the places, but our first priority was to make sure that we
provided a safe and healthy work environment.
And we are trying to also provide for access to those
facilities through remote operations to the best extent that we
can.
And this is something that we have learned, Representative
Cline; I have said that every challenge is also an opportunity
to do things better. So you will appreciate this. Because I
want more access to the Antarctic facilities and our telescope
facilities, the crown jewels of what we can call as expanding
the frontiers of scientific discovery, be available to K-
through-12 students, be available to community colleges. People
who are not physically able to go to Antarctica should still be
inspired by the science that is happening there and even
remotely makes science possible.
So we are taking this opportunity to see what we can do to
augment our presence there with a virtual presence so that we
can do even more science with the investments that we are
making.
Mr. Cline. Can you explain how you allocate funds between
the colleges and universities that qualify and the private
sector?
Dr. Panchanathan. So basically, what we do is--as you know,
Representative Cline, our allocation of resources is primarily
based on solid proposals that are put together by the
institutions, and those institutions sometimes can be in
partnership with industry, and these are called indirect
partnerships. We also pre-wire ourselves with industry in co-
investment around thematic areas. Like, fairness in AI is a
public-private partnership.
So most of our funds, other than our SBIR/STTR and a few
other things that we have, but industry is able to get access
to our resources to be able to advance the ideas.
And I am very happy that, given the opportunity, I will
share with you some of the success stories with our SBIR/STTR
program, the number of companies that have been started, and
how successful they are, including Google, Qualcomm. Just a
couple of weeks ago, I met with Gingko Bioworks, which is now a
$6 billion company that was supported by NSF all the way, from
the basic idea to SBIR/STTR of multiple phases, and today they
are a $6 billion company. There are many, many examples like
that, and I am happy to share them with you, Representative
Cline.
But that is how we work, is good ideas can come from
anywhere, and they get funded because they are going to advance
scientific discoveries as well as make new innovations
possible.
[NSF provided the following information for the record:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
And the chair recognizes Representative Ed Case of Hawaii
for 5 minutes of questioning.
I will note that we are just about to be called to a vote.
And what I would propose is that we will have Mr. Case's 5
minutes and then the following 5 minutes and then recess for
the pendency of the vote. And we will keep you posted on that.
Mr. Case, you are recognized.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Doctor, good to see you again.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
Mr. Case. First of all, a very sincere congratulations on
completing the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope atop Haleakala
on Maui in Hawaii, the world's most advanced solar telescope--
an awesome achievement. Some delay, obviously, from COVID-19
and otherwise, but completed and functioning.
I was actually at the telescope about 6 weeks ago or
something like that viewing some of the very, very first images
of the sun, with not just scientific application but many, many
other applications, as you well know.
And so it is exciting to have a project of that scope that
has been on the books for that long and that is that important
in advancement of scientific research to be completed and
operating. And I know that you may be looking forward to
joining the official opening, and I hope to see you there.
So, number one, great job. Congratulations on that.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
Mr. Case. I think I wanted to ask kind of a big-picture
question, which is: How are we doing in this area against the
rest of the world? Somewhat to the chair's comments at the very
beginning as to the merit of, you know, how many applications
with thoughts of merit are not being funded.
But, as you look out throughout the world in the area of
science and education research and development in the non-
medical field, how are we doing against other people that are
doing this, in particular China? I think your testimony
indicates that the rate of growth is still more rapid in China.
Do we know that? Can we quantify it? Who else is doing it?
And how does this budget match up against international
needs that some countries are, hopefully in a friendly way,
competing to find the next generation of answers?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much, Representative Case.
It was truly a delight talking to you. And I would second what
you said. When I talk about the crown jewels, the Daniel K.
Inouye Solar Telescope--we call it DKIST--is truly a crown
jewel, and it is going to make unbelievable scientific
explorations possible. I am so thrilled, and I look forward to
being there for the inauguration, which is really a proud
moment for all of us as a Nation.
Now, when we talk about--you asked a question about how are
we doing. There is a lot more work that we need to do, and we
will do that at NSF, but we need all your support--the support
of the administration, the support of Congress--to be able to
unleash all these unbelievable scientific ideas, which can be
made possible, and new ideas that are possible because of the
instrumentation and the investment in infrastructure that we
need to make as a Nation.
So I was so thrilled you know, when the NSF for the Future
Act had recommended that the NSF double over a 5-year
timeframe. I think that is the right kind of strategy that we
need to have as a Nation because I think that, as I said
earlier to the chairman's question, in response to the
chairman's question, is that we are leaving a lot of good ideas
behind. And new ideas that can be even put forth may also not
be at the speed and scale--as they always talk about
strengthening its speed and scale--are probably not possible if
we don't have the world-class facilities that we need.
So we are coming to the NSF to constantly be looking for
those opportunities to be in the vanguard. And, clearly, as you
have said, our international competitors, China included, are
trying to invest more in their basic research. They are trying
to increasingly index their investment to the GDP of the
nation. I have heard numbers--when I talk to my international
partners; some of them talk about 2 percent, and some of them
even talk about 3 percent of the GDP. So we need to be really
in the game.
The fantastic thing about the United States is that we are
the hotbed of innovation. Because of the democratic values and
the unbelievable free spirit, our innovation potential is far
better than anywhere in the globe. And we should be very--I am
proud, and we should all be proud, and I am sure you are all.
But in order to take full advantage of that and to take
full advantage of the talent that is not being brought into
this sphere, the missing millions as I call them, we need to
work harder in terms of making sure our investments are
tracking. And----
Mr. Case. Are there particular areas of scientific
research, education, and development where you think we are
particularly being left behind in the world, whether from a
pure scientific workforce perspective, which I doubt, or from a
budget perspective, which may well be the case?
I mean, where are we--where are the next frontiers of NSF,
I suppose? What are the things that you think we need to be
focusing on that we are not focusing on in this budget?
Dr. Panchanathan. In every directorate at NSF, there are
tremendous opportunities that we can do more and unleash more
possibilities--every directorate.
If you take the Bio Sciences Directorate, I talked about
Ginkgo Bioworks. The Ginkgo Bioworks--the billions of dollars
of companies of the future in synthetic biology and other areas
are there if we can unleash more of those ideas and also
translate those ideas rapidly.
So it is available to anyone. And when I talked about the
Geosciences Directorate and Climate Solutions and Engineering
Directorate working together, more clean-energy technologies.
I can go on and on about all of them. Every directorate has
got those opportunities. In order to do that----
Mr. Case. I better cut it off. But, in summary, you believe
that we are covering the bases; it is just the magnitude of
effort in each of those bases we can stand to increase.
Dr. Panchanathan. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Case. Okay.
Thank you very much, Chair.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Case. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case.
At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Garcia
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Panchanathan, good to see you again. Thank you again
for everything you are doing.
I think we are a little bit behind the power curve on some
of these investments. And, you know, I think this has been the
focus of our conversations in the past. You know, I think, in
many of these Federal agency funding buckets, we are actually
spending too much money; this is one where I think we are not
spending enough.
And, you know, the NSF of the future needs to be a feeder
into the commercial world but also into the DOD world, right?
The technologies that we develop with these programs feed into
both, you know, facets of our economy as well as our national
security.
I think--and this kind of is a followup to Mr. Case's
question and comment. You know, I think one of our weaknesses
relative to China is the capacity and the scale that--you know,
you keep using the word ``scale.'' I think that is absolutely
spot-on. Scale and capacity are our relative weaknesses to
China.
I think where our strengths are are the creativity and the
innovation side. I think our ability--the diversity of thought,
the diversity of background in our country is a natural
advantage, and we encourage innovation and creativity.
And so, as I am looking at some of these big hitters in
terms of the funding line items with artificial intelligence,
quantum science, I am seeing something that is missing a little
bit that is more of a creative world, and that is this cyber
domain, both defensive and offensive.
It is very important that we make sure that we are treating
these three facets--artificial intelligence, quantum computing,
and cyber--as, sort of, all one and the same. These are all a
piece of a very important three-legged stool.
And I think you know that some of these major data breaches
that we have seen in the last, we will call it, 10 years
through offensive cyber attacks against us from primarily
China, they have garnered the data but they haven't been able
to process it, meaning they haven't gotten the quantum
computing figured out at a sufficient level to be able to
process it. But I think they are getting there. And I think the
artificial intelligence is going to actually help them form
the, sort of, projecting modeling needed to use that data in a
harmful way against us.
We have to be able to do the same thing, not only protect
us against those cyber attacks but also be able to develop the
offensive cyber capabilities as well.
And so can you touch on that, you know, as far as what we
are doing in the cyber domain? They are all co-mingled with
each other at some level, but what are we doing, and how do we
do more of it?
And I know it is a vague question, but we have to make your
$10 billion, or whatever your request is, behave like $15
billion until we can actually get you whole and get to, you
know, the NSF of the future at a correct level to compete with
China.
But, on the cyber front, can you just make a few comments
on what you are seeing and some of the progress or deficiencies
we have in that domain?
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you very much for the question,
Representative Garcia. It was great talking to you too.
And, you know, one of the things I want to say is, the
reason I launched this Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships
Directorate in a quick timeframe, within a year, is because we
wanted this translation that you talk about to happen at speed
and scale and happen everywhere and not miss any opportunities.
That is the first thing I want to say.
Let's talk about cyber. I mean, there is a tremendous
investment that NSF makes in cyberspace. Our Secure and
Trustworthy Cyberspace program invests quite heavily. But not
just limited to that, we invest in all of the technologies,
like AI and so on, which also have an implication. And you
brought out that in your comments, even with quantum, that AI
can help facilitate, you know, addressing some of these issues,
you know?
And so, some of the other investments that we make also
contribute towards how we ensure that we are protecting
cyberspace and also both offensive and defensive. And, in some
cases, it is in partnership with, you know, agencies like the
DOD, for example, or DARPA.
And so, we are always looking for partnership modalities,
and I have talked to every leader of every agency to make sure,
wherever we can find those common threads of partnership, we
want to partner right away.
But there is also a very important thing that we need to
generate: the talent of the future, the talent of the future.
And that is why the Cyber Scholar Program is something I am
very, very proud of; Cyber Scholarships for Service Program is
something that I am very proud of.
And in the budget that we have presented to you in 2023, we
are asking for a scaling of the program because we need more
people who are sensitized in understanding how to handle not
only defensive cyber activities but also offense cyber
activities. And again, this is a partnership with the industry.
You talked about, with the last thing, $10 billion looking
like $15 billion. You know that is why I emphasize
partnerships. How do we cross-leverage with industry, with
other partners, so that every dollar that we spend of taxpayer
money gets the value which is a lot more than the dollar itself
and having this multiplier effect?
So we are working very heavily on that. And there are many
examples, and I can share them with you, Representative, even
as a question for the record, if you would like.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
[NSF provided the following for the record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Congressman Garcia.
At this time, the chair recognizes Representative Charlie
Crist for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity today.
And my question is: My home State of Florida is home to
over 2 million veterans, including over 70,000 in my district,
in the Tampa Bay area. It is a vibrant military community, as
you know, Mr. Chair, including MacDill Air Force Base near my
district, as well as SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM.
Can you please talk about some of the work the NSF does and
the programs it offers in support of servicemembers, veterans,
as well as their families?
Dr. Panchanathan. Yeah. Now, NSF--clearly, I mean, there is
a number of--I mean, I can probably go offline and get you the
number of programs that do that. But, in general, we are very,
very--I am particularly--because I come from a State where I
actually built an entrepreneurial program for returning
veterans.
Representative Crist, you will be happy to hear this. I
felt that, who better to exemplify the risk-taking mindset and
being able to, you know, do that effectively than the veterans?
How might we take that entrepreneurial mindset that they have
and the risk-taking mindset they have and turn it into
unbelievable, you know, entrepreneurial ventures and other
kinds of outcomes?
So, at NSF, we work on a number of programs where, you
know, we encourage the inclusion of veterans, the education of
veterans. So we have a number of programs focused on that. But
with the launch of the new Technology, Innovation, and
Partnerships Directorate, keeping in mind the previous point
that I made, that there is a lot of opportunity for us to see
how we can energize veterans and their ideas and their talents
to be a lot more entrepreneurial and contribute to economic
activities every day.
Mr. Crist. That is wonderful.
Dr. Panchanathan. And, again, there is a partnership
opportunity with [inaudible] too.
Mr. Crist. Well, thank you. Thank you very much.
So, in Florida, we are the State that is most susceptible
to rising sea level and climate change. And I am curious as to
what investments you all are making into trying to help us
address climate change as a country and as a world.
Dr. Panchanathan. Yeah. So, in response to a question that
was brought up earlier by Representative Cline, I responded
that, you know, we have about $1.5 billion of investment in
climate and clean-energy technology related to activities at
NSF, which is a significant increase over the last 2 years in
terms of our investment and commitment.
Because--Representative Crist, you will agree with this--we
are trying to take this moment and say, how might we solve this
problem, find real, creative solutions to this problem, through
understanding through climate science and working on
mitigation, working on adaptation? Because some of these things
are also about adaptation, and some of these things are how you
build resilient communities of the future.
So we are working on all of these at the same time, as well
as: How might you take these challenges and also turn them into
opportunities for new industries that can address these and
tackle these problems? Where can we have the best, vibrant
industries around this challenge, then the investment that we
are making turning into unbelievable industries of the future
in clean-energy technology and other climate solution kind of
entrepreneurial ventures?
And that is something that, you know, we are focused at NSF
to make possible. We are in partnership with NOAA. You will be
very happy to hear that we partner with NOAA, NIST, with NASA,
as well as Department of Energy, on seeing how we might cross-
leverage our ideas and see if we can bring some real, tangible
solutions.
The NOAA Director and I are, in fact--you know, we signed
an MOU just a couple of weeks ago--not an MOU as a piece of
paper, but actually launching, you know, partnership programs.
And we are going to have a joint workshop in a few weeks from
now to even strategize into the future on, how might the
fundamental science of NSF result in operational effectiveness?
How might the operational challenges come back and inspire more
science and solutions?
That is how we are working it, Representative Crist, and
you will be happy to hear that.
Mr. Crist. Thank you.
And I guess my last question would be about COVID and if
you have been able to do some research already that indicates
what the long-term effects on human beings that COVID would be.
You know, I have seen snippets in different news accounts that
there could be some lingering impacts on brain function, for
example.
Can you share with us and educate us about that?
Dr. Panchanathan. So, Representative Crist, as you know, we
work on the basic bioscience realm and engineering and finding
solutions, you know, through data and analytics, you know,
health-related data and analytics frameworks that we built
together.
So, in this case, we work in partnership with NIH. And so
this is something that we are increasingly focused on, to
understand the effects of long-term COVID. But that is mostly
in the domain, as you will appreciate, of NIH.
But we are partnering with them to see how we can
accelerate progress by bringing the data-based solutions that
we can--big data approaches, as well as Social, Behavioral, and
Economic Sciences Directorate bringing the social/behavioral
aspects so that we might develop a better understanding as well
as better solutions for this in the future.
Mr. Crist. So have you made any discoveries along----
Dr. Panchanathan. And I am happy to give you more----
Mr. Crist. I am sorry. Have you made any discoveries along
those lines as of yet?
Dr. Panchanathan. I don't have----
Mr. Crist. Or has NIH, to your knowledge?
Dr. Panchanathan. I don't have anything to report as of
now, but----
Mr. Crist. I see.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. I can get back to you. You
know, I don't have it----
Mr. Crist. That would be great.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. Off the top of my head. But
we will most certainly, you know, as we are partnering with
NIH--and we plan to do more of the partnership in the future.
But we will be happy to get you some details----
[NSA provided the following for the record:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Crist. That is very kind.
Dr. Panchanathan [continuing]. Of what we know,
Representative Crist.
Mr. Crist. That is very kind of you. Thank you very much.
Dr. Panchanathan. And I want to say, we could not have done
this, even some of these things--thanks to all of you for the
investments in the CARES Act. And the RAPIDS (Rapid-Response
Research) that you put together helped a lot in terms of
understanding and addressing some of the issues, near-term
issues, and also positioning ourselves for the longer-term
issues.
Mr. Crist. Thank you very much.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Crist.
The chair recognizes Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you.
First thing, I have been concerned about the gaps in our
cybersecurity workforce. Good cybersecurity is based on finding
and protecting vulnerabilities. Now, the pandemic altered the
workplace, and, while we have the technology to let everyone
work from home, it also increased threats to our networks.
This, coupled with the rise in ransomware attacks, shows us
that we have vulnerabilities, and they need to be plugged with
a larger cyber workforce.
The Cyber Corps program is one area that I believe needs to
be expanded to help fill the gaps in our cyber workforce, which
last estimates still had about a 2.7 million lack of employees.
With a lot of the cybersecurity jobs, we don't need to have all
Ph.D.-level degrees. Sometimes you could get associate degrees
or the right certificates and training.
So my questions are, can the--and there are a couple. Can
the Cyber Corps program piece be scaled up? Can it be expanded
to other universities or community colleges? And, again, it is
currently at 70. How do we cross-pollinate our cyber educators
between the government and private sector to give our next
workforce better training and education?
So, Mr. Director, I do ask that your team get together with
my office so we can work to scale this scholarship to fill gaps
in our cybersecurity.
Dr. Panchanathan. Representative Ruppersberger, I would be
happy to work with your office and see how we can scale this.
You point out an important problem. As I acknowledged
earlier, this is something that we are working on. But I want
to give you some data points since we even spoke last time.
We had, at that time, 82 institutions. We have added eight
more now. We have 90 institutions participating from 37 States,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, with more than 1,000
students per year. We have 28 community colleges participating
in the Community College Pathways Initiative. That is a
community college partnership with the Cyber Corps
institutions.
So the fiscal year 2023 request, Representative, would grow
this to 1,250 students. And we are adding the eight new
institutions this year, as I said. So this is a step forward,
but we are also working in partnership with other agencies,
like DOD and so on, to see how we might scale this more.
But, clearly, you know, this is something that we need to
partner with industry, and that is something that we are doing,
and also trying to see what might be opportunities for us to
sensitize people to cyber, you know, the cyber culture, even at
the K-through-12 level.
So, at NSF, we are thinking about all of these things,
Representative, and happy to work with your office to see what
we might do to see how we can address this even better.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you. I think we need to do that.
Good.
Dr. Panchanathan. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger.
And, at this time, the chair recognizes Congressman Trone
for 5 minutes of questions.
You appear to be muted, Mr. Trone.
Mr. Trone. Hold on. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Director.
And thank you, Chairman Cartwright, Ranking Member
Aderholt.
We are currently in the midst of a devastating mental
health crisis. A majority of young Americans today report
feeling depression, hopelessness, giving a sense of urgency to
our work here today that we can do for our kids.
We appreciate NSF's work to provide awards to researchers
studying the effects of the pandemic on mental wellness and
behavior. It is crucial we explore potential scientific
solutions to promote resilience and improve mental health
wellbeing.
What role can NSF play in informing our response to the
mental health crisis, and what resources do you need?
Dr. Panchanathan. Representative Trone, that is an
excellent question, and you bring up a very good point. The
COVID moment is real-time, showing us some of the challenges
that we also face, which exacerbate it.
So here is what NSF--NSF has always invested in a range of
things from the mental health perspective or addiction
perspective, as, you know, we talked about it last time when
you and I had this conversation specific to opioids, for
example.
So we invest in basic neuroscience, investment to a variety
of other science and engineering concepts, but, more
importantly, the complex web of biological, behavioral, and
social factors that impact mental health, and sometimes that
then contributes to addiction. So we are trying to understand
this entire phenomenon as a system phenomenon, rather than only
looking at it one thing at a time, as important as that might
be. We are looking at it as a system-level of understanding.
In order to do this, therefore, NSF is bringing together
researchers across various disciplines to work together.
Because it is not just a neuroscience problem, or a biological
problem or an engineering problem or a computing problem, or a
social/behavioral science problem, but it is all of the above
and more. And that is why NSF is a good agency that is able to
focus on the interdisciplinary aspect of how to address this.
But we are also working in partnership with agencies like
NIH in this. And that is something that we think is very
important because, you know, in order to get to the bottom of
the basic biomedicine-related innovations that we need to focus
on--so that is why NSF and NIH are working together.
And so it is important to find solutions. One of the things
that we have done is also--and you will be happy to hear this.
During the COVID moment, we put extra investments--and thanks
to all of your support with ARP--and we also took some
additional resources from our budget to make sure that the
disproportionately affected institutions and disproportionately
affected individuals across our Nation got the support that
they needed in order that they may continue with their
scientific, you know, explorations.
Mr. Trone. And you are coordinating regularly with NIH
Mental Health so we don't have any overlap and duplication?
Dr. Panchanathan. Yes.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Great.
Dr. Panchanathan. So we have constant conversations between
our program officers as well as leaders between NSF and NIH
where we try to make sure that we are working together with
the--same objective but not duplication.
Mr. Trone. Perfect. Great.
STEM. We are pleased to see NSF is focused on spurring
innovation, increasing STEM opportunities in underserved
regional hubs. Just 2 months ago, Frederick Community College
in my district received $350,000 for the needs of a regional
biotechnology workforce, a rapidly expanding industry.
What resources does NSF need in 2023 to support the
regional institutions, regional community colleges like
Frederick Community College, in their research enterprises to
have a more regionally diverse STEM workforce?
Dr. Panchanathan. So this is a very, very important
priority of NSF, as you might appreciate. NSF is the agency
that is responsible for STEM talent all across our Nation to be
inspired, motivated, and then nurtured.
So we invest heavily on STEM talent. On our Directorate,
for example, the request for $1.4 billion as part of their
[inaudible] Budget is focused on how we might get STEM talent
everywhere--community colleges, universities, of course the
pathways from K to 12--all of them being energized and to make
sure that we have the scale of talent that we are looking at.
And I am so glad you mentioned the community colleges and
the investments that we are making--for example, the $350,000
that we invested to the Montgomery College, as well as the $1.4
million grant to the Hood College in your district, because
these are very, very important investments.
And I was saying earlier, Representative Trone, that what
we are trying to also do is to provide that service, the
research building, and the research infrastructure service, to
all institutions so that they might also then be able to bring
up the ideas and train talent everywhere. So this is something
that we are launching, the GRANTED initiative. And I am
confident that that is going to change the way in which ideas
and talent are going to be groomed everywhere.
Mr. Trone. Excellent. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
Well, Dr. Panchanathan, we have arrived at the end of our
hearing. It is no surprise to the chair that you have acquitted
yourself ably here this afternoon. On behalf of the
subcommittee, thank you for submitting yourself to our
questions today, and thank you for your superb leadership of
the National Science Foundation.
With that, I declare this hearing adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, May 12, 2022.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WITNESS
HON. GINA M. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Cartwright. We will gavel in and begin. At this
hearing, we are fully virtual, so we have to address a few
housekeeping matters for today's meeting.
The chair or staff designated by the chair may mute
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition
for the purposes of eliminating background noise.
Members are responsible for muting and un-muting
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not un-muted yourself, I may ask the staff to send you a
request to un-mute yourself. Please then accept that request.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will
retain the balance of your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn to yellow; at 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired. When
your time has expired, the clock will turn red and I will begin
to recognize the next member.
In terms of speaking order, we will begin with the chair
and ranking member, then members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized, in order of
seniority. And, finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized.
House rules require me to remind you that we have set up an
email address to which members can send anything they wish to
submit in writing for any of the subcommittee's hearings or
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to
your staff.
The subcommittee shall come to order.
Good morning. Today, we welcome the United States Secretary
of Commerce, Ms. Gina Raimondo, in her second appearance before
the subcommittee to testify on the Department of Commerce's
Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Request.
Madam Secretary, since we last convened, it would be safe
to say that you had a very busy year, and I want to begin by
applauding the Department of Commerce for moving swiftly to
implement export restrictions on Russia and Belarus, as well as
adding hundreds of Russian and Belarusian entities to the
Department's entity list in response to the vile and unprovoked
attack on Ukraine. This subcommittee is eager to hear more
about how the Ukraine-related resources the Administration
received in March will be utilized to prevent Russia and
Belarus from receiving the tools and technologies of war.
The President's fiscal year 2023 budget request of $11.7
billion total for the Department of Commerce represents a $1.8
billion increase for the Department's important and diverse
missions, which are all critical to the quality of life for the
American people and America's competitiveness in the world.
As our Nation continues to recover from the global
pandemic, the Department plays an important role to help
strengthen and secure our supply chains, as well as keep
American businesses successful in the global market.
The President's fiscal year 2023 request includes an almost
20-percent increase for the International Trade Administration,
including a $10.9 million increase to strengthen supply
resilience across manufacturing and service industries, and to
support the Department's efforts on behalf of the semiconductor
industry, and I look forward to hearing more about those new
initiatives.
It is also no secret that our global competitors and
adversaries often seek to undermine or circumvent our trade
laws, steal our intellectual property, and impose retaliatory
tariffs or other trade barriers. I also look forward to hearing
how the Department's request will protect American businesses
from international practices that hurt their bottom lines and
their workers.
This budget also focuses on making strong local impacts
with a 30-percent increase for the Economic Development
Administration. Investing more in public works, research, and
development, and regional job growth strategies will help put
us in solid shape for years to come.
Now, turning to NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, this subcommittee will be asking you, Secretary
Raimondo, about a number of investments planned to improve our
understanding of climate and weather systems. Every day, we
hear about catastrophic droughts and fires, floods. New studies
about the state of nature confirm that a fifth of all species
on earth are at risk of extinction. Coral reefs in the Florida
Keys have only two percent of their historic amount of coral
remaining. So it is time for us to see just how much trouble we
are in.
NOAA is the agency in the Federal Government responsible
for telling us about climate science research, NOAA makes
America the leader in the world in climate science research,
and so NOAA needs to help us plan new infrastructure that is
adequately resilient.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is going to fund
historic construction, but those hundreds of billions of
dollars need to be spent wisely and efficiently. Five years
ago, the prevailing estimates for sea level rise by 2050 varied
between 6 inches and as much as 2 feet. That was a huge range
to consider if you were an ocean-side city mayor trying to make
decisions about coastal infrastructure. Today, with some modest
investment in ocean science at Mr. Chairman by this
subcommittee, the 2022 sea level rise report tells us with
great certainty that, by 2050, sea level will rise between 10
and 12 inches. That is a scientific leap in predictive accuracy
that is invaluable as communities plan to protect their
shorelines, it gives them a chance to proceed with construction
that is wise and can be effective for decades.
So the steps your budget takes to advance climate research
and related services are the right ones, they will provide a
return on investment that we would be foolish not to pursue.
Madam Secretary, we will explore these topics further, but
at this time I would like to yield to my distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Aderholt, for his statement.
You are recognized, Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning and I appreciate you holding this hearing today.
And I too would like to welcome our special guest before
the subcommittee, the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary
Raimondo, and especially as we discuss the fiscal year 2023
discretionary budget.
The last 2 years have seen Congress and, particularly, has
seen the majority in Congress enact direct spending that in
some cases has far eclipsed the annual discretionary budgets
that this committee negotiated for the Commerce bureaus.
And I wholeheartedly support the Department's mission of
promoting job creation and also economic competitiveness, but
it has been hard to watch this majority and this Administration
ignore clear economic projections that warned excessive
spending such as of the so-called American Rescue Plan that
would trigger historical inflation. Today, these predictions
have come to pass. Inflation remains near a 40-year high and
many economists warn that a recession is out there looming.
While some of the supplemental spending has been directed
toward missions of the Commerce Department that I hold in very
high regard, I believe it is vital that Congress reject this
trend of overspending.
Even before the outbreak of COVID-19, the federal budget
was on an unsustainable path due to the growth of the outpacing
the growth of the economy. I believe we, as members of the
Appropriations Committee, can and will agree on some
responsible spending to continue advancing manufacturing and
innovation, also improving weather forecasting, and also
enhancing trade enforcement and compliance, just to name a few
of the Department of Commerce's efforts that are worthy of
continued investment.
Beyond fostering jobs and opportunities for the people of
the State of Alabama and across the country, the Commerce
Department also oversees many other important programs, and
this includes many critical activities at NOAA. The important
work is being done in Alabama by the Alabama Water Center and
by the Vortex Southeast Program, and they remain critical to
the people of my district and my state.
I look forward to discussing many important matters with
you today, Madam Secretary. I have some questions about
securing our supply chain, implementation of CHIPS for America
Act, and several other critical activities at NOAA, among other
things.
I stand ready and willing to work with Chairman Cartwright
to continue making American industry our top priority. We must
continue to focus on addressing unfair trade practices and
barriers that harm U.S. workers and businesses. In addition,
strong export controls are needed to hold Russia accountable
for its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and match the enormity
of the threat posed by China.
Finally, we must never lose sight of the consequences of
runaway federal spending, and the hardship felt across the
American communities and industries as this persistent, but
predictable, inflation takes its toll on this nation.
I do appreciate you being here with us before the
subcommittee today, Madam Secretary, and for you to answer our
questions.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
Secretary Raimondo, you are now recognized for your opening
remarks. Please try to keep your statements to 5 minutes and,
as always, your full written statement will be included in the
record. You are recognized.
Secretary Raimondo. Well, good morning, Chair. It is great
to see you, albeit virtually, and I very much appreciate this
opportunity to be with the committee today, and Ranking Member
Aderholt and all the members of the committee, thank you for
your time this morning.
And I suppose I will pick up on where you both left off and
say that the priorities funded in this budget, in the
President's budget, build upon the investments that you enacted
last year. And I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to
you for your support as we look forward to accomplishing even
more in the year ahead.
As the chair mentioned, this budget request includes $11.7
billion for the Department, which is an 18 percent increase
above 2022's enacted level. We have here at the Commerce
Department one overarching goal, even though we have a broad
array of activities that we engage in here at Commerce, the
through line is that everything we do is directed at improving
America's competitiveness so that our workers and our companies
and small businesses can succeed in the global economy.
In these opening comments, I am just going to focus quickly
on the six key areas of investment that are in the President's
proposal.
First--and you both mentioned this--the budget strengthens
the Nation's supply chains by investing in domestic
manufacturing; specifically, it calls for one and a half
billion dollars to support the work of NIST, including $275
million for the manufacturing extension program, MEP, and
nearly a hundred million to expand NIST's role in Manufacturing
USA. These investments will very directly enable us to
strengthen domestic supply chains, and help small and medium-
size manufacturers improve their competitiveness.
The budget also proposes $16 million to augment the
Commerce Department's data tools and expertise as it relates to
supply chains.
Secondly, the budget positions us to compete globally,
protect our national security, which you both mentioned, and
continue to lead the global coalition united in condemnation of
Russian aggression, as the chair said, vile aggression against
Ukraine. Specifically, it calls for $630 million for ITA to
enhance commercial diplomacy and export promotion; it provides
BIS $200 million to enforce expert controls and strengthen
efforts to counter the threats from Russia and China; third,
this budget invests in inclusive economic growth for all
Americans. The budget provides $500 million for EDA to help
communities experiencing economic distress and $100 million for
MBDA. Fourth, the budget takes historic action to combat the
climate crisis and includes $7 billion for NOAA to continue to
provide data, research, strategies, and expertise necessary to
address the climate crisis; and it proposes $87 million for the
Office of Space Commerce. This significant increase will
specifically be dedicated to standing up civil operational
space and situational awareness capability at NOAA.
I will say in response to the chair's comments, the NOAA
request will support programs to catalyze wind energy, offshore
wind, restore habitats, protect oceans and coasts, and greatly
improve NOAA's ability to predict extreme weather associated
with climate change.
Fifth, the budget expands opportunity and discovery through
data; specifically, it provides the Census Bureau with one and
a half billion dollars to continue its transformation to a 21st
Century data-centric model and calls for $141 million for the
Bureau of Economic Analysis to support new data specifically
into supply chains.
Finally, and sixth, the budget ensures the Department can
provide 21st Century service to the American public by
proposing new funds to enhance our own cybersecurity.
So, with that, obviously, these are the key priorities and
I am looking forward to answering your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Madam Secretary. At this time,
we will begin our first round of questions. I begin by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have a real supply
chain issue that is obviously having a direct impact on the
American public. With inflation now at 8.3 percent, we need to
talk about the Department's role here. And so the question for
you is, how is the United States Department of Commerce
currently contributing to American efforts to identify and
address supply chain vulnerabilities that were exacerbated both
by the pandemic and by Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
ADDRESSING SUPPLY CHAIN VULNERABILITIES
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you. As you say, inflation
is real and, you know, I hear it every day from American
families who are struggling, I am sure you all do in your
districts.
At this point, the Commerce Department right now has over
40 work streams working, we are working on supply chain
disruptions. The biggest area of focus is on semiconductors,
but we are also, you know, looking across industries. We also
resolved the 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel, which is
helping combat inflation, but also deal with supply chains.
I would say that the budget, the President's budget calls
for $16 million and another 50 people to help us respond to the
current supply chain crisis, including the disruption related
to Russia and Ukraine.
I would also be remiss if I didn't say this. In your
COMPETES bill or the Senate's USICA bill, it calls for the
creation of a supply chain office here at the Department of
Commerce, that is vitally necessary. If we have learned
anything in the past 2 years, it is that the Federal Government
is under-resourced. What we need to be doing is not just
responding to crises, but proactively mapping, monitoring,
predicting bottlenecks, investing to help small and medium-
sized manufacturers, convening suppliers and consumers to
increase transparency, so we predict bottlenecks and really
smooth out the logjams that we are suffering from now in these
supply chains.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, thank you for that answer. It is hard
to imagine, but it is hard to forget that 2 years ago our
grocery store shelves were empty and we were bartering with our
neighbors for toilet paper, of all things. And today, again,
going to the supply chain problem, parents are desperately
driving hours to find baby formula. And of course gas prices
are at record highs and it is painful every time you fill up.
What investments in your fiscal year 2023 budget request
will ensure that our supply chain is more resilient and we
won't continue to face these types of issues in the future?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So the budget provides $16 million
to help us do a better job analyzing supply chains and
convening industry, just as you say. So we will be hiring
economists, analysts, using more sophisticated software and
data, relying on experts in supply chains, so that we can
constantly track these disruptions.
I will say, America is behind many other countries. Japan,
for example, obviously, a much smaller country, has dozens of
people analyzing just the semiconductor industry. Germany, same
thing, it has a whole department analyzing supply chains and
making small grants and loans to small manufacturers.
So the $16 million being called for is critically necessary
and it will all be, you know, focused on supply chains.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Now I want to switch over to
Russia and Belarus. Export controls on Russia and Belarus have
been used extensively as part of the sanctions package put in
place in response to Russia's war against Ukraine. And, Madam
Secretary, we appreciate you appearing at our classified
security briefings on that problem.
Back in March, we provided $22 million to the Bureau of
Industry and Security to aid in those efforts about the
sanction package, including export controls. Can you provide an
update to our committee on how these funds will be used and
what Commerce has done to work with our allies to confront this
unprovoked aggression against the people of Ukraine?
EXPORT CONTROLS
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
First of all, thank you for the money and the support. I
mean, I cannot thank all of you enough. We have--I hope you are
proud of the work we have done--we have imposed the most
expansive export controls ever in the history of our country
levied against another country and we have done that with our
allies. The United States led a coalition of 37 countries, all
of Europe, Japan, you know, 37 other countries that have
aligned with us, using export controls, to deny Russia
technology, maritime equipment, aerospace equipment, military
equipment, and, as a result, exports of technology from the
U.S. to Russia are down by 70 percent since we started, exports
of controlled items are down 99 percent. And you are seeing it,
you see it in Russia. They have shut down tank factories, shut
down auto manufacturing factories, shut down airlines, they are
not able to replenish.
So I am grateful for the extra money in the Russia
supplemental and now we are just very focused on enforcement so
nobody can get around our controls.
Mr. Cartwright. That is great. Thank you for the answer and
let's keep the pressure on Russia.
At this time, I recognize our ranking member, Mr. Aderholt,
for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I want to ask about critical minerals. The
United States is 100 percent import-reliant on about 14
minerals that are on the critical mineral list.
Last November, I believe you met with the--you met in
Singapore with Australia's minister for trade and tourism and
investment and discussed, among other topics, building a
resilient supply chain in the Indo-Pacific and the importance
of cooperation between allies regarding critical minerals to
offset our reliance on China.
Can you give us just a brief update on that working group
between the U.S. and Australia, the critical minerals group
that was formed there and you all's discussion?
CRITICAL MINERALS
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Thank you for the question.
As you said, we did form that working group, I did with my
counterpart, and then I convened here at the Commerce
Department more than a dozen CEOs from Australian critical
mineral companies and U.S. companies. I think we are off to a
very strong start.
The U.S. is vulnerable in that we are overly reliant on
China for critical minerals and so what we are trying to do is
forge a closer relationship with our allies in Australia so we
can have, you know, I guess a partnership with their companies,
increasing processing here in the U.S., and give them like
certainty that we will consume a certain amount.
So I think it is early, but we have made progress. And if
we can be more reliant on our allies and less reliant on China,
that will help our national security.
Mr. Aderholt. Do you have a plan to target any other
regions?
Secretary Raimondo. Sorry. Yes, actually, thank you. One of
the initiatives that we are working on is the Indo-Pacific
framework and we are having discussions with Japan, for
example, Indonesia, which has a great deal of nickel.
So the short answer is, yes, we are trying to, you know,
wean ourselves from being so dependent on China.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, global demand for critical minerals is
set to skyrocket by 400 to 600 percent over the next decades
and for some minerals, such as lithium and graphite, it could
be as much as 4,000 percent, I understand. What effect would
these increases having on our economy, absent the fact that we
don't have increased domestic capacity?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, great question. So this is exactly
why we need the supply chain office that is contemplated in the
competition act. The United States, we know this is a
vulnerability, so we need to get ahead of it. We need to make
plans for working with our allies, mapping the supply chain,
figuring out where the holes are, and coming up with
partnerships with other like-minded allied countries to
increase supply. And we are doing it now, but, as I said
earlier to the chair, we are under-resourced and other
countries have full-time operations doing nothing but supply
chain management.
So I do hope that you are able to pass the USICA bill or
competition bill so the United States can catch up.
Mr. Aderholt. Would you support efforts to increase
capacity by ramping up refining and mining of critical minerals
similar to what is being done in Alabama where a first-of-its-
kind graphite processing plant is being constructed in one of
our counties, Coosa County, Alabama, to produce essential
material for electric vehicle batteries?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. I am not familiar with that
specific example, but I would be very happy to work with you on
it.
There is no question, whether it is semiconductors, EV
batteries, pharmaceuticals, we need more domestic production.
Mr. Aderholt. All right. I have got--I will wait until my
next round for my next question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
At this time, the chair recognizes Chairwoman Meng of New
York for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary Raimondo, for being here today. As
you know, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration plays a leading role by overseeing the
implementation of broadband programs established under the
bipartisan infrastructure bill. As you know, that bill provides
NTIA, $48.2 billion in new Federal money to help states close
the digital divide and ensure everyone has internet access.
Successful implementation will hinge on NTIA having
sufficient staff to ensure programs like the BEAD Program, the
Middle Mile Grants, Digital Equity Programs, and the Tribal
Broadband Connectivity Program are effectively implemented.
Can you talk about how your fiscal year 2023 budget
requests will ensure that they have the personnel to
effectively implement these programs and will staff for--
brought on to manage these programs be converted into different
positions once the money is spent?
BROADBAND EQUITY, ACCESS, AND DEPLOYMENT (BEAD) PROGRAM
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you, good morning.
So, good news on this, by the way. Congress required us to
get the notice of funding opportunity on the BEAD Program out
by May 16, and I am proud to say that we are going to hit that
deadline, so I want to say thank you to my staff.
All of the money for the extra staff, and by the way, we
have already hired over--we have dozens of people to several
hundred people, all of the money for that is included in the
bipartisan infrastructure law. So, at this point, we feel
supported. We have the team that we need and I think we are
going to need them for years to come, because this is a, you
know, this is a longtime investment of such a historic number.
Ms. Meng. Thanks. So, do we know how NTIA is going to reach
out to communities if they need support in multiple languages,
other than English?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, great, great question.
So, first of all, every single state, by tomorrow, every
single state will have a point person in our office at NTIA
that they can call. So, we want to make sure that it is, like,
one-stop shopping. So, New York will have a human being whose
job it is to just deal with partners on the ground in New York.
And we have an extensive outreach effort to deal with
stakeholders on the ground, whether it is for non-English--you
know, every state is different; the needs are different, so we
are just relying heavily on teams on the ground interfacing
with us.
Ms. Meng. Great. I would love to work with them, and thank
you.
I just want to switch gears really quickly about 3-D
printed guns. Last year, the Commerce Department posted a rule
that I worry is too lenient. Commerce Department has regulated
the code that can be inserted into a 3-D printing machine, but
they failed to regulate the code that can be readily converted
into that code. For instance, someone can post a file online in
a CAD format with a link to free software that converts CAD
format into machine-readable format. And these files would not
be--the files, themselves, would not be regulated. And I know
this is super-technical, but as I am hearing about this, I
think that the consequence of getting this wrong could be
deadly.
Can you comment on the issue of 3-D printed guns and make a
commitment here to maybe fix that potential nuance so that we
can continue to work to keep these guns off the streets.
3-D PRINTED GUNS
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you for the question.
And as you say, it is technical. I can tell you that I know
that the President and the Department of Justice just put out
in April, new ghost gun regulations and what I will commit to
you here is to look further into this, in the issue that you
just said, to make sure there is no gap between how we regulate
and DHA and ATF's new domestic transfer relations. So, I will
commit to you that there is no loophole.
You should just know just as my own, I guess, values as the
governor of Rhode Island, I supported, pushed for, and signed,
a bill into law that outlawed 3-D guns in Rhode Island, so I am
totally with you and committed to it.
Ms. Meng. Great. Thank you so much.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Congresswoman Meng.
At this time, the chair recognizes Mr. Cline of Virginia
for 5 minutes. You are recognized.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Raimondo, for being here today. Madam
Secretary, the Economic Development Administration received $3
billion from the American Rescue Plan. Can you talk about how
much of those ARP funds remain unobligated at this point.
AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUND
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you. They will all be obligated
by the end of the fiscal year. We have a billion dollars out in
the Build Back Better Regional Challenge. We have already put
out $750 million in travel and tourism. We have a half billion
out on the Good Jobs Challenge. So, we are going to hit the
deadline and we are just in the middle now of the application
process for the Build Back Better Challenge and the Good Jobs
Challenge.
Mr. Cline. My understanding is it is around $2 billion out
of the $3 billion that you have gotten from ARP that is still
unobligated and with inflation surging and this large amount
yet to be obligated, how is there an additional request for an
additional $500 million for the EDA in fiscal year 2023, how do
you justify that?
Secretary Raimondo. Well, these are--so, it is not $2
billion, but I can, you know, follow-up exactly with the
details.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
Secretary Raimondo. The additional request, I mean, this is
core economic development. This is--and I saw this as a
governor and I am sure there are places in Virginia--there are
communities who need help with economic development. So, this
is not--I wouldn't say this is inflationary. This is not
consumption. This is investment in communities to help them
create jobs. So, I don't have a concern about it as it relates
to inflation. And it is our job to make sure it is invested in
a way that does produce jobs and contribute to economic growth.
Mr. Cline. Well, I am interested in some of the allocations
within your budget when inflation is so critical at this point,
asking for $7 billion for NOAA, roughly, 50 percent of the
entire budget requested is dealing with climate change while
Americans are struggling and seeing their paychecks shrink. A
24 percent increase over fiscal year 2021 years for NOAA
doesn't really help families put food on the table and clothes
on their backs against [inaudible] inflation is at a 40-year
high.
Can you talk about how this massive allocation of funds
helps to combat inflation or deal with supply chain issues that
you say are so important.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, so, we believe climate change is
an existential threat, so children won't--forget about clothes
on their back. They are not going to be able to have a life if
we don't deal with climate change.
Mr. Cline. Well, my constituency can't forget about the
need to put clothes on their kids' back right now and climate
change, as you say, being an existential threat, is not going
to solve the problem of making sure the kids are clothed and
fed and off to school.
Secretary Raimondo. Right. And, you know, the EDA, what we
were just talking about, some of it goes into coal communities
where folks don't have jobs. And so, to put clothes on their
back, we are going to create jobs there. But we have to do
both.
And I believe, also, a lot of the money into NOAA will be
job-creating. You know, I saw this in Rhode Island,
resiliency--doing resiliency, coastal resiliency, adaptation
creates jobs. Some of the fastest growing parts of our economy
are in the green economy, creating jobs.
So, again, I don't think they are--inflation is real, I am
not diminishing that, but these are job-creating investments,
not consumption kind of spending that would lead to inflation.
Mr. Cline. One of the things--I am going to stay on this
climate change issue, because in your budget priorities,
climate change is mentioned more than twice as much as supply
chain challenges. Now, you are proposing a rapid energy
transition where it is abundantly clear that we are going to be
depending on China, countries like China to pursue these
climate goals. I am just wondering why at a time when we have
such pressing issues on our economy that we are so focused on
these climate change issues, and I would be happy for you to
respond.
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, so, as I said, climate change, we
can't delay anymore on climate change. But also, as I said,
pass the COMPETES Act. If we are going to fix our supply chain,
if we are going to be less reliant on China, if we are going to
protect ourselves from threats, pass COMPETES so we actually
have the tools we need to make chips in America, deal with our
supply chain issues, enhance critical minerals and raw
materials in the U.S.
Mr. Cline. Well, we end on a point of bipartisan support
and we share your support for that and I hope we can get that
done. Thank you.
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Cline.
The chair recognizes Mr. Case for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Secretary, sorry for my voice. I would like to talk
to you about an industry that is critical to my state and to
country, and that is travel and tourism. As you know, travel
and tourism has been among the most heavily impacted industries
in our entire world and certainly within this country because
of COVID-19. Travel and tourism before COVID-19 was our largest
service sector industry. It was somewhere around 27 percent of
our total services exports. People wanted to visit this country
and that is an export industry. And it was 10 percent of total
exports.
I think that figure often surprises people because they
think of exports as being more manufacturing, et cetera, et
cetera, but the travel and tourism is a critical export
industry.
We seem to be recovering in it and in my Hawaii, our travel
and tourism is somewhere around 25 percent of our total economy
and much more if you take the magnifying effects of that. And
of travel and tourism in Hawaii, somewhere around one-third is
international travel from places like Japan, but also elsewhere
in Asia.
And the fact of the matter is that although it seems
domestic travel and tourism is coming back pretty well, that is
not an export industry and what we are not seeing come back is
international travel and tourism, and there are a lot of
different reasons for that. But, you know, the one that I want
to focus on, in particular, with you is the fact that what is
really hampering international travel and tourism is the
inconsistency in admission or entry and return requirements
around the world for international travelers.
And so, for example, somebody could come from Japan into
Hawaii, they would still have to pass our still-existing
restrictions as to, you know, conditions of entry, but they
would have a different set of requirements going back to Japan.
So, although they may be able to come into Hawaii fairly easily
or anywhere else in the country, they couldn't go home.
And, of course, every country needs sovereignty. Every
country needs to write its own rules and every country has done
a different calculation throughout COVID-19, but the fact of
the matter is that the inconsistency from country to country is
what is creating a lot of the hindrance and obstacles to
recovering international travel and tourism.
And you, of course, are deeply involved in this. You are
chair of the Travel and Tourism Advisory Council. Department of
Commerce has your own international Travel and Tourism Office,
or Travel and Tourism Office.
What say you about travel and tourism and how to get us
back to some kind of normal and how, specifically, to crack
through some of these restrictions out there?
TOURISM REQUIREMENTS AND ECONOMIC OUTREACH
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you.
Thank you for the question. And I understand how important
travel and tourism is for your state, in particular. So, first,
I will say that the administration is committed to a
coordinated and complete recovery from COVID and you are
pointing out the coordination part of it. I will tell you that
I recently convened 2 weeks ago, the Travel and Tourism Board,
which I, you know, oversee, and I heard a lot of concern about
the CDC's international testing requirements and the fact that
the United States is unusual in requiring the testing to come
here.
So, I can assure you that I raised those concerns on behalf
of the industry, within the administration and conveyed the
concerns to--I met with Asif Shah and conveyed those concerns.
So, I think we should just continue to work together and I am
happy to meet with you separately so that, you know, so that we
can do everything that we need to do so that, you know, we can
get international travel back where we need it to be.
Mr. Case. Yeah, and I mean that is true. The fact of the
matter is that we impose a double requirement on entry into
this country, whereas, many of the other countries in the world
don't have that anymore. They would accept a vaccination card
as comfort enough without an actual test. So, we are doing
ourselves some harm in doing that.
Now, if there is a good scientific reason for doing it,
then we should do it. But the fact of the matter is that both,
federally, and at state and county government levels, we are
accepting far less of a requirement of going to a restaurant,
to go from, you know, one state to another state. So, the
question does have to be asked, is this too much under these
circumstances.
But let me ask you about the second point, and that is
trying to get to some kind of harmonized understanding and
agreement across the world of what actually will be required to
go from country to country, to come into this country, or for
that matter, to go home. Have there been discussions within
Commerce about coordinating that around the world?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Yes. As I said, we are committed
for a coordinated recovery and we are working on that. You
know, the COVID work of the administration is being driven by
the White House, as I said, I am involved and definitely
raising the concerns of travel and tourism to the
administration.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you. I would love to work with you on
that.
And let me switch gears and go back to the ranking member's
questions on the Indo-Pacific, in particular. You have proposed
in your budget to increase the International Trade
Administration's funding and authority for the projection of
U.S. foreign commercial officers and other personnel throughout
the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere in the world, to enhance the
export possibilities from this country to other countries and
vice-versa for that matter.
And I commend you for that. I support that. I want to say
in the same spirit that when you talk about the Indo-Pacific,
please don't just think about the Rim countries like Japan or
Indonesia or Australia or, you know, New Zealand. There are
some 30 jurisdictions throughout the Pacific Islands
themselves, many of them independent countries, and the one
thing they want from us above all, aside from assistance with,
you know, climate change-related consequences, is help with
economic development.
And so, the fact is that I am a member and co-chair and
founder of The Pacific Islands Caucus. We introduced a bill
called the ``Blue Pacific Act,'' which, much of which is in the
COMPETES USICA Act at this point, and it proposed exactly this,
to enhance our trade-related expertise out in these countries
themselves. So, I would just like to re-emphasize that to you.
Don't forget about the Pacific Islands countries, themselves,
where us sit--where an investment that for many other countries
in the world would not be a significant one is literally an
investment that could make a huge difference in their own
economies.
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah, I hear you loudly and clearly and
I agree.
By the way, this afternoon, I am hosting and event with all
the leaders of the [inaudible] countries and anyway, we are out
of time, but I agree and I hear you.
Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case.
And the chair notes at this point that during the
questioning of Mr. Case, the clock actually stopped for about
60 seconds. It is a reminder to us all, never to underestimate
the resourcefulness of people from Hawaii.
Mr. Case. Absolutely. I appreciate that.
Mr. Cartwright. At this time, the chair recognizes Mr.
Crist for 5 minutes of questioning.
And Mr. Crist, you are muted.
Evidently, we are having a technical difficulty. We will
come back to Mr. Crist--there he is. You are recognized, Mr.
Crist.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate very much, Secretary, you being with us today.
I wanted to start off if I could ask you about an issue that
everybody is talking about: inflation. And what the Department
or you are trying to do to help assuage the inflation that
America is dealing with.
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you.
So--can you guys hear me?
Mr. Crist. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
Secretary Raimondo. Sorry. Sorry.
Mr. Crist. No problem.
GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN
Secretary Raimondo. We are doing a number of things. You
know, we think the main driver of inflation is the supply chain
bottlenecks and demand due to COVID. We, my team--I am one of
the co-chairs of the President's Supply Chain Task Force--we
helped a great deal with the port congestion, which is down now
significantly. I have done a lot of convenings in the lumber
industry between consumers and producers. Lumber prices are
down 40 percent. Got rid of the tariffs on steel and aluminum,
Commerce Department did, bringing down prices to those inputs.
And as I said earlier, we are just extremely focused on
supply chain, bringing together consumers and producers to
increase transparency, which we think will bring down
inflation.
Mr. Crist. What is it that has slowed down supply chain? Is
it related to the pandemic primarily or are there other
factors?
Secretary Raimondo. I think it is two things. I think, yes,
it is primarily related to the pandemic.
Mr. Crist. Right.
Secretary Raimondo. We shut down the global economy all at
once, like, factories all over the world, we shut them down,
and you can't just turn them back on. Also, demand, consumer
demand is through the roof. It just changed during COVID.
But the other thing I will say is this has been a problem
long time coming. We have lost 25 percent of our small
manufacturers in the United States; they have gone out of
business in the past 25 years. I saw it in Rhode Island. You
cannot have a supply chain if you don't have a manufacturing
base, and so we have to invest in manufacturing base in
America.
Mr. Crist. Can we do that out of the funds we provided in
the bipartisan infrastructure bill to some degree?
Secretary Raimondo. To some degree, yes. In fact, the
broadband work that we are doing is essential to that. But we
really need to pass the COMPETES Act. You know, the COMPETES
Act in the House, the USICA bill in the Senate, it is all about
making semiconductors in America, making raw materials or
mining in America, making manufacturing, you know, in the
ecosystem in America.
Look at Germany, for example, they have not had this
problem because they have been consistent around
apprenticeships for manufacturing, small loans to small
manufacturers. So, yes, I think we can do it, but we have to
get to the business of doing it.
Mr. Crist. Well, that is great.
I want to shift to solar energy with you if I could. I know
you are aware of the solar tariff petition that is pending
before your Department, or I assume so, but I am concerned
about what I am hearing from solar companies in Florida. They
are having their panel orders canceled or delayed since
Commerce has initiated the investigation, I believe, on April
1.
In Florida, surveys of industry participants indicate that
850 megawatts of utilities scale projects representing $850
million of solar investment have been canceled or delayed
because of the investigation.
Can you kind of bring me up to speed on what is happening
and what your thoughts might be to the degree you are able?
SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRY
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah, thank you. So, look, first of
all, I hear you and I totally share your sense of urgency on
this, as does the President. I am a little limited in what I
can say here----
Mr. Crist. I understand.
Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Because, you know, I am
the regulator on this and so [inaudible] quasi-judicial
process, but let me tell you, we are moving as fast as we can
to resolve this as quickly as we can.
Congress has a statute and I am just following the statute
and implementing as required, but going to move it as quickly
as we are able.
Mr. Crist. So, is this a petition by one company in
California, I believe, if I am correct?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
Mr. Crist. And what is their reputation? Are they a good
actor? Bad actor? Don't know? I don't know.
Secretary Raimondo. It depends who you ask.
Mr. Crist. I am naive. I am just asking.
Secretary Raimondo. No. No. It depends who you ask, right.
As we [inaudible] investigations, there are some people who say
they are a bad actor. There are some people who say they are a
good actor. So, my job, as per the law, is to do the
investigation, gather the facts, respect the process, and, you
know, come out as the facts suggest.
Mr. Crist. That is good.
You have NOAA in your daily life, right?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
Mr. Crist. Very important to Rhode Island and Florida, and
the rest of the country, of course. So, the National Weather
Service, I think in your testimony, you mentioned a nearly $72
million increase for the Office of Space Commerce. Can you
share a little more detail about how that increased funding
would be used, please.
OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCE
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Yes. Yes.
So, good news. We just appointed a new head of Space
Commerce who started Monday and we are elevating the Space
Commerce to report directly into NOAA headquarters. The main
thing we are working on now is a system to track the commercial
traffic in space. Sort of an FAA version of Space Commerce
tracking. It is a cloud computing system. A first of its kind.
So, that is what the money will be primarily use for.
Mr. Crist. Great.
And, Chairman, my time is up, so I will yield back.
And Madam Secretary Governor, nice to talk to you.
Secretary Raimondo. Nice to see you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Crist.
Representative Lawrence, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you for yielding, Chairman Cartwright.
I was happy to host the Deputy Secretary Graves in Detroit
last week to discuss how the Department of Commerce can better
support the manufacturing and supplier diversity. It was
really, what we say, on-time meeting and very important. I
thank the Deputy Secretary for his time and his support.
As Congress considers the Bipartisan Innovation Act, the
BIA, we must ensure that women and minorities are not only
included, but at the forefront of the economic development
efforts. I am the co-chair of Democratic Women's Caucus and
second vice chair of the CBC, and I know that women and
minorities have been hit the hardest during this pandemic.
I have been pleased to see the BIA includes additional
support for agencies like the Economic Development Agency--I
have the hiccups, I'm sorry--and the Minority Business
Development Agency.
So my question is, how does the Department intend to
suggest agencies like EDA and the MBDA to ensure that minority
suppliers are included in the efforts to stabilize our supply
chains and how do you intend to monitor the process?
INCLUSION OF MINORITY SUPPLIERS IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
So, first of all, thank you for hosting Don in Detroit on
Monday. He came back excited about the trip, so I thought that
was great.
And second, like you, supporting women- and minority-owned
businesses is one of my top priorities. So, through the EDA's
Equity Investment Priority, they are going to be ensuring that
we invest in projects that benefit underserved communities and
populations, including women, and making sure that they are
more competitive and likely to be funded.
And then MBDA, as you know, works exclusively with, you
know, minority-owned businesses, but they have an initiative
called the ``Enterprising Women of Color Initiative'' which is
focused on exactly this: women-owned businesses. And what we
are working on is increasing contracting opportunities,
teaching them how to get contracts with the federal government,
access to capital, fostering networks.
So, I think the proof will be in the pudding, you know, and
you should hold us accountable. Success will be measured by the
number of women- and minority-owned businesses that secure
funding. But, you know, we are very focused on it.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you.
And as you know, Detroit manufacturing and innovation is
the heart and soul of who we are. How will the Department of
Commerce use initiatives like the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership and Build to Scale, promote innovation across the
country?
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you. So, MEP is one of the
President's favorite programs and it supports manufacturing.
And this budget proposes boosting MEP by $125 million and that
money will be used for work on supply chain initiatives,
workforce development.
A huge issue in our manufacturing base is talent. People
can't hire. I am sure you hear it down in our district.
Mrs. Lawrence. All the time.
Secretary Raimondo. You know, try to find a machinist. Try
to find someone in tooling. It is really hard. So, we are
focused on that.
And then, also, we are focused on technology. So helping
small manufacturers with cybersecurity, adopting technology, 3-
D printing. We want to enable small manufacturers to be
technologically capable so that they can be competitive.
Mrs. Lawrence. I have one last question; it is one that is
really important to me. The Census Bureau recently released a
self-issued report card showing that Black, Latino, and
American Indian communities were undercounted and I want to
know what your plan is to look at that report and what is going
to be the outcome of that, because it has a very negative
impact on [inaudible] minority communities.
CENSUS COUNTING
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So, what I can tell you is that
our census director, Rob Santos, is laser-focused on this.
Undercounts are a problem and our goal is for the Census to be
complete and accurate and, you know, every decade there is room
for improvement. The 2020 Census was really hard, given the
COVID unprecedented challenges. So we will continue to follow-
up with you on this, but it is our top priority.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Lawrence.
And we are going to begin a second round of questioning and
I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Secretary Raimondo, I may have mentioned, I am proud to be
a co-chair of the Congressional Aluminum Caucus, and so I want
to ask you about aluminum. We started the Aluminum Import
Monitoring System in 2021 and one of the investments that we
made in our fiscal year 2022 appropriations bill was increased
funding for that system.
The question is, how effective has the system been in
monitoring aluminum imports and are there areas where that can
be improved?
ALUMINIUM IMPORT MONITORING
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you. I think it is effective. The
office of enforcement and compliance is currently, you know,
working with the heaviest workload.
We have over 650 cases of anti-dumping and countervailing
duty. So, you know, this is real: unfair dumping,
circumvention, evasion, fraud. By the way, I talk to a lot of
aluminum and steel producers, so I think that we appreciate the
extra money, and I think it will ensure that we have sufficient
staff and resources to defend U.S. workers, and address these
unfair trade practices and barriers that hurt U.S. firms and
workers.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, that is right. And thank you for
mentioning that decline in American small manufacturing over
the last 25 years, it is very concerning. And I can't help but
think that unfair trade practices and dumping have had a big
piece of that. So another investment that we made in fiscal
year 2022 was funding to establish a ninth anti-dumping and
countervailing duties office to keep pace with the growing
caseload associated with these unfair trade practices of many
countries. Can you share with us an update on the status of
that new office?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you.
The budget has a $3 million increase for that ninth office,
and I think it is important. We need it. By the way, I agree
with you. A big part of the reason that, especially these small
companies go out of business is because of mostly China's
unfair practices. And so these are the tools we have to stick
up for American companies.
Mr. Cartwright. Good. All right. Now, I want to move to
NOAA's satellites. You are requesting a big funding increase
for NOAA's weather satellites. Of course, we have to--we have
this constellation of satellites out there, and we have to
replace them as they age and go out of service. But I worry
that we are not maximizing the value of our investments, and I
understand that quite a bit of the environmental data that is
collected gets discarded before we even start our whether
forecast models.
What is the department doing about that, and what is in the
budget to maximize the use and the value of the data that we
already are collecting at great expense?
NOAA SATELLITES
Secretary Raimondo. So I will do my best here. I am not a
scientist, so if I--if you need more, of course I will put you
in touch with people there. But first of all, I can tell you
that we are using the advanced technology, especially
artificial intelligence and machine learning to maximize the
use of the satellite data. But the way these models work, you
have to load a huge amount of data into them, and then they
become more and more accurate.
So it is not that we are not using the data, we are using
it. We are loading it all into the models. And then the models
just become more predictive. The other thing is, but only a
certain amount of it is actually useful.
The other thing is, we share all the data. So researchers,
the private sector, we make it all public, and I think that
that is important because that way, there--everyone can, you
know, take advantage of the data that we collect.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. Now, you also mentioned earlier
in your testimony NIST, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, as a way to build up our manufacturing capacity in
the United States. It is something that--China has produced its
own versions of most, if not all of the manufacturing U.S.A.
institutes overseen by NIST. And so the question is, how does
the funding for manufacturing U.S.A. institutes compare to that
of their Chinese counterparts?
BUILDING MANUFACTURING CAPACITY
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah. So we were ahead of them. They
copied us. But now they are ahead of us. They copied the design
of NIST and Manufacturing U.S.A. to stimulate their own
manufacturing investment. But now, they have 21 centers. We
have 16.
Mr. Cartwright. Right. So what is the plan, Secretary?
Secretary Raimondo. Well, we need the money to--the money
that we are asking for here, $97 million, will support five
more, and will allow us to start to catch up.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you. I recognize our ranking member,
Mr. Aderholt, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up
on what I mentioned earlier, and what has been referred to the
CHIPS for America Act.
As you know, there is a lot of support on Capitol Hill for
restoring the United States leadership and the semiconductor
manufacturing, and then mitigating the national security risk,
which is related to dependence on unsecure microelectronics
supply chain.
If the CHIPS for America Act receives substantial funding
currently being considered by Congress, you will be tasked with
administering the incentives to increase domestic semiconductor
manufacturing capacity. Given this need for more domestic
semiconductor capacity that it is already very acute, and that
national security concerns are not just merely hypothetical,
does the administration have a plan to ease or to assist with
regulations and permitting process to help expedite fab
construction timelines? After all, needless process alone could
delay the construction--by 5 years or more.
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you. This is an issue that
we are tracking closely, and I would like to work with you on
it. There may be a role for Congress. You are right. Sometimes
these facilities take two, three years to be permanent and we
don't have that time. So I would be very happy to follow up
with you on it.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. That is--I appreciate that.
How will you balance factors like job creation with other
factors, like the ability to advance U.S. strategic, economic,
and national security goals in awarding incentive grants?
Secretary Raimondo. The primary objective is to increase
production of CHIPS in the whole supply chain. All kinds of
CHIPS: memory, logic, analog, sophisticated. That is the job we
have to do. As a consequence, we will be creating tens of
thousands of jobs. So I see them as, you know, connected.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Following up again on a question
that was referred to earlier by the Office of Space Commerce.
And congratulations on the installation of the new director of
Office of Space Command, which you referred to. NOAA's proposal
to elevate the office to report to the deputy undersecretary
and increase the office budget by nearly 72 million, I think
reflects the important role that the office plays in protecting
America's interest in space.
Given the rapid development of America's commercial space
sector, it is vital that the office maintains a pace with
industry to ensure that we continue to set standards and lead
from the front.
As the outgoing director noted, key to the new director
success will be access to you and also to your deputy, as well
as to the men and women there at the Commerce Department, where
there will be many different tools that will be available to
them. My question, Madam Secretary, do you agree with the
assessment, and can you assure this subcommittee that the new
director will have your support for this level of access and
coordination across the department?
OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCE COORDINATION
Secretary Raimondo. Yes and yes. In fact, my deputy is
managing this very directly, and we have elevated the reporting
of space commerce into NOAA headquarters. So yes, I agree; and
yes, we will do it.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Well, it has just recently come to
my attention that the--by a recent action by the Government of
Mexico, has shut down a facility that is owned by Vulcan
Materials. It is based in my home state of Alabama. And it is
my understanding that this was done in direct violation of
Mexican court orders, and will have a dramatic effect, impact
on the availability of aggregate for road construction, port
expansion products, liquid natural gas construction, and a lot
of other economic development--projects in the southeastern
part of the United States.
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas will
really bear the brunt of these actions by the Mexican
government because these states are heavily dependent on
imported raw due to the geological conditions off the Gulf
coast.
This has the potential to have a ripple effect on the rest
of the United States as well, because aggregates for island
states will have to be diverted to make up for lost imports. If
there is no resolution, projects will be delayed, and they will
be stopped, and the cost of construction will significantly
increase on top of the challenges posed by inflation that we
are seeing across the board.
Is the Department of Commerce aware of this issue? Are you
aware of the issue? And what is being done to ensure that our
trade partners are abiding by trade agreement commitments.
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. I am not aware of the issue, which
doesn't mean the department is not aware of it. I will follow
up with you today and see how we can help.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay.
Secretary Raimondo. But they need to live up to their
commitments. I met with Ambassador Salazar just a week ago and
we emphasized that with him. But anyways, let's follow up.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. I look forward to hearing from your
office. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
At this time, the chair recognize Representative David
Trone of Maryland for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Trone. Thank you very much, sir.
Madam Secretary, thanks for joining us today, and it is
great to see you again. Department of Commerce National
Institute of Standards and Technology is headquartered in my
district, NIST. It is the world's leading agency for creating
critical measurement, solutions, and promoting equitable
standards. However, the state of the facilities at their
headquarters in Gaithersburg is in desperate need of
renovations. These are scientists, and precision data is at the
core, which means they don't always paint the most vivid
picture of why they need better funding. But that is something
we can do.
Waterline ruptures, flooding of entire floors, corrosion,
rampant mold. These scientists are trying to accomplish their
life's work, and are set back again and again by the
conditions. They are engaged in transformational work, which
has benefits across government and the private sector. We owe
them basic functioning laboratories.
So Madam Secretary, what is the percent of the facilities
on the Gaithersburg campus at NIST that is in poor to critical
condition?
NIST FACILITIES AND MAINTENANCE
Secretary Raimondo. Hi. Good morning. It is about 40
percent, as I understand it. You and I visited the facility
which I enjoyed. And actually, my deputy secretary is there
today. It is an old building. You know, we cannot sugarcoat
this. It is an old building. At the moment, we are prioritizing
projects that have the most negative impact on critical
operations. We could ask for more funding, you know, in this.
The 2023 budget is 50 percent above last year's budget for
construction of research facilities. It is 120 million, and I
hope you and your colleagues will, you know, fund every bit of
that, because as you know, the stuff these guys do, artificial
intelligence, quantum 5G matters, and the facility needs help.
Mr. Trone. You and I had a great visit there, and I am
delighted your deputy is there. 120 million is--it is just--I
don't think it is going to be enough, from what we understand.
Do you have any estimate on what the accidents, like we had,
you know, cost up there on a waterline break, and how much that
has cost the taxpayers when things simply fell apart?
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah. I can find out. What I do know is
that we spend, you know, $50 million a year towards routine
maintenance and repair. And on top of that, you know, another 7
million on equipment replacement. So the numbers do add up.
Mr. Trone. Try and get construction and the renovation,
what do you think we need? I know you asked for 120 million,
and everyone is trying to be conservative, but this is such a
key facility, you know, we have got to ensure this maintenance
backlog gets taken care of. What number do you think would get
us on a path that we could do over multiple years to get this
facility back to where it used to be, as the world's, you know,
leading organization for technology, measurement, and
standards?
Secretary Raimondo. You know, we think it is a couple
hundred million dollars a year for ten years. And by the way,
in the Build Back Better, the president was proposing that
scale of investments.
Mr. Trone. Yeah. That is the number that we have heard
also, $200 million each over a period of a number of years to
get us back to where we need to be. And this organization also
does such great work with the private sector, where they
connect, you know, on an ongoing basis, and we saw that when we
visited there. So it is a beautiful collaboration of government
and the private sector together, to, you know, move us forward.
So we will be happy to keep working on this. I know
Chairman Cartwright is aware of the situation. We hope to pay a
visit up there shortly, and take a look at it via one on one.
So thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here, and I yield
back.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay, Mr. Trone, and I look forward to that
visit as well to NIST and your district.
We are going to start a third round of questioning, since
we are down to a dwindling number of members, Madam Secretary.
And I want to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
We have talked a fair amount about war in today's
testimony. And there is a shooting war, there is a kinetic war
going on obviously in Ukraine, but the entire world has been at
cyberwar for quite a while now. And we catch it in America. Our
companies are attacked. Our individuals are attacked. And we
have a number of agencies addressing this threat, but part of
it is within the Department of Commerce. You have in the
Department of Commerce the Bureau of Industry and Security, the
BIS.
Now, in October of 2021, the BIS published an interim final
rule, establishing new export controls on certain cybersecurity
tools. And in November, BIS added a number of companies to the
department's entity list, in other words bad actors list, based
on evidence that these entities developed and supplied spyware
to foreign governments in an effort, maliciously, to target
government officials, journalists, businesses, and also embassy
workers.
So, Secretary Raimondo, what effect have your department's
actions in BIS had on limiting adversarial use of our
cybersecurity technologies?
EXPORT CONTROLS ON CYBERSECURITY TOOLS
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah, thank you. So the rule just went
into effect in March, so it is a little bit early to say. But
we are already denying--I can tell you already, we are denying
hardware and software and related technologies that can be used
in malicious cyber activities, or misused, as you say, by
authoritarian governments.
So I guess a significant effect is what I would say. And I
think as the months go by, it will be even more significant.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, of course, here at the House
Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and
Science, what we are up to is making sure that you have
adequate resources to get your job done. And that is my
question here is how adequate are commerce's resources and
capabilities to track the effectiveness of its tools against
this growing cyber threat, and how will your 2023 budget
request for information and communications technology security
aid in your ability to respond?
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah, thank you. I am really happy you
brought this up.
We really, really need the support of ICTS. We are asking
for $36 million. That is for 114 positions. We need it. I don't
know what else to say. The Trump Administration did an
executive order requiring the Commerce Department to look at
the ICTS supply chain, but without giving any resources. And
this is--you know, we are developing from scratch an entire
process here. So we need to draft regulations, create and
administer a whole pre-clearance process, assist with
litigation. So we--yeah, we need the resources in order to do
this correctly, and protect the United States of America and
our tele-com networks.
Mr. Cartwright. I am glad to hear you say that. Now, let's
keep talking about that, Madam Secretary.
At this time, I recognize our ranking member, Mr. Aderholt,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NOAA operates two highly specialized Lockheed P-3 hurricane
hunter aircrafts which were built in the 1970s. And I
understand they will reach the end of their service life around
2030. Hurricane hunters are important, because they do improve
a hurricane prediction path by 15 or 20 percent, and intensity
forecast by 10 to 15 percent.
Hurricane hunters saves lives and it saves untold millions
of evacuation-related costs. Replacement aircraft will take
multiple years to build and meet NOAA's needs. My question to
you, Madam Secretary, is the department planning to replace
NOAA's hurricane hunters to ensure and to make for certain that
there is no gap in the coverage in the--of the--once the
existing aircraft is taken offline and retired?
NOAA HURRICANE HUNTERS
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah. I would say yes. By the way, I
come from Rhode Island. I was the governor. I went through
hurricanes. So I really understand how important this is. We
are going to need new hurricane hunters in the future. And so
right now, NOAA is creating a plan to address the requirement.
Once that plan is finalized, I would love to sit down with you
and this committee and go through the funding needs so we can
make sure that we, you know, get what we need in order to
replace the aging hurricane hunters.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, I hope the planning process can be
expedited, because as you--because 2030 will be here, you know,
before we know it. But do you have the preparations in fiscal
year 2023 to ensure that, you know, there is no gap once that
aircraft is retired?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. We think we do. Yes.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
Let me--I know a couple of my colleagues referred to
broadband, and that is certainly an important issue to many of
us on this subcommittee, as well as it is in the entire
Congress. NTIA is expected to release a notice--a funding
opportunity for roughly 42 billion in grants to states and
territories through the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment
program.
The law clearly states that states must first serve all
unserved areas before serving underserved areas. Given the
amount of funding some states may receive, it seems possible
that a state could award funding to both unserved and
underserved communities concurrently. And this would--could
result in overbuilding, and result in unserved areas being
further left behind.
My question, how do you intend to monitor a state's
administration of these funds?
BROADBAND FUNDING DISTRIBUTION
Secretary Raimondo. Yeah. Great question. It is unserved
first. That is non-negotiable. And we are telling that to every
state. Every single state has to give us a plan. We will review
the plan in coordination with them. And the plan has to
guarantee unserved first. Once everyone is served, then we can
look at, you know, underserved. So it is clear in the statute
and we plan to administer it state by state.
By the way, by tomorrow, by Friday of this week, every
single state will have a point person at NTIA. So your state
will have a point person. I have sent a letter to every
governor. I am planning to do follow-up phone calls with every
governor, just to make sure we are really tightly coordinated
with every state.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, I am glad to hear your commitment to
the fact that the unserved population will be given the
priority.
The Infrastructure Act requires NTIA to award funds only
after the FCC's updated broadband--are completed. As a
requirement to receive funding, will you require states to base
their funding decision off these FCC completed maps to avoid
overbuilding? And number two, how can you--or how do you intend
to enforce that?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes, is the first question, yes. And
secondly, they are not--we are not going to give them any money
until we have the maps. So it is actually not that hard to
enforce. They are going to get a planning grant of $5 million
to work on their state plan.
They will work with us to do that. But the big money isn't
going to flow until we have the maps, and they can prove to us
it will be unserved/underserved.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Aderholt.
Well, now, Madam Secretary, you are from Rhode Island, and
you served a very successful tenure as the governor of the
ocean state, and maybe one of your best attributes that you are
able to decipher heavy Connecticut accents.
Now, we have been joined by the overall chair of House
Appropriations, Chair Rosa DeLauro, who is now recognized for 5
minutes.
The Chair. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. And a
Connecticut accent, yes, but the real issue between Rhode
Island and Connecticut is who has the most Italian Americans,
and the number goes back and forth.
So I challenge the secretary on that, and also our
colleague, David Cicilline.
So but, Madam Secretary, how wonderful to see you. And
thank you so much. I apologize for being late. I am chairing a
hearing in Labor HHS. So but I wanted to have the opportunity
to see you, and obviously have a question.
And I think you--you know that I have authored the
legislation on National Critical Capabilities and Defense Act.
This is about providing outbound investment screening, a
mechanism, if you will, done that in a bipartisan way with
Representatives Pascrell, Spartz, and Fitzpatrick. It is a
bipartisan, bicameral approach. What it is all about is
assessing and addressing, where necessary, the outsourcing of
supply chains and capabilities.
Now, if we have got something that is going offshore, what
is the consequences of that to the U.S.? We keep relearning the
lesson of what we have done to undermine critical needs in the
U.S. And it is in the bill that you know so well, and you are a
champion of the legislation, which is now before a conference
committee.
It was your department that released data showing that
critical risks that exist, the bipartisan U.S./China economic
and security review commission issued a report, and it used
Department of Commerce data showing that R&D expenditures by
U.S. multi-nationals in China grew at a rate three times faster
than their R&D investments here in the U.S.
There is other data that shows how other companies are
outsourcing American's economic, national security at an
alarming rate. And I might add that our--investment with you
was unanimously agreed to by the same bipartisan review
commission last year. Legislation has been on the table for a
while. You have commented publicly on the issue. In March, you
said that you support enhancing the U.S.'s outbound investment
screening.
The conference is now formally underway, or will be
underway this evening. And what I wanted to do was to check in
with you, and with the administration about the support of this
bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. And what it means
in terms of our letting our capabilities slip through our
fingers as they go off shore.
OUTBOUND INVESTMENT SCREENING
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you. Thank you for coming, by the
way. Also for the record, on the record, the Italian food is
better in Rhode Island than Connecticut.
The Chair. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
Secretary Raimondo. In any event, so listen, this is a
really important issue and I am eager to work with you on it,
and hopeful that some beefed up, outbound investment screening
position is included in the final version of the bipartisan
infrastructure law.
This is a matter of national security. You know, there was
a great deal of U.S. outbound investment going into China in
emerging technology, for example, exactly the areas where we
don't want the Chinese to have our money or our know-how. So it
is national security, but it is also job security, like you
said. We need to be investing in America, building this stuff
in America, protecting our assets, our companies, our
technology in America.
So, you know, it is a complicated issue, but the Commerce
Department is eager to work with you, and the colleagues in the
Senate to include outbound investment screening protections in
this bill, in this conference.
The Chair. I thank you so much. And I want to work with
you, and we will continue to speak about it. I mean, we have so
many examples, and a portion of this bill is about what
happened with our semi-conductor industry, and we experienced
during the pandemic, my God, the--you know, the ingredients for
drugs, which has gone elsewhere.
And finally, for me the issue is, and I believe the case is
for you, we have to not just be a consuming nation, we have to
be a nation that builds. And that is what our manufacturing
efforts are all about. And let's recapture it and I thank you.
I thank you for helping to lead the charge in all that effort.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, but you have to
come to Connecticut for great Italian food so. Anyway, thank
you. Good to see you.
Secretary Raimondo. Bye. Thank you so much.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Madam Chair. And the chair
recognize Representative Steven Palazzo for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank the ranking member and, Madam Secretary, thank you for
being here today.
You know, Congress plays a crucial role in our economy,
with initiatives in my district ranging from NOAA's activities
at the National Data Buoy Center, to aquacultural research that
promotes the development of a stronger, more sustainable
domestic seafood industry.
But I would also like to note that my alma mater, the
University of Southern Mississippi is a partner in the NOAA-
funded Ocean Exploration Cooperative Institute, led by the
University of Rhode Island in your home state. The OECI is
focused on ocean exploration and mapping in deep and remote
areas of the U.S.-exclusive economic zone to characterize the
nation's vast ocean territory, develop new technologies, and
engage future generations of ocean scientists, engineers, and
stakeholders.
As I am sure recall from your visit to the Mississippi Gulf
Coast last summer, USM is working closely with industry and
small business partners, state and local governments, as well
as federal partners like NOAA and the Navy to strengthen the
region's coastal resiliency, and improve the Nation's economic
and military competitiveness by growing and diversifying this--
economy.
To help with this, Congress passed the Commercial
Engagement Through Ocean Technology Act, commonly called
CENOTE, and this bill highlights the unique role that non-
defense interests, such as NOAA, academia, and the private
sector play in the advancement of uncrude systems, which gather
a wide range of ocean data with uses for coastal reliance and
forecasting, fishery management, navigation, and national
security.
The need to ensure a strong blue economy in the defense of
our Nation is something we can all agree on. As the Department
of Commerce strategizes how it can best position the United
States to compete in the blue economy and on a global scale,
particularly with China, what in your budget request enables
Mississippi and other states and the Nation to continue their
efforts?
BLUE ECONOMY
Secretary Raimondo. Thank you. And as you say, I did visit
last year with Senator Wicker, and I enjoyed the visit. Their--
as we have been talking about, the NOAA budget, we are
requesting increases for NOAA, and much of that could be
beneficial to the work that is happening there.
Also, we have increased--we have asked for increases in the
EDA, and specifically in the EDA, we will be looking to target,
like, projects exactly like what you are talking about, which
is to say economic development that ties into the strengths of
the region. So--and in MBDA, we are looking to set up the
regional rural business centers, which I have talked to Wicker
about extensively.
So I would be happy to get together and kind of look at the
details. But I think between NOAA and EDA specifically, there
will be a good opportunity for you to enhance the work that is
happening there.
Mr. Palazzo. Great. Thank you for that. Last question, how
does NOAA plan to support the growing technological needs for
uncrude systems innovation, such as infrastructure, for data
storage and accessibility?
Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So we are believers in uncrude
devices, and we are researching that, and hoping to use more
of--the research budget in NOAA, we are asking for increases,
and some of that will be put into the uncrude systems.
Mr. Palazzo. All right. Well, Madam Secretary, thank you so
much. And to Chairman Cartwright, it seems like every time we
have a hearing, we have another committee hearing at the same
time. So thank you for your patience with me jumping on and
off, so I appreciate you. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo, and I feel your
pain, my dear colleague.
And, Madam Secretary, we have come to the end of this
hearing. You have done a nice job. You have endured our
questions for three rounds, and you have testified for almost
two hours without a break. Thank you for visiting with us, and
I look forward to continuing to work closely with you as we do
right by the United States Department of Commerce. Thank you so
much.
At this point, this hearing is adjourned.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, May 17, 2022.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
HON. BILL NELSON, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Cartwright. And let's gavel in and begin.
This hearing is virtual so, first, a few housekeeping
items. During the meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating background
noise.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
If I notice you have not unmuted when recognized, I may ask the
staff to send you a request to unmute. Please accept it.
I remind all members and the witness that the 5-minute
clock applies. If there is a video or a technology issue, we
will move to the next member until the issue is resolved and
you will retain the balance of your time. You will notice a
clock on your screen that will show how much time is remaining.
At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn yellow; at 30
seconds remaining, I will tap the gavel to remind members that
their time is almost expired. When your time has expired, the
clock will turn red and I will begin to recognize the next
member.
As is customary, we will begin with the chair and ranking
member, then members present at the time the hearing is called
to order will be recognized in order of seniority. And finally,
members not present at the time the hearing is called to order
will be recognized.
House rules require me again to remind you that we have set
up an email address to which members may send anything they
wish to submit in writing for any of the subcommittee's
hearings or markups. That email address has been provided in
advance to your staff.
The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning's hearing examines NASA's fiscal year 2023
budget request. Our witness today is the NASA administrator,
Senator Bill Nelson. Administrator, it is good to see you
again. The last time you were in front of the subcommittee was
almost one year ago, May 19, 2021. At that time, you had been
on the job for only a couple of weeks. And the president's
fiscal year 2022 budget had not even been released.
Now that you have had a full year on the job, you have a
strong fiscal year 2023 proposal before us. And I am very happy
to acknowledge that you have completed your first in-person
visit to the most important emerging space technology state in
the union, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So we look forward
to hearing from you today and I hope to see more of you in the
Keystone state.
NASA's budget request of almost $26 billion is clearly
designed to keep the core missions of the agency on track.
Scientific discovery, exploration of the solar system and
educating and inspiring our children. This budget request
expands America's economic leadership in the space economy as
well as our global leads and climate change research,
aeronautics research and, of course, space exploration. This
budget prioritizes one of my favorite goals which is
intellectually to stimulate and create research opportunities
for young people through a strong increase in STEM education
and funding.
Now after reviewing the president's budget request, I also
want to congratulate you, Mr. Administrator, on a bold vision
for earth science research in addition to developing four major
missions and continuing or operating more than a dozen others,
the fiscal year 2023 request proposes a new earth information
center that will make NASA a go-to resource for climate change
data that can be shared across academia and the federal
government.
I additionally appreciate NASA's request for a 10-percent
increase in aeronautics research. Collecting data on climate
change is one thing. But NASA's aeronautic research can be an
important way to slow its progression. And to that end, NASA's
aeronautics work is helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by developing more efficient aircraft engines, improving air
traffic management and pioneering electric flight.
But no matter how useful NASA's general research is, the
agency will continue to be known mostly for its flagship
initiative to return American astronauts to the moon, the
Artemis program. Artemis is truly a national program. When
Artemis I flies later this year, it will inspire and unify our
nation reminding everyone that we have important shared
purposes and that those efforts bring us together. When crews
do go to the moon in later missions, the plan this time is to
stay there and not just plant a flag and leave.
But even though we all support inspiration, the scientific
benefits of both uncrewed and crewed space exploration must
come at a reasonable and fair cost to the taxpayer. I mention
this because according to the GAO, the Government
Accountability Office, NASA has more major projects in
development right now than at any other time since GAO started
tracking them. Most are related to Artemis but NASA's science
directorate is also juggling an unprecedented number of major
missions designed to unlock the secrets including emerging
secrets of the universe. Make no mistake. Those are answers we
all want. But as you well know, this subcommittee, the full
appropriations subcommittee and the Congress must be careful
when appropriating and overseeing large sums of money.
Unfortunately, across all major NASA programs, schedule slips
and cost overruns have increased for the sixth consecutive year
with cumulative overruns for your major project now exceeding
$12.6 billion. Some of the delays and cost increases, of
course, are due to the continuing impacts of COVID-19.
Some are there because NASA's trying to do things that it
has never done before. So you are essentially inventing what
you are doing as you are doing it.
While they are at least partially understandable, the
rising costs and lengthening schedules are definitely a
concern, Mr. Administrator. And we will talk about those. Given
the budget realities we face, it is more important than ever
for NASA to manage contractors and programs efficiently and in
ways that benefit the taxpayer. Poor performers have to be held
accountable so their failures do not reflect on the agency. And
most of the companies involved in Artemis and your science
missions are doing great work, from the small mom-and-pop shops
to the largest aerospace corporations in our country.
But let's be clear. Participation in America's space
program is not an entitlement. It is a privilege. And most
people understand that. Certainly, workers on the line every
day assembling hardware do understand that. But, Administrator,
I would ask you if there are company leaders out there who need
to be reminded of this principle. It is a principle on which I
know we both agree.
In conclusion, I am confident that this subcommittee can be
helpful in realizing the full potential of the space economy
including in parts of the country not near a NASA center of
operations. The fiscal year 2023 budget submission is
additional evidence that the American taxpayer is in a sense a
multiple billion dollar partner with private companies to drive
commercial space growth. The benefits of that partnership need
to be felt nationally and those benefits must always be worth
their cost.
So again, Administrator Nelson, I know you understand this.
I look forward to hearing your explanation of the fiscal year
2023 budget request and how it keeps us moving in the right
direction on NASA's indispensable missions.
At this time, I now recognize my friend, the ranking
member, Mr. Aderholt, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. And I
greatly appreciate this hearing as well this morning for NASA's
fiscal year 2023 budget request. And I join you in welcoming
Senator Nelson back to the subcommittee. And, of course, he has
been a longtime friend of space and we look forward to hearing
from his testimony this morning.
I have made it clear that there are serious concerns that
we need to have about the runaway spending that we have seen
from the majority and we have also seen from the
administration. As a Congress, we must reject the trend of
overspending and regain a focus of our national
responsibilities, first and foremost.
But in addition to the Department of Defense, funding of
NASA must be a priority. NASA's success is critical to our
economic and our national security. We simply cannot ignore the
threat from China and our adversaries who are making
technological manufacturing and exploration advancements on a
daily basis. We owe it to the taxpayers to make sure that NASA
programs remain focused and adequately funded because we cannot
afford delays. We cannot afford setbacks or overruns, cost
overruns, when our national defense is at stake. National
defense is exclusively the function of the national government.
And space isn't just the next high ground. It already is.
To ensure that the United States remains the global space
power, I believe we need to commit to a set of principles or
pillars that I want to mention briefly. First, I think it is
important that we maintain and enhance the United States'
dominance and leadership in space. That means fully supporting
Artemis and its deep space exploration infrastructure while
also maintaining an aggressive cadence of cutting edge science
missions. As we advance Artemis programs, NASA must continue to
recruit allied nations to join us in implementing the Artemis
accords. And the National Space Council must lead efforts to
leverage national assets across all agencies.
Second of all, the United States must establish a strong
permanent American presence in space. In low-Earth orbit, we
must support the United States industry efforts to develop
space destinations and a thriving economy there. Beyond low-
Earth orbit, I believe NASA must collaborate with the
commercial space industry to guarantee Gateway is on time, that
the United States lunar base is fully sustainable and that we
have the necessary nuclear technology to go to Mars.
Next, the United States' success in space cannot rest on
NASA's shoulders alone. We must foster harmony between NASA and
the private sector to meet our goals and our timelines. That
means leveraging assets like the space launch system with
commercial space resources. And in order for the space industry
to grow and flourish, we must provide regulatory certainty so
that essential American innovation is not stifled by red tape
and by bureaucracy.
Fourth principle, we need to ensure security in space by
aggressively countering Chinese and Russian ambitions. NASA and
the Department of Defense must be prepared to fulfill their
unique roles to deter and contain Chinese space endeavors on
all fronts, including Chinese espionage and theft.
And finally, Congress must work with NASA and other federal
agencies to cultivate the support base for tomorrow. Our
workforce, industrial base and the talent of future generations
are critical to our space exploration goals. We must ensure a
pipeline of skilled workers at NASA and in the industry along
with infrastructure fundamental to fostering innovation and a
21st century space economy.
I am concerned that the fiscal year 2023 NASA budget
request falls short of what is needed in the near term to
ensure U.S. dominance in space. However, I look forward to
working with my colleagues in Congress and, of course, with
Chairman Cartwright and this subcommittee to match federal
resources with each of the pillars that I have mentioned just
now.
Senator Nelson, like you, my homestead of Alabama has a
long tradition of supporting our nation's space program.
Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, which you and I
were there together just a few months ago, has been helpful to
make human exploration possible since the Apollo moon missions.
In addition to playing a leading role in NASA's Artemis
program, Marshall's workforce is advancing nuclear propulsion,
habitat technologies and other programs underpinning the
national parties that I have outlined here this morning.
We appreciate you, Senator Nelson, for being here this
morning to discuss the fiscal year 2023 request. And I look
forward to understanding how this subcommittee can work with
you to ensure that the United States remains the leader in
space as we need to be.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aderholt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Ranking Member Aderholt. I now
recognize the witness for 5 minutes of testimony. You are
recognized, Administrator Nelson.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, Mr.
Chairman, submit my opening comments for the record. What I
would like to do is just talk to you.
Mr. Cartwright. Very well.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, sir.
I want to say, prior to us going live talking to the
ranking member, talking about the House office buildings, it
flashed me back to so many pleasant memories. That is why I
just thoroughly enjoy the opportunities to engage with you all
as I have, Mr. Chairman, with you twice, one virtually and one
in person, as I have with Congressman Aderholt, as he
mentioned, going to Huntsville. Congressman Garcia, recognizing
that I have been at Armstrong in the part of California where I
understand you are.
I saw Congressman Case on the video and just to say to him,
I have been to Hawaii. I have been to the Big Island. I have
gone up both of those big mountains on the Big Island. One that
we are doing a lot of environmental research and the other that
we have got all those telescopes.
Congressman Ruppersberger, by the way, I want to give where
credit where credit is due because so much of what the chairman
and the ranking member talked about in the course that we are
on now with a dual track of not only government space but also
commercial space is as a result of the passage of the 2010 NASA
bill that we passed unanimously in the Senate and was down to
the last day before the August break and we didn't have the
votes. Steny Hoyer did not want to bring it up because he was
tort-tossed at--he says the House always has to take the Senate
position on the last moment, and I said but this is something
that you approve of. He put it on the suspension calendar and
we didn't have the votes in the morning. Dutch Ruppersberger
and John Culberson took me by the hand for the entire day into
the evening on the House floor as we visited with recalcitrant
members. By the time that that vote came at 11 o'clock at
night, we had a three-quarters vote far exceeding the two-
thirds.
Then Congresswoman Meng, I see you also and New York City--
New York--the state of New York contributes so much to our air
space industry, both aviation and space as well as defense.
So I just wanted to say that personally, having seen you
all on the screen here--and again, I come back to Congressman
Ruppersberger. If it hadn't been for him, we wouldn't have had
the votes that day. We wouldn't be on the course that we are
on. Little did I know back then that, fast forward 12 years
that I would be here, trying to explain all of this and satisfy
you that you are getting your money's worth out of what you
appropriate in both the government program and the commercial
program.
Now let me pick up right there and tell you this is a $26
billion budget. It has got an aggressive aeronautics plan. I am
down to just 40 seconds. I want to say that we are going to
launch Artemis this year. That will be the unmanned one. We--
you have already seen the efforts on the lunar lander in the
private sector and now getting competition so we can keep that
price down. You have seen what we have succeeded in the area of
science. This is a very aggressive science budget. You have
seen how we are addressing climate change in the budget. You
see that we are doing more in trying to do In-space
manufacturing. And I will close with this. We are going to fly
NASA's first all electric airplane in about a month. We are
going to fly by the end of the year both of these out at
Edwards which is the Armstrong Flight Research Center. We are
going to fly the low sonic boom, supersonic transport which
will be a way for commercial aviation in the future.
It is a pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to be here with you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you for that testimony, Administrator
Nelson. And your full written testimony will be entered into
the record.
We are going to begin a series of questions now, 5 minutes
for each member. I will begin by recognizing myself for 5
minutes of questions.
First area I want to get into won't surprise you. It is
about the mobile launcher 2, the ML2. This is the pad from
which the Artemis IV rocket is to launch in the year 2027. And
it has been problematic in its course that it hasn't gone well,
ML2's development. I know this is already on your radar screen.
And it is something that we ought to talk about, particularly
because there is an IG audit being completed on the subject
now.
It is now 4 years since the contract was first awarded. I
am concerned with how much we have to show for the $500 million
plus that has already been spent on it.
Administrator Nelson, if Congress were fully to fund NASA's
request of $232 million in fiscal year 2023 for the ML2, how
can we be assured that we will see good project progress on the
ML2?
Mr. Nelson. You are right, Mr. Chairman. It is over cost
and it is behind. I don't like it. It is going to cost more
money. I eagerly await the publication of the IG report which I
think is going to have some very good insight into the mistakes
that have been made.
Having said that, if we are going to launch and evolved
Artemis SLS, which right now is scheduled for Artemis IV which
will launch the core of the Gateway plus the human capsule
Orion, if we are going to launch that, we got to have a more
powerful rocket. When, as I mentioned the 2010 NASA bill, we
purposely made the SLS evolvable so that it was by changing the
rocket more powerfully that you could continue to have and meet
from the system the loads that we were going to be needing to
launch.
Back in the Saturn V days, they just had 1 rocket. They had
2 mobile launch platforms. They didn't have to change. In this
case, we have to have a second mobile launch platform which is
the old Saturn V second platform and it has got to be altered
in order to accommodate the heavier loads and the taller
rocket, and it is what it is. I don't like how this has gotten
out of control. We are trying to bring it back under control.
You have my pledge to try to do that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, as with any public or private entity,
there are wins and losses and successes and failures. Without
going into what they are, we know they were there. Here is the
question. As NASA runs 35 or so major projects identified by
GAO, what management lessons has the agency learned for how you
can effectively protect American taxpayers while developing
unique and important scientific instruments?
Mr. Nelson. You constantly have to ask the hard questions,
Mr. Chairman. By the way, it is not 35. It is about 100
simultaneous projects that are going at NASA. You accurately
and the Ranking Member noted that this is one of the most
aggressive schedules of NASA. We have been working closely with
the GAO to respond to the GAO recommendations and we have made
significant progress in closing out the GAO recommendations in
strengthening the acquisition of practices, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I call your attention to the coming IG report. I think
that will also be very instructive.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Senator Nelson. And now
recognize our ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson, recognizing we have got limited time this
morning and as you may be aware, we are having a joint session
of Congress this morning so we are trying to compact everything
in. But I would like to run through a series of questions. And
I will, of course, try to be succinct as much as possible. And
if there is anything else that we need to follow with
additional information, we can do that later.
But one thing that this subcommittee has provided is
hundreds of millions of dollars for development of nuclear
thermal propulsion. And I am curious as to why NASA has made so
little progress on NTP development and an in-space flight
demonstration. The question will be where has the money gone
and why does it seem like we don't have much to show for it?
Mr. Nelson. Well, as you know, I have already said publicly
that I want to thank you all because the appropriations
committee in both the House and the Senate had kept nuclear
propulsion alive even while the White House refused to
recommend it in the past until this coming fiscal year 2023
president's recommended budget. We got the door open.
They recommend $15 million. That is nowhere near the $150
million or so that you all have insisted on in the past. But it
is also significant that the president's recommendation--$10
million of which is for nuclear thermal and $5 million of which
is for nuclear electric. What that is saying is, for the
future, we got to look at both. We got to look at all kinds of
propulsion because the necessity of getting to Mars faster with
humans so that you don't have to stay on the surface of Mars
for a year or two until the planets realign. If you can get
there faster, you can stay a couple of weeks and you can come
back. Right now, of course, we don't have the capability of
keeping humans alive on the surface of Mars for a year or two.
This is important. I think there was a significant change
in the attitude of OMB at, I might say, our urging because--and
what your instructions have been to us over the past several
years.
There is one other thing on nuclear fission. You know, we
got approved this digging on the South Pole next year to see if
there is water. If there is water, there is rocket fuel. If you
are going to make hydrogen and oxygen from water on the South
Pole, you need lots of electricity. We are going to have to be
able to do that as well.
I want to thank you for what you have done in the past and
I want to urge you all to continue that in the future.
Mr. Aderholt. Let me switch over to about returning to the
moon and establishing a permanent U.S. presence before our
adversaries. And that is critical that the Americans have
leadership and that we have dominance in that area. Of course,
we cannot risk safety for the sake of urgency. But we also
cannot exercise complacency while our adversaries sprint to try
to take the next frontier.
So to that point, when do you think we can actually expect
U.S. boots back on the moon?
Mr. Nelson. Our schedule, Mr. Chairman--and this is not
lightly said--is in 2025. We are going to launch unmanned this
year. Then two years later, we are going to launch with a crew
that will orbit the moon and come back to check out all the
systems. Then one year later, which is 2025, we are going to
rendezvous in a lunar elliptical orbit that is a polar orbit.
The crew is going to transfer into a lander. The winner of that
competition for the first landing is SpaceX. They will go and
they will go and land on the surface, come back and rendevous
with Orion and Orion will bring them home. That should be 2025,
Congressman.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I see my time is up so I yield
back.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Aderholt, the chair recognizes for 5
minutes Representative Grace Meng of New York.
Mrs. Meng. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Administrator, for being here today.
I wanted to talk about orbital space debris removal. Last
December, I joined our Vice President Harris at the inaugural
National Space Council meeting where the U.S. space priority's
framework was unveiled. It stated the U.S. will lead in a
responsible peaceful and sustainable exploration and use of
outer space. And to achieve this, we will increase efforts to
mitigate track and remediate space debris. I think this
approach is right but to get there, we are going to need to
tackle small space debris removal. If we do not, it could
hinder our growing space economy. Some estimate this growing
sector could be valued at over $1 trillion by 2040. Yet, there
are significant mission ending challenges that could prevent
this from small space debris the size of a softball or smaller.
Due to the high speed of such small debris, human space flight
and other missions are at risk of failure. To overcome this
challenge, I believe we are going to need to track and remove
it to ensure space is available to our future generations.
I wanted to ask how--if you can discuss how NASA is working
to shape international norms around space debris and what other
countries can do to help track, mitigate and remove it. And in
the president's fiscal year 2023 budget request, can you
discuss how the over $30 million orbital debris research will
help meet the challenge of detecting and removing small space
debris?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, ma'am. Other countries can help by stop
the putting up of junk. The two most egregious examples are the
ASAT test by the Chinese government in 2007 and the Russian
government of an ASAT test last year which put up tens of
thousands. Both of those pieces right in low-Earth orbit.
Unbelievably, the Russian government putting it up that
threatened the space station upon which is habitated Russian
cosmonauts. I think that is an example where one hand of the
Russian government not knowing what the other hand was doing.
Now how are you going to get it down? There is so much junk
up there and so many dead satellites. We are talking about a
major effort. You just noted a $30 million in our budget
request to you for supporting our request for space situational
awareness and orbital debris measurements for monitoring it,
for mitigation and for working with the Department of Defense
which tracks the larger objects, usually softball size and
greater. A lesson that is hard to track. I can tell you, it
could be a paint chip. On an astronaut doing an EVA, a space
walk, something as small as that hit it at a huge velocity,
then you are talking about--you are talking about serious
damage.
One of the other things that you all have got to decide is
who is going to have the responsibility for this. I would
encourage you to go on and get that done. It has been talked
about in the last administration that it should be the
Department of Commerce. Others have said Department of
Transportation. I think there is a lot of efforts down toward
the Department of Commerce.
That is your decision. I would like for--that will help us
if we get our act together coordinating all of the agencies of
the federal government.
I don't want to take all of your time, Congresswoman.
Mrs. Meng. Thank you. I look forward to working with you on
this. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Meng. At this
time, the chair recognizes Representative Garcia for 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator, it
is great to see you again. I hope you are doing well.
Last time we talked we were discussing the aircraft that we
use up at Edwards Air Force Base, the Chase aircraft, F-15, F-
18 type aircraft. They are older; out of flight time. They are
out of fatigue life. And frankly, they are a bit of a safety
concern as well as a budget suck right now for parts and
obsolescence challenges that they have. They are ACE abode.
Their availability numbers are extremely low. One of the
aircrafts is actually older than I am which says a lot. And it
is really becoming, in my opinion--it is not just a tactical or
operational problem; it is a safety problem. We are going to
lose a pilot's life here imminently if we don't do something.
We chatted about it last time and you guys at NASA took the
action within the fiscal year 2022 omni package that we passed
back in March to brief us on the replacement plan and what is
going on. Within 180 days of the bill, we asked that you
provide us a quarterly update to the committee on the progress
of figuring out the replacement plans. Have you been able to
look at this? And what can we do--I mean, even the Blue Angels
right now are flying F-18E Model Super Hornets that are a third
of the age of the aircraft we are flying out at Edwards Air
Force Base. And as you know, the Blue Angels and the
Thunderbirds are required to fly the oldest jets in the fleet.
And these aircraft out at Armstrong are actually a lot older
than that. So can you just let me know how that--what is going
on there? What are we--what can we do? And I have got a
different question on another subject after that, if you can.
Mr. Nelson. Okay. I will make it quick. Yes. Congressman,
everything you said is accurate. We have been getting hand-me-
downs and they are aging. The parts are not there. We need
newer aircraft that we are putting through extreme testing. It
is my hope that we are moving in that direction. Everything
that you said is accurate. I would want to see that sooner than
later.
Mr. Garcia. Does that require something from DOD and the
Pentagon to help facilitate that for you? Who do we need to go
talk to--I mean, it has got to be more than just hope on this
one, right? We actually have to have an acquisition and a
coordination, MOU of some sort in place with DOD to transfer
these aircraft. Does someone in NASA has this as an action to
go lead this project for us?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garcia. Okay.
Mr. Nelson. Our flight research folks are doing that. We
are working with DOD to identify basically used aircraft, F-15s
and F-18s, which could be transferred to NASA upon their
retirement from the military service for NASA operation and/or
parts as well as maintaining that current fleet. Yes, sir. We
are aggressively talking to DOD.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. Thank you, sir.
We have a whole bunch of questions. I will submit for the
record regarding HLS and the X-Plane program as well as SLD.
But I just wanted to kind of get your thoughts on what is going
on with Artemis right now. I know we rolled her out for the wet
dress rehearsal. Had a couple leaks and failures. We have put
them back into the bay.
What is your perspective--what is our timing looking like?
I know there is a get well plan in the bay and then we are
waiting for celestial mechanics to cooperate for a launch. What
is your over/under on a launch this year for Artemis?
Mr. Nelson. Well, it is going right now, I would say, in
August.
Mr. Garcia. Okay.
Mr. Nelson. It will then check out uncrewed all the
systems. It is about a 30-day mission. I will go further than
any American human spacecraft has gone. It will set the stage
for two years later for the first crew. That will orbit the
moon and come home checking out all the human sustaining
systems. Then about a year later is when we rendevous in lunar
elliptical polar orbit and send the lander down to the surface.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. So you think an August time frame for the
go. And, you know, obviously, pending a successful dress
rehearsal coming up next month, right?
Mr. Nelson. That is correct. As a matter of fact, it ought
to be going back out for a wet dress rehearsal very soon.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. And, Mr. Chair,
back to you. I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Mr. Case, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And aloha, Mr.
Administrator. I deeply appreciated your kind comments about my
home state and visiting Hawaii Island, the Big Island. That is
my home island so either that was a fortuitous statement or you
are very well briefed or both. And, you know, Hawaii has been a
very proud part of NASA and space exploration from the very
beginning since we tracked some of the earliest spacecraft
across the Pacific. The only tracking station over on Koke'e,
Kauai bringing us across and, of course, picked up many of our
astronauts. And we have probably hosted the world's best
telescopes and also the world's best analogue sites, planetary
analogue sites. I understand that is the new word for HAPS,
what I was always called HAPS, the best places to practice on
landing on the moon as elsewhere. So I appreciate the
connection with Hawaii.
And I do want to say, by the way, Mr. Administrator, that I
completely endorse the comments at the outset by both my chair
and my ranking member on the incredible opportunities for NASA
but also, I think, the incredible challenges to NASA to pull
off such an array of initiatives in a way that is fiscally
responsible. The risks of failure along these lines are high
and yet, the opportunities, if we do it right, are incredible
as well. And so, I just--I think we all share the concerns that
we are fiscally responsible and judicious with the taxpayers'
money as we go through this process.
I wanted to talk to you about STEM education and, in
particular, women and minorities in STEM and in NASA and in
science because the promise of NASA has not only been to the
American people that we would lead the world in some of the
greatest explorations that humankind has ever undertaken but
that it would translate back home into advancement in earth
sciences, advancement in education and an advancement in an
area that is still woefully negligent which is the presence of
women and minorities in STEM in general and, for that matter,
in NASA itself.
And so, I appreciate your increase in the office of STEM
engagement where you have proposed to go up another 9 some
percent over fiscal year 2022. But that is out of $150 million
base. And obviously, 9 percent of $150 million is a lot
different from a 10 percent increase on $7 billion for some of
your other programs. And so, I simply have to ask you the
question. Do you think that this is sufficient to pull off this
side of NASA which is not just about NASA, it is about national
policy to get more women, more minorities into STEM? The fact
that Artemis and others are carrying women and minorities out
into space and to the moon is an incredible statement. But that
is a few people. And it is an inspiring statement. But it is
going to take a lot more than that. I do not know whether we
are doing enough.
Mr. Nelson. Well, thank you. You know, truth be told, I
would like a lot more money in STEM. Remember, we have a secret
sauce that a lot of people do not. That is by the very nature
of you all spending all of this money on these high technology
programs that is like a magnet for students. That, because of
their excitement from being little kids and their eyes getting
as big as saucers when they meet one of our astronauts and we
use our astronauts vigorously out into schools and
universities. It draws them to this area. By virtue of the fact
that you all are funding this next major adventure out into the
cosmos, be it the space telescope, be it Artemis going back to
the moon, be it getting ready to go to Mars, that, in itself,
is an attraction like a magnet that is bringing students into
all the things that STEM stands for: science, technology,
engineering, mathematics. Remember what happened as a result of
Apollo a half a century ago? We had two generations of students
that came in those fields of STEM.
What we are trying to do is leverage the excitement of
these programs that you are funding with bringing kids into
these fields.
One final point. We love our interns. We want to expand the
number of interns. We have about 1,600 interns. They are paid
interns. Not like in the Senate or the House. These are paid
internships. We end up hiring 30 percent of our interns. We
want more interns because what we find is they just blossom.
They are eager to get there and then they just blossom. What we
have had--and we have had interns that have come up with ideas
that have been incorporated into our space and aeronautics
technologies.
Mr. Case. Thank you so much, Administrator. I will submit
some more questions but I appreciate your comments. And hope to
see you back in Hawaii.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case. Mr. Cline, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Nelson,
it is good to see you.
I want to jump in with some questions about Wallops, one of
my favorite places there in Virginia, one of only 4 major
rocket launch locations in the United States. NASA has been
launching rockets from Wallops since 1945 re-supplying rockets
for the international space station, moon missions, scientific
balloon research, education programs and more emanating from
Wallops. And as you know, Rocket Lab has been ready to go for
over a year but the autonomous flight termination system, AFTS,
software suite that is necessary for them to launch with has
been continuously delayed. NASA's in charge of writing and
debugging the code there and it has caused a loss in launches
that otherwise would have gone from logs including CAPSTONE
mission. Can you tell me what the status is of the AFTS
software project as it pertains to Rocket Lab and its operation
from Wallops? And can you give an updated expected completion
date?
Mr. Nelson. I will. Congressman, it is not only that that
is stunting the growth of Wallops. It is also the bridge. We
are working on this. We had to do the same thing down there at
Kennedy Space Center. The autonomous system-- you just couldn't
have the launch frequency that is going on down there now
between all the government, military, intelligence, NASA
commercial missions unless you get that autonomous system. We
are testing on a system right now for Rocket Labs. It is going
well. I will just have to give you an up-to-date report later
on.
Mr. Cline. That is fine----
Mr. Nelson. Now let me say--may I say about the bridge,
please?
Mr. Cline. Sure.
Mr. Nelson. It is the top priority of NASA on
infrastructure. We are afraid the bridge is going to fall in
the water. If it does not, it is a hump-back bridge and larger
rockets that should be launched there can't get over the bridge
because of the incline. Longer rockets, in other words, when
they put them on the trailer. I thought I had in the 2022
appropriations bill and agreements with others to get some
other infrastructure in exchange for getting the Wallops
bridge. That did not occur. That is a great disappointment for
me, personally, because we were able to take care of the roof
down at New Orleans that had blown off because you got a
hurricane supplement. We got that money to redo the roof. But
our first priority is the Wallops bridge. I sure would
appreciate some help.
Mr. Cline. Thank you for emphasizing that need. Appreciate
that.
Let me switch gears a little bit over to Option B. And
earlier this year, you announced NASA was contracting with
SpaceX for a second crewed mission to the moon known as
``Option B'' to safely land astronauts as early as 2026. While
NASA works to unramp additional providers for readiness later
in the decade, can you elaborate on the importance of Option B
in helping to avoid another--and in helping to add more
capability to the Artemis program?
Mr. Nelson. Absolutely, Congressman. The way that the
competition bid went and was awarded to SpaceX, there is a
provision for an extension, if you will, of that award which is
Option B. If that is negotiated with SpaceX, if we are landing
in 2025 on the first one, that would allow another landing in
2026.
Simultaneously, as a result of what we have requested in
this 2023 budget, and some of the bridge money that you all
gave us in 2022 appropriations, allows us to get going on
another competition under the theory and of which you have
insisted both authorizing as well as appropriations in both
Houses. You have insisted that we have competition on the
lander. We are getting that competition going. Under the rules
of--and the laws, the statutes of procurement, it means that it
is a separate competition and SpaceX is not a part of that.
Once we got a winner in that competition, then we have got two
landers that we will decide in the future. That competition
that also has a demonstration of uncrewed landing and a crewed
landing, then the space program has an option of looking
between two as to what is going to be the sustained lander for
the future. That is what is going on, Congressman.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. Yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cline. Mr. Crist, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson, let me first say what a joy it is to see
you, my wonderful friend. And I am admiring your Highwaymen
picture behind you. Have you had that a long time? I am a big
fan of those.
Mr. Nelson. As a matter of fact, this, interestingly, is a
NASA artist that was under the NASA program. I do have,
personally, a Highwaymen. I also have a Beanie Backus. This one
is a NASA picked artist that I purchased years ago named Kent
Sullivan. Thank you.
Mr. Crist. That is my Highwaymen.
Mr. Nelson. Oh, that is great. Who is the----
Mr. Crist. That's Brookes--in St. Petersburg.
Mr. Nelson. Who is the artist?
Mr. Crist. This one was Gibson.
Mr. Nelson. Yeah. He is certainly one of them.
Mr. Crist. He was great. He was great. And you are great.
Thanks for everything you are doing at NASA, Senator.
You have long championed fixed price contracts with
commercial industry. That is the most effective way to keep
programs on track and control costs and strengthen American
industry all the while ensuring our safety. And I have seen
firsthand, as have you, obviously, how NASA's private partners
have brought thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of new
economic activity in Florida. Can you discuss briefly the
importance of having industry and government work together for
NASA for America?
Mr. Nelson. Absolutely. As I was giving credit where credit
is due, at the beginning of the testimony today, to Dutch
Ruppersberger, he was very significantly instrumental in us
passing the 2010 NASA bill that set us off on this dual course
of government program and space in a concurrent and parallel
commercial program that has turned into the public/private
partnership that you see today.
Mr. Crist. Right.
Mr. Nelson. Yes. Very important.
Mr. Crist. That is great. Thank you. And I am curious--and
if you have already been asked this because I wasn't at the
outset of the meeting, forgive me. But in terms of manned
spaceflight, I think there is some kind of a launch this summer
in the same spacecraft that would be manned eventually. What do
you think would be the earliest we could get the manned one up?
Mr. Nelson. Well, as you know, we are launching humans
every six months now to the international space station. And--
--
Mr. Crist. Yeah. But I think this is a different kind of
mission, I am talking about.
Mr. Nelson. That is correct.
Mr. Crist. The big one.
Mr. Nelson. You are referring to the largest rocket ever.
We are going to launch it in August. It will be uncrewed. All
the systems will be tested, returned safely through the fiery
heat of re-entry with about mach 34 coming into the Earth's
atmosphere. Then 2 years later, we will launch the first crew.
One year after that, we will do the first landing, which is
2025.
Mr. Crist. 2025. Senator, I don't know a better question to
stop on. I will yield back. And please give your beautiful
wife, Grace, my best wishes.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Congressman. It has been a pleasure.
And you have been a lifelong friend. Thank you.
Mr. Crist. God bless you. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Crist. Mr. Palazzo, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palazzo. And thank you, Chairman Cartwright and Ranking
Member Aderholt, for having this meeting. Senator Nelson, thank
you for being here. I look forward to these hearings,
especially the NASA hearing each year.
Stennis Space Center is NASA's premier facility for
propulsion test operations. In a practical sense, Stennis Space
Center's main budget line is rocket propulsion test. The
president's budget request for rocket propulsion test shows a
negligible change for fiscal year 2023 and no expected changes
on the horizon leading one to believe level funding will ensure
this facility is meeting both NASA and industry demand for
testing for the foreseeable future.
I would like to read a line directly from NASA's fiscal
year 2023 budget request. ``NASA's rocket propulsion test
program maintains and manages a wide range of facilities
capable of ground testing, rocket engines and components under
controlled conditions. This test infrastructure includes
facilities located across the United States and the program
provides a single entry point for any user of NASA rocket test
stands. RPT retains a skilled workforce capable of performing
tests on all modern day rockets of supporting complex rocket
engine development. RPT evaluates customer test requirements
and desired outcomes while minimizing test time and cost.''
Now Stennis Space Center is a national treasure as you were
quoted saying on your December visit with Stennis. Industry
continues to look at utilizing Stennis Space Center for the
expertise of its personnel, 125,000-acre buffer zone, the A and
B and particularly the E test complex, and because of the
abundance of propellants stored onsite at Stennis.
However, have questions about whether Stennis will remain
as a national treasure, given the ever-evolving nature of space
exploration.
So, Senator Nelson, do you believe that level funding for
the rocket propulsion test budget and to the foreseeable future
will both keep pace with inflation and meet industry demand for
commercial space company needs, defense space company needs,
and NASA's own testing needs?
Mr. Nelson. For the time being, Congressman, yes. You have
a beautiful opportunity to have the Stennis Space Center evolve
into a propulsion test complex that will be government and
commercial multi-users, not unlike what has happened to the
Kennedy Space Center that was primarily a government launch
center, and now it is a multi-user space portal.
With that 125,000 acres that you have there, you have got
so many other opportunities. You, for example, have there the
U.S. Navy that is involved. There are unlimited opportunities
but just an area of rocket propulsion testing, it can become
the place for commercial and government rocket engine testing.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, thank you, Senator Nelson. And I agree
with you. That is why the enhanced use lease agreement
extensions are so important, and also helping the center look
at economic development and sites--you know, and attracting a
new industry to the regions is a win/win for everyone.
My next question----
Mr. Nelson. Congressman, on that, may I say, if you all can
help us on the enhanced use lease, it is this herky jerky one
year at a time authorization. If you all can give us that
authorization for a number of years in the future, so we don't
have to run around at the last minute, getting some moving
vehicle to attach enhanced use lease.
The Congressman from Mississippi has just pointed out a
good example.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, sir, I agree. And I think the House has
been the leader on renewing enhanced use lease agreement. We
had a ten-year bill that did pass, and when it came back from
the other body, it was shortened tremendously. So I agree with
you, the industry needs certainty. The industry needs
stability. And we are hoping maybe this is the year we will
give it to them.
And real quick, the last question. Sir, can you tell us
what you perceive NASA's role is and should be in helping the
Department of Defense and the defense community to develop
hypersonic capabilities? And does that extend to utilizing
NASA's testing infrastructure?
Mr. Nelson. I believe that some of it is classified,
Congressman. Just suffice it to say that NASA is involved. And
a lot of our expertise in space and aeronautics is considered
valuable in research and development by--across the broad
spectrum of government. The bottom line, I agree with you,
Congressman, that we need to be very serious about developing
hypersonic vehicles.
Mr. Palazzo. Well, sir, thank you for your time.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
And Representative Lawrence, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Chairman Cartwright.
I just want to say to Administrator Nelson, I want to thank
you for your continued work as the administrator, and putting
an emphasis on diversity and racial equity.
I was so happy last month when Dr. Jessica Watkins became
the first Black woman to be a crew member on The International
Space Station. And I look forward to the Artemis program that
will land the first woman astronaut, and Black astronaut, on
the lunar surface. I want to thank you for that.
On the topic of diversity and inclusion, I have a question
about minority owned businesses. One of the things I hear
constantly from the minority chambers and groups for women and
minorities is the ability for you to shift the dial when it
comes to procurement practices. So with the fiscal year 2023
budget, what steps is NASA taking to ensure that women and
minority owned businesses are able to participate in federal
contracting? And if I could just add to that, when you say
participating, I am talking about more than your desire, but
what are the checks and balances? Because if you keep doing the
same thing, you are going to keep getting the same result, even
though your heart is in the right place.
So what are we doing to ensure, to recruit, to train women
and minority businesses to participate, to hopefully get more
of the procurement contracts?
Mr. Nelson. I want to answer you very specifically. I want
to just give you first, personally, the way I ran my Senate
office, and the way that we are running this team that I
brought into NASA: 59 percent are women; and 32 percent are
people of color.
We have taken diversity equity plan that Joe Biden
announced. We have put together that plan. There is a printed
version of it. It reaches into every area, including the
underrepresented areas, rural areas. What we are trying to make
sure, for example, grants are given into minority communities
and also rural communities that might have been excluded from
those kind of scientific and space grants.
It is very important to us that we not only do it with the
workforce and the symbols that you just mentioned, that the
next landing will be the first woman. Also, that we do it in
how we are operating our contracts, our procurement. All of
this has been part of--it is also reflective in how we reach
out on our STEM education to minority communities and
underserved communities.
Yes, ma'am, this is being taken seriously over here. I
would recommend for your staff to get you a copy of our
diversity plan, which is printed. And I think that will show
you the breadth of how we are taking this seriously.
Mrs. Lawrence. So are there any monitoring aspects of this,
so you know where you are now, that we can actually see if that
is your commitment, and if it is actually coming to fruition?
Mr. Nelson. I have named the deputy administrator to
oversee this. That monitoring is going on on a continuous
basis. I can tell you that Susan Rice in the White House----
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Mr. Nelson [continuing]. Also is monitoring not only us,
but every other Federal agency.
Mrs. Lawrence. So, Mr. Administrator, if I can ask just one
quick question.
Mr. Nelson. Sure.
Mrs. Lawrence. When it comes to the environment, when it
comes to electrifying vehicles and airplanes, where is NASA
when it comes to your commitment to reducing carbon footprints?
And where are you with your technology to ensure that the
future crafts that we will be using are in line with our
commitment to advancing these technologies? Because there is a
large carbon footprint that goes up with every plane.
Mr. Nelson. I will be happy to answer that with the
chairman's permission, since the clock ran out.
Mr. Cartwright. Yes, please. Go ahead and answer the
question. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
Mr. Nelson. Hugely. I mean, I can talk to you about the
Earth Information Center that we are going to set up so that
everything that is happening to the environment, in fact, is
available to everybody, both privately and public, and school
kids as well. I could point out to you not only what you
mentioned, that we want aircrafts to be much more efficient,
the design of the wings.
By the way, the wingtips, that came from NASA on a
commercial airliner. They are a lot more efficient as a result
of those wingtips on the end of the wings.
I could point out to you the five great observatories that
you are helping us fund, that we are going to put out--put up
over the next ten years, all of which will be integrated
together to give us a 3D composite understanding of what is
happening to our environment on the land, on the water, on the
ice, and in the atmosphere. We never had that. That is what
NASA is doing.
When you see the concerns about the increased carbon
dioxide and methane that is going into the air, where do you
think that information comes from? It comes from NASA assets.
It may be operated by NOAA or the USGS or others, but NASA
designed them, built them, launched them. Most of them are
being operated by NASA.
We are all over this, Madam Congressman, and I do thank you
for that. It would take a lot more time for me to thoroughly
answer your question.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you so much, and I yield back. And
thanks for having that on your radar.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Lawrence. We will
begin our second round of questioning.
I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Administrator Nelson, first of all, thank you for
mentioning the internship program at NASA. To my mind, the
greatest value of NASA is that it inspires young minds to go
into STEM fields, and that is a great program--the internship
program. For people watching, to access that program, you go on
NASA.gov, and follow the get involved tab. Am I correct in
that, sir?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. May I insert for the Congresswoman. I
neglected to say that we have our request $500 million for
green aviation. I think that would help underscore what I just
said. That is in the request to you all. I am sorry to break
the train of thought, but I wanted to get that in for the
Congresswoman.
Mr. Cartwright. Administrator Nelson, I am going to insist
that you answer my questions and not other questions from other
members, or share art tips with Charlie Crist, if you can
control yourself.
Mr. Nelson. Okay.
Mr. Cartwright. In all seriousness, we were discussing cost
overruns and time overruns, and some of the challenges at NASA
with budgeting. But there have been some terrific successes
with the same thing. And I wanted to mention the Lucy mission
to the Trojan asteroids, that was launched in October 2021, a
month ahead of schedule, and $57.2 million below baseline in
its development cost. That was a terrific management win for
the agency.
And I wanted you to comment on that. How did that happen
and who gets the credit for that?
Mr. Nelson. I might also say Landsat 9 launched two months
early with--below its development cost, and the savings are, in
part, due to mature flight hardware, and a firm fixed price
contract. Lucy's savings are due, in part, to launch vehicle
cost savings, and some unused reserves that we used, to
specifically answer your question.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. I want to switch over to lunar
surface power. It is my understanding that NASA has been
advancing multiple ways to provide power on the surface of the
moon for sustained exploration and science missions. You have
touched on that briefly so far, but I want to give you a bigger
opportunity.
The options include vertical solar array technology and
fission surface power. At this point, it seems like no
technology has a clear advantage, and so a mix of solutions
might make the most sense, given cost constraints and varying
mission profiles, can you comment on NASA's plans to advance
lunar surface power technologies, including whether or not the
agency has plans for any demonstration missions to the moon in
the next few years?
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, if we find water next year when
we have got one of the commercial landers, it has got a NASA
instrument on it. It is going to dig down under the surface. We
know there is water there because we have already seen it in
the crevices of the rocks. It is in the form of ice, but
underneath, is there water, underneath the surface, and how
much?
As I said earlier, if we have water, then we have got
hydrogen and oxygen. But to do that, you are going to have to
have a lot of electricity. Now, at this point, if I had to
guess, I would say that it is going to take nuclear fission
power to get enough electricity to do it. I can't say that with
certainty, and that is what we are going to start looking at.
Or can it be a combination with solar. I don't know, but that
is what NASA does best. It is research and development.
Mr. Cartwright. I want you to comment on the potential for
vertical solar array technologies toward that end.
Mr. Nelson. I am going to have to get back to you on that,
Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Nelson responded for the record:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Good. And at this point, I am going to
yield to our ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to
ask for unanimous consent to have my full opening statement
made as part of the record. I should have mentioned that
earlier, but I would like to add that.
Mr. Cartwright. Without objection.
Mr. Aderholt. Senator Nelson, as NASA looks to establish a
long-term human presence on the moon and explore the outer
bounds of the solar system, what role will NASA systems, like
the space launch system, play to support NASA exploration and
science missions, as well as non-NASA in international mission
opportunities?
Mr. Nelson. Well, right now, we have got the only big boy
rocket in town. That is our means of getting out to the moon,
and to getting further into space. Will there be others? I hope
so. That is part of this public/private partnership. For the
foreseeable future, we are planning on flying at least one
Artemis a year for at least 10 or 12 years. We know that when
we go to Mars, we are going to have to develop new
technologies.
We have already discussed here earlier today that that is,
in part, going to need to be faster propulsion. That will be
one of the things that we will be developing. Even so, you can
take the slow boat to Mars by propositioning supplies. You have
a way of getting a lot of mass off the face of the earth, and
thus far, there is only one rocket that can do that, and that
is the SLS.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. What is your assessment of the
thread that is posed by China's space ambitions. And is their
exploration advancements on the moon and Mars give you concern?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. I believe we are in, and I have said
this publicly before, I think we are in a space race with
China. China, in the last few years, they have done some
impressive stuff. They are only the second nation to be with a
rover on the surface of Mars, a rover that works. They now
are--have a space station, and it has got impressive
technology. They have declared that they are going to the moon.
I think that we are not unlike the space race we were in with
the Soviet Union. I think we are going to have that space race
with the Chinese government in the future.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, that leads me to my next question.
China's aggression is also prevalent in the research and
development of various space technologies. And quite honestly,
there is jarring similarities between the vehicle design made
by the Chinese state rocket companies and vehicle designs made
by American companies. I am sure you are well aware of that.
What is NASA doing to secure American research and development,
as well as any potential holes in our supply chain?
Mr. Nelson. Supply chain is a problem. Particularly now
with a lot of the world's commerce being disrupted because of
what is going on in Ukraine. I think you said it so delicately.
I can't speak nearly as eloquently as you can, Congressman, but
you noted that a lot of their space systems look like other
space systems. Yes. They are pretty good at stealing. I think
that is incumbent upon us to take cybersecurity very, very
seriously.
As a former ranking member of the cybersecurity
subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have
been shouting this message to the rooftops, not only with
regard to the government, but the private sector as well. I
think the private sector is finally getting the message.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, I think you need to keep doing that,
because we must secure our research and development from the
Chinese. And so please, keep that up as you go forward, and I
yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Trone, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Trone. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nelson, for joining us here
today, Chairman Cartwright and Ranking Member Aderholt for
holding this hearing on the budget at NASA.
Maryland is proud home of Goddard Space Flight Center, as
well as--aerospace work force.
NASA supports over 35,000 jobs, and billions of dollars
economic input/output in Maryland. My question is there is 30
plus Maryland supplier companies that have helped build the
systems for NASA's upcoming Artemis 1 mission. These are some
of the thousands of supplier companies across the country that
have helped build NASA's first deep space exploration system
since the end of Apollo.
Can you discuss why it is important to have this broad and
robust aerospace industrial supplier base here?
Mr. Nelson. It works and it is working. Not only is it
working in the example that you have used, which is Artemis,
look what that base has done with regard to this extraordinary
success of the James Webb space telescope, also a project that
was managed by Goddard. The talent at Goddard is superb, and
you are very fortunate to have that caliber of folks,
Congressman.
Mr. Trone. Talk a minute about the importance of investing
in small business, including women and veteran-owned
businesses, especially given the market pressure, for a lot of
businesses to vertically integrate, and at the same time, we
have the vets and women-owned business in certain regions, and
the expense of other suppliers, how do we balance that?
Mr. Nelson. Earlier, I had a question from Congresswoman
Lawrence about our approach to equity, diversity, and
inclusion, and that his directly in the area of veterans as
well as small business. We are taking that very, very
aggressively, Congressman. Let me see if I can tell you--it is
some incredible--I don't have the figure here, but NASA
obligated $3.46 billion to small businesses, and on top of
that, in fiscal year 2021, NASA's prime contractors, so that is
another avenue for small business, awarded an additional $3.7
billion to small business subcontractors.
Right there between the two, that is over $7 billion just
in fiscal year 2021 that was going to small business.
Mr. Trone. Wow. Let me ask one last question. On May 3, the
Senate, CJS Approps Committee hearing, you advocated for fewer
cost plus contracts and more fixed price contracts. Outside of
the existing commercial lunar payload services and human
landing systems, what are the other areas of procurements that
NASA is focused on using fixed price contracts to control cost?
Mr. Nelson. Anything having to do, Congressman, with regard
to where we are engaging the commercial sector. The most
obvious examples there are the commercial crew and commercial
cargo, which has been so phenomenally successful in bringing
down cost. Those are fixed price contracts. As we go forward,
instead of having a mindset of just a cost plus, or a fixed
price, particularly with regard to complicated research and
development contracts, we are going to do different versions of
cost plus. The idea of which is to get it down to be more
efficient, and for example, one of the things that we are going
to change after the first four launches of Artemis is there
were some 16 or 18 contracts, all coming together for the SLS.
We are going to consolidate that into one contract, so one
contractor is responsible there. It is another way of getting
cost under control. All of this, we are aggressively
researching, and it is my hope that we are going to be able to
implement it.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Administrator, for joining us today,
and I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Trone.
Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator,
just two quick questions. First of all, what is our plan to
bring back the samples that we have been collecting on Mars
with Perseverance and the last Mars rover. I know that the
funding was there to get us there and conduct the experiments
and the operations that have been ongoing, both with the
helicopters, as well as the rovers. I think we were missing the
tranche of funding needed to recover the samples that we have
been collecting.
Can you walk us through that plan and where that request is
going to manifest?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. By the way, this is another area that
you will see a manifestation of the space race with China,
because China is on the surface of Mars.
Mr. Garcia. Yeah.
Mr. Nelson. The question is, who is going to get the sample
back first.
Mr. Garcia. Right.
Mr. Nelson. It is no small task to do this. What we are
planning, we already have a contract that we have let on a Mars
ascent vehicle. We are going to send a lander. It is going to
have this ascent vehicle. We are deciding at this moment as we
speak what is going to be the mechanism by which we deposit the
samples. Let me show you this. It just so happens to be behind
me.
This is a titanium tube. The cores--the current rover,
Perseverance, is drilling are being put in and sealed in these
titanium tubes. These tubes, some of them, they are going to do
about 40 of them, and some of them are going to stay in the
rover, Perseverance, and some of them are going to be deposited
on the surface.
What we are deciding right now, and we are doing that so
that we have a backup. If you can't get one, you have at least
a chance to get the others. We are deciding as to what is going
to be the mechanism to transfer from Perseverance, the rover,
and/or the surface, those titanium tubes I just showed you,
into the Mars ascent vehicle. It is going to take up, and then
we have got another one that is going to come by and grab it,
and bring it back, and put it in a heat resistant--blade of
heat shield, that will come and land. I think one is going to
land in the Utah desert.
Now, a lot of this is gee whiz stuff to get the sample
back, but that is what we are doing.
Mr. Garcia. And so is that funding in the out years, or are
you--do you have the leading edges of that, at least the design
study money, already in these budget requests? I am just not
seeing a significant footprint.
Mr. Nelson. The answer is both. An example of that, we just
let the contract for the Mars ascent vehicle.
Mr. Garcia. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. The last
question. You mentioned China. This is obviously a new space
race, right? It is a renaissance, really, a new golden era for
our space program, but also for other nations. Some of them
have signed on to the Artemis accords. We have got to make sure
that this domain is one of transparency, of peace, freedom of
liberties, navigation. The Artemis Accords are meant to do
that.
What is NASA doing to continue to spread signatures, or get
more folks to sign on to it? What are you doing relative to
China and Russia, who are currently not on it, but we need to
continue to have those diplomatic negotiations to ensure this
isn't, you know, effectively Star Wars in our own--between here
and the moon, as well as within our own solar system?
Mr. Nelson. Nineteen countries have signed the Artemis
Accords. You would expect something like the UK, but you might
not expect Ukraine. You might not expect United Arab Emirates
and Bahrain, and Colombia, Israel, and so 19 of them. We are
going to continue to get companies.
What is Artemis Accords? It is basically like a standard
operating procedure out in space, and utilization of space for
peaceful purposes. It is no secret that the Russian and the
Chinese government space programs are all mixed in with their
military programs. We have seen the reluctance on them to touch
anything like this.
We are going to continue to push it.
Mr. Garcia. All right. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Palazzo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Nelson,
Senator Nelson, I apologize.
Recently you said that cost plus contracts are a--and yet
space act agreements are set up as cost plus. Can you please
explain that statement and how that mentality stands to affect
space centers that Stennis Space Center in my district?
Mr. Nelson. Well, it affects every center because it is all
a part of the cost. We want to get leaner and meaner,
Congressman. We want to stop these contracts from growing and
growing. The chairman gave a couple of examples, Lucy and I
mentioned Landsat 9 that came in under cost and were quicker
than what they were originally scheduled to be. That is what we
want to be. You have to tailor the contract to the specific
mission that you are contracting for. You can't do everything
cost plus. I mean, you can't do everything fixed price. Nor
should you do everything cost plus, so there are iterations of
cost plus, particularly on your research and development
contracts.
Mr. Palazzo. Yes, sir. I agree with you. We have got to
become leaner and meaner. And I appreciate the fact that you
brought up that we truly are in a space race with the Chinese
and to some extent the Russians. We wouldn't be in this space
race if it wasn't for their direct theft and stealing of our
intellectual patents, our NASA research and technology.
And so, look, we can't go back and rewrite our security
protocols and things of that nature, but in the past--I mean,
way in the past, when I first got here, the culture of securing
our secrets really was lackadaisy. Can you tell me what has
NASA done to improve the culture because it is top down?
I know in the past, it is like, hey, we want to share our
documents. We are--again, the missing of NASA, and you have
scientists, and they want to cooperate across the globe. But at
the same time, we had people getting on planes with laptops and
going back to Beijing. And so what are we doing to protect our
secrets now? Because we are not--I wouldn't say in a life and
death, but we are in a race for the space domain, and we need
freedom loving democracies to be the ones that are dominant and
in control, not these countries that are--you know, have
nefarious plans to use space to their own personal gain.
Mr. Nelson. Well, directly related to you, Congressman, as
a committee member, is that we have requested $667 million,
which represents a 9 percent increase over the 2022 request.
That is for the IT program to develop, modernize, and enhance
the agency cybersecurity capabilities, the implementation of a
robust IT supply chain risk management. We discussed that
earlier as well. To use technology data and AI machine learning
and automation to strengthen our NASA workforce.
We are making this request. Now, by the way, this isn't
just NASA. This is every element of government. As I said
earlier in a previous question, I was the ranking member of the
cybersecurity subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, and this is all over the government, and it is the
private sector as well.
Mr. Palazzo. It truly is. Senator, thank you for your
leadership at NASA. And you have a great work force. I know
personally, I'm seen Michoud, Stennis Space Center, Johnson, as
well as, you know, the other centers. You have got a great work
force, and they want to continue to be the leader in space, and
we are going to do everything we can to help you. So thank you,
sir.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you.
Mr. Palazzo. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo. At this time, I am
going to recognize my ranking member, Mr. Aderholt, for a
third--to kick off a third round of questioning so we can
accommodate his schedule.
Mr. Aderholt, you are recognized.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson, how does NASA plan to sustain a healthy
work force if there is not a future national program, like
Shuttle, like ISS, SLS, and Orion to cover these functions?
Mr. Nelson. Well, I think there will be. For example, you
are talking about just human programming, I will address that.
But what about all the other programs. Science. If I recall,
that is about an $8 billion part of our budget. Just think what
excitement there is in the science area. If your question
really is what is the future of the Marshall Space Program--the
Space Center, I think it is very robust. For the foreseeable
future, you are going to continue to have an SLS. But a big
part of what we talked about earlier today was nuclear.
Look at all the things in nuclear that Marshall Space
Center could do. Well, let me just stop there and you take it
from there. Where else do you want to go with it?
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. Well, certainly, this--and I think--so
it is something that I want you to be mindful of because I
think it is something that we need to address. Let me shift
gears and talk about--just a minute about, you know, I strongly
support commercial Leo destination programs that further
empower the industry. I do see a concern in the complete
absence of explicitly U.S. government entity in Leo, especially
given China still has a government presence in Leo after ISS.
Do you also have concerns over a lack of U.S. entity
involvement in Leo after the end of the International Space
System Service?
Mr. Nelson. Sir, I don't, because we are not going to have
the government sector leave Leo. We are just going to take the
precious few dollars that you give us, and we are going to
direct them out into the cosmos, instead of doing everything
ourselves in Leo. We are going to become a tenant for a lessee
of commercial space stations in low earth orbit, so that we can
spend those precious dollars in developing the technologies as
we explore the heavens.
I really don't see that. If the commercial area were to
never develop, which I think is stretching credulity, because
look what has happened in the commercial sector with regard to
space already. If it never did, I think there is plenty of
other reasons why the U.S. government would not give up Leo.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, I--you know, I just want to point to
the fact that, you know, a complete absence of U.S. government
entity in Leo, in light of the fact that China will still have
a government presence there, I think is something that we need
to be thinking about. And so I do, you know, want to call that
to your attention.
Let me switch now, maintaining and enhancing U.S.
leadership in space is critical to our economic security, our
national defense and diplomatic relations. For far too long, we
have allowed China and other adversaries to challenge our space
dominance, and their ambitions only continue to grow as you
have already mentioned. To remain a global space power, the
United States must have a clear vision for space that endures
political pressure and changing administrations. We must
maintain an aggressive cadence of deep space exploration and
space missions, develop new, cutting edge technologies, and
establish long-lasting alliances, whether the countries and
hold NASA and commercial partners accountable to ambitious
timelines.
How does the fiscal year 2023 request that is being put
forward ensure U.S. leadership in space itself?
Mr. Nelson. I think by the whole budget. I would have to go
back and say that the course that NASA was set on a dozen years
ago is a public/private partnership of leveraging government
NASA dollars in a way that extends our ability to research and
develop new systems and techniques in order to push the bounds
of human exploration. That is what we are going to do. This is
going to be one of the more exciting times. The first exciting
time was when it was almost the impossible. Landing on the
moon, and that was a half century ago.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. Well, let me just tell you, I think
that the fiscal year 2023 request needs to be sufficient to
ensure that U.S. leadership in space can meet the timeline to
return to the moon and moving forward. So with that, I know my
time has elapsed, but I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back.
Mr. Nelson. That is what we are counting on you all to help
us. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes now for the third round.
Senator Nelson, you have a good sense for why I like NASA.
We know that stimulating and inspiring young minds to go into
science, technology, engineering, and math is so important. If
you look at the creation of wealth in this country, so much of
it has always come from technological and scientific
breakthroughs.
If you look at the Fortune 500 companies right now, the
ones crowding the top did not exist a generation and a half
ago, because they are all based on some scientific or
technology breakthrough that was the product of an inspired
young mind in the United States of America. I see that as
NASA's job, number one, to keep these young people inspired
into going into STEM pursuits.
Now right--and Mr. Aderholt just touched on it, and I want
to follow up with him. We are looking at the end of the
International Space Station and NASA's funding efforts to
replace that with, as you say, LEO, low-earth orbit, private
sector space stations, four of them, and the concern I have is
that right now, because NASA is in control of the International
Space Station, it gives NASA natural advantages. It means that
NASA can arrange for video conferences with school districts,
and a wide range of other benefits that can engage students in
the space program.
And the concern is that when we transition to private
sector, NASA is no longer the landlord. NASA is now a tenant in
the new situation. And so the question is how can we maintain
that ability, that connectivity between students and the space
stations to continue this kind of a STEM engagement? How are
these activities going to be maintained? Does NASA have to pay
for them? And can we use the contracting process to ensure the
protection of the educational activities, maybe in the same way
that broadcasters can be required to have a certain amount of
educational programming as a condition of their airwaves
leases.
Will you comment on that, Senator Nelson?
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, if we have a commercial space
station after another nine or ten years, it is like if you are
the owner of an apartment building and I rent or I am a lessee
of an apartment, you are not going to tell me what I can and
cannot do in my own apartment. It will be the same way on a
commercial space station. We will be a lessee to do this, this,
this, and that activities.
Since you know that what you just stated about students and
bringing in the average Joe on earth into all of the exciting
things by having these direct hookups, not only for
interactions for tele-communications and press conferences, and
conversations with students, but also the kind of activities
that are going on on that commercial space station.
These stations are being built with NASA seed money. That
is the three that you just mentioned. As a result, there is
going to be certain requirements that we are going to require.
I am not concerned about that, Mr. Chairman, at all. By the
way, we are going to do the same thing eventually on what is in
effect going to be a lunar space station. We are calling it
gateway. It is more of an outpost, because we are not planning
right now to man it the full time like we are the ISS.
Mr. Cartwright. Good. So we can count on you to make sure
those understandings are built into any of these agreements
coming up.
Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Beautiful. All right. I am going to yield
to Congressman Ed Case of Hawaii for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Case. Thank you again, Mr. Administrator. Good to be
back. Sorry to miss the last 45 minutes or so. And you may well
have answered some of this, and you were answering it with the
ranking member just now. But can I ask you kind of a macro
question which is on my mind, and that is that our geo-
political world has shifted on its axis in many ways in the
last months and year. Russia and Ukraine has obviously changed
some very, very basic understandings. Certainly, the rise of
China in a way that we don't believe is appropriate to the
world in many areas, including intellectual property theft, the
manipulation of information and research for military and other
purposes, which in and of itself all countries do, but is a
particular concern given China's actions.
It all asks us to revisit assumptions about how we partner
with the rest of the world in our own initiatives and our
research and development. And we obviously have tried as hard
as we can to leave space exploration and space and earth
science out of this. We still have cooperative ventures with
both of those countries and other adversaries.
Is there anything that you think we need to change in our
basic approach as to authorizing and financing NASA? Are there
risk areas where we should simply put on far greater guardrails
than we have to date on our expenditures and R&D for example.
To what extent should we consider de-linking some of the
cooperative ventures that have been very successful to date? It
is just a broader question that is on my mind. And I think we
have to ask these questions.
Mr. Nelson. You want me to answer one of those questions
first, Congressman? Which one?
Mr. Case. I guess I put a lot into one question, but what
kind of difference of funding and authorization approaches
should we take, given the change in the geo-political climate,
even in just the last year, with specific respect to Russia and
China?
Mr. Nelson. Well, let's understand and nail down the
prospect that our space program is an international space
program. For example, on the space station. We have got some 30
nations that participate. Look at the space station. We built
it with the Russians. We have to operate it with the Russians.
They have the propulsion. We have the electricity.
Look at the modules. There is an ESA, European Space Agency
module, there is a Japanese Space Agency module. Look at the
lunar space station, or Gateway. The Europeans and the Japanese
are participating there as well.
Given the fact that--look at in Houston right now, we have
got a crew of two astronauts from the United Arab Emirates. One
of whom is going to be flying on a SpaceX vehicle with a NASA
crew. Look at the last crew to go up. Samantha is an Italian
astronaut. She is up there with three NASA astronauts right
now. The Crew 3 that just returned, a German astronaut. Before
that, a French astronaut.
I mean, I could go on and on. Now, the thrust of your
question is with the changing politics on the surface of the
face of the earth, how are we going to keep this going? Well,
we are going to do it very carefully. I can tell you that we
have seen nothing but professionalism from the cosmonauts on
board the space station. We have seen nothing but a
professional relationship in both the Moscow and the Houston
mission control centers, and the way our people, our NASA
people are being treated in Moscow, and the way those Russian
folks connected with the mission control in Houston are being
treated.
I think we take it day by day, but at this point, I have
expectations that space is the one place in the civilian space
program where you can accomplish extraordinary international
things. And the interest thing, all this started in the midst
of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, when an American
spacecraft and a Soviet spacecraft rendezvoused and docked. And
those crews lived together, worked together, and as proof
thereof, became lifelong friends. So that when the commander of
the Soviet spacecraft just recently passed away a couple of
years ago, who gave the eulogy at his funeral, none other than
General Tom Stafford, the commander of the American in Apollo-
Soyuz.
So I think it is--we are just going to have to work it day
by day.
Mr. Case. I agree with everything you said, Mr.
Administrator. You know, space has been the great hope and
dream for kind of a safe zone for human kind. I think the
implications, and I agree with you on the space station itself.
I think the implications are broader than that to our broader
research and development programs. And so I will just leave it
there. I just think these are questions we must ask. And I
agree with you, we have to take it as we can.
Thank you.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Case.
Well, Senator Nelson, we have come to the end of today's
hearing. Thank you for submitting yourself to our questions.
And thank you for continuing to follow up on those questions,
many of which will be submitted in writing afterward, including
from me.
Thank you, also, for coming to Pennsylvania last month for
the Keystone Space Collaborative Conference that we held in
Pittsburgh. It was a very beneficial conference, and it was
capped off by the unveiling of the Peregrine Lunar Lander by
Astrobotic right there in Pittsburgh. That was a memorable
event.
I thank you for coming to that. Thank you for your service.
And thanks for appearing before our subcommittee today. With
that, I declare this hearing adjourned.
Mr. Nelson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
[Answers to submitted questions follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 18, 2022.
MEMBERS' DAY
Mr. Cartwright. All right, let's gavel in and begin. This
hearing is virtual, so first a few housekeeping items.
During the meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating background
noise.
Members are responsible for muting and un-muting
themselves. If I notice you have not un-muted when recognized,
I may ask the staff to send you a request to un-mute. Please
accept that.
I remind all subcommittee members, as well as the witnesses
testifying, that the 5-minute clock still applies. If there is
a video or technology issue, we will move to the next member
until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of
your time.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn to yellow; at 30 seconds remaining, I will tap the gavel
to remind members that their time is almost expired. When your
time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to
recognize the next member.
As is customary, we will begin with the chair and ranking
member, then subcommittee members present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of
seniority. And, finally, members not present at the time the
hearing is called to order will be recognized.
House rules require me, again, to remind you we have set up
an email address to which members can send anything they wish
to submit in writing for any of the subcommittee's hearings or
markups. That email address has been provided in advance to
your staff.
This subcommittee will come to order.
Good afternoon, everyone. Today, we welcome you to the
Commerce, Justice, and Science Fiscal Year 2023 Members' Day
hearing. I am pleased to be joined today by our colleagues here
in the House. Our subcommittee has heard from several major CJS
agencies about their fiscal year 2023 funding requests and we
will now hear from members representing the American people
about their priorities within the programs and agencies funded
in our bill.
The CJS subcommittee is responsible for the appropriations
and oversight of federal agencies that play a critical role in
driving technological innovation, economic development,
scientific research, a fair justice system, and the advancement
of public safety. The events of the past 2 years have brought
the importance of all of these endeavors into sharp relief.
Funding for science has been critical to the development of
COVID-19 vaccines and therapies; investment in commerce will
help steer our economic recovery; and a continued Federal
Government commitment to supporting law enforcement will
address calls for the reforms and investments needed to keep
our communities safe.
All congressional districts across the United States and
its territories have a stake in our work, and all have unique
needs and interests. I do look forward to hearing from my
colleagues today about the programs making a difference in
their communities.
And, with that, I will turn it over to my friend, the
ranking member, Mr. Aderholt for his opening remarks.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding, and
thanks for organizing this important Members' Day hearing so
that we can hear from members of the House on opportunities
before this subcommittee, and convey their recommendations and
how they can educate us on how we could better be helpful
through our subcommittee.
Of course, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies oversees remarkable and uniquely important
federal funding, from space exploration to combating crime, and
including child exploitation and human trafficking; to
fostering fair trade, promoting innovation, improving weather
forecasting, and investing in basic research. It is vital that
members have an opportunity to express their priorities and
concerns.
Let me just say, I am always happy to hear from my fellow
colleagues, as I know you are, Mr. Chairman, about how our
subcommittee can be more helpful and can reach out across all
50 states, and we can make sure that we are doing our job and
making sure the agencies under our jurisdiction are doing the
same.
So I would like to thank each of my colleagues who have
taken time to join us for the schedule and I look forward to
hearing from each of them.
Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
At this time, we are going to take testimony from the
witnesses and we are going to allow questions of the witnesses,
if members of the subcommittee choose to ask them.
At this time, it is my pleasure to introduce and recognize
Congressman Earl Blumenauer from the 3rd congressional district
of Oregon, a Senior Member of the House Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. Blumenauer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
----------
Wednesday, May 18, 2022.
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Aderholt, and members. It is a pleasure for me to take
advantage of this opportunity you have given us to speak to
priorities that we would like you to consider as it relates to
us.
As states, territories, and tribes take action to address
the failed and discriminatory War on Drugs, Congress has a
responsibility to heed the public's call for these reforms
through the annual appropriation process. My top priority this
fiscal year is language in the base text that would bar the
Department of Justice from prosecuting those who comply with
their state or tribal marijuana laws.
I hope you will also maintain the current language that
bars the Department of Justice from prosecuting those who
comply with their state's medical marijuana laws. This has been
an important development that the committee has championed in
the past.
Congress has enacted appropriations language to protect the
implementation and operation of state-legal medical marijuana
for nearly a decade. Today, 37 states have enacted medical
marijuana programs and 18 states have acted to legalize adult-
use programs, with eight of these states enacting adult-use
programs just since the start of 2020.
States from coast to coast, across the political spectrum,
red and blue, have taken meaningful action to end prohibitory
policies and allow the development of both adult use and
medical marijuana programs. Most of these laws were decided by
ballot initiatives themselves.
The Federal Government should not interfere with these
programs and the will of the voters in each of these states.
The Department of Justice interference in state and tribal
legal marijuana is unpopular and it is a waste of limited
resources. U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said as much
last month in testifying before the Senate Appropriations
Committee, saying that the Department of Justice prosecution
against those using marijuana in compliance with state,
territory, or tribal laws is, quote, ``not an efficient use of
resources.''
At the same time, as you are undoubtedly aware, public
support for ending the prohibition of marijuana is at an all-
time high. Sixty nine percent of Americans favor, including a
strong 62 percent majority of Republicans.
Part of this played out in a recent election in your home
state, Mr. Chairman, of Pennsylvania, where it was a key issue
and a defining element for the overwhelmingly successful
candidate last night.
These protections for state and tribal programs have also
passed on the floor of the House twice, each time with strong
bipartisan majorities: 267-165 in 2019 and, in 2020, with 254
votes and only 163 opposed.
These provisions are critical, popular steps for supporting
the progress that states have taken to address the wrongs of
the failed and discriminatory War on Drugs. This is something
that is overwhelmingly supported by the public and supports the
federal system we have. The American people have been demanding
a change to our outdated cannabis laws for years and it is well
past time that Congress heed their calls and ensure the
protection of legal state, territory, and tribal cannabis
reforms. This is entirely consistent with House action, with
public support and common sense, and past practice in some of
these instances for the committee.
I deeply appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to make
this point to you and would welcome your support including this
in the base text. Thank you. And I will answer any follow-up
that you might want.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer, and we do have
your written testimony that will be entered into the record.
At this time, I will open the floor for questions for any
of the members of the subcommittee. If you have a question,
signify by raising your hand or doing the hand-raise icon.
Hearing no questions and seeing no hands raised, Mr.
Blumenauer, I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Aderholt, did I see you expressing interest in
questioning the witness?
Mr. Aderholt. No, I am good. I appreciate Congressman
Blumenauer's testimony and thanks for checking in.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Blumenauer. We
appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you for your courtesy and
consideration.
Mr. Cartwright. Yes, sir.
At this time, the chair is happy to see that Representative
Robin Kelly of the 2nd District of Illinois is with us. She is
the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S.
House, as well as a member of the Oversight Committee; and,
significantly, she is co-chair of the House Gun Violence
Prevention Task Force.
And, at this time, it is my pleasure to recognize
Representative Robin Kelly for 5 minutes.
----------
Wednesday, May 18, 2022.
HON. ROBIN KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
ranking member for holding this Member Day hearing today.
I would like to take this time to discuss my appropriations
funding request of $750 million for Community Based Gun
Violence Prevention.
The communities I represent on the south side of Chicago
and the south suburbs know gun violence all too well. Every
Monday morning the Chicago Sun Times wire reports the number of
gunshot victims from the weekend. This past weekend, 33 people
were shot in Chicago and five died, including a 16-year-old
young man. These killings don't usually make national news, but
weekends like this are far too common in the Chicagoland area.
Communities across the U.S. share this reality, especially
Black and Brown communities, which are disproportionately
affected by gun violence. The residents of these communities,
the victims, and their loved ones are forced to deal with the
traumatic aftermath of violence, and in many communities the
violence does not stop.
Community-based gun violence prevention programs, also
known as community violence intervention, or CVI, can be
implemented to effectively reduce violence through community-
based strategies. CVI programs focus on preventing crime and
shootings before they happen through establishing relationships
with those at highest risk for being victims and/or
perpetrators of violence, while connecting them to crucial
social and economic services to reduce the likelihood of gun
violence as an answer to conflict.
My funding request, supported by 119 members in the House,
requests $375 million for the Office of Justice Program's
Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative. This
funding will directly support community organizations that lead
collaborations between community leaders, social service
providers, law enforcement, and high-risk individuals to
interrupt violence and bring change to their communities.
The letter also requests $375 million for the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's Youth Violence Prevention
Program to create a new community violence intervention
initiative. This will allow the CDC to establish a grant
program to support public health-focused community
interventions such as hospital-based violence interruption
programs, which connect with survivors of violence in the
hospital.
The request also directs funding from other violence
prevention programs such as the Office for Victims of Crime or
the Community Health Service Block Grant to go toward reducing
gun violence and helping gun violence victims.
The elevated and sustained rates of gun violence incidents
in this country, such as the ones we witnessed--saw this past
weekend, will have long-lasting effects on community's mental,
physical, and social health. This funding is imperative and
will go to programs that have been shown to be effective.
A study from the journal of trauma and acute care surgery
show that CBI programs can reduce homicides by 60 percent in
communities where they are implemented. One program operated by
Cure Violence showed more than 63 percent reduction in
shootings in the South Bronx communities that Cure Violence
operated in and a 100 percent reduction in 5 of the 8 Chicago
communities they worked in.
This 750 million in funding is an essential step in ending
gun violence in the United States and in my district. I
respectfully ask that the committee appropriate this funding
for community-based gun violence prevention programs in fiscal
year 2023.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, ranking member.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Okay, Representative Kelly. And again, I am
going to open it up to the members of the subcommittee. If any
of you have questions for our witness.
Seeing and hearing no questions, Representative Kelly, we
thank you for your testimony. Be assured that your written
testimony will be entered into the record, and thank you for
joining us today.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Now, we do have a third witness slated for
this afternoon and it is Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, who has
not come on the line yet. She may be in a committee hearing at
this point. We will give her a moment to get on if she is
trying to get on.
All right. As we wait for Representative Garcia, if there
are folks from her office listening in, we do intend to include
her entire submitted written testimony for the record, and I
have that.
Mr. Cartwright. We will hold the record open for another 2
minutes, and let her know.
Mr. Cartwright. While we wait, Robert and Ben, I wanted to
mention I led a congressional delegation bus trip over to
Arlington National Cemetery this morning to lay a wreath for
Memorial Day since this is the last week we will be in before
Memorial Day. The weather was majestic.
And we went to the burial site of General John Pershing,
and I learned his nickname was Black Jack Pershing, and I
couldn't think of why. And I looked it up. It took me a while
to figure it out. In the 1890s, he trained and led Black
troops, commonly known as buffalo soldiers, on the northwest
frontier, which I found interesting because my own father
volunteered for Army duty in World War II, and that was before
the desegregation of the Armed Services by Harry Truman. And my
father led Black troops in World War II himself. Always
treasured that experience.
And it was General Pershing who realized the valor, the
courage, the bravery of the Black troops that he commanded in
the 1890s as a second lieutenant, and he remembered that. So
that when he led the American expeditionary force in France, he
insisted that troops of African descent from the American
forces be integrated into the French lines, and he did that.
Mr. Aderholt. Well, this must have been a beautiful day to
be out there.
Mr. Cartwright. It really was. And we will do that next
year too. I hope you know you are invited.
We have our witness who has come hustling over from another
hearing, and I am happy to welcome our colleague, Congresswoman
Sylvia Garcia from the 29th district of Texas, a member of the
financial services committee, and also the House Committee on
the Judiciary. Representative Sylvia Garcia, you are most
welcome at this Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee of
Appropriations, and we are happy to recognize you for 5 minutes
of testimony. You are recognized.
----------
Wednesday, May 18, 2022.
HON. SYLVIA GARCIA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TEXAS
Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do apologize. We
were having a long hearing in judiciary. There was a little
shuffling around there because some folks who needed to get to
a press conference. But I also want to apologize, for some
reason, the photo is reversed on the screen today. And I know
that it doesn't appear that I am following flag protocol, but
the flag is really on my right side and not on the left. But I
know that--I am always really concerned about that. My brother
is a stickler for all of that, and gets really upset when
people don't have the flags in the right place.
But I do want to say that, yes, I am from Texas. I am not
just from Houston, but in fact, there are other cities that I
represent in that south Houston, Pasadena. There is a Pasadena
in Texas, Jacinto City, and Galena Park.
First, I am here to speak in support of one my committee
project requests, a project on behalf of Houston Independent
School District. This nearly $2 million project will strengthen
the Houston community pipeline of students who are engaged in
planetary sciences that leverage NASA, Johnson Space Center,
the Lunar Planetary Institute, and the Museum of Natural
Science, and Rice University.
These community institutions will partner with Houston ISD
to allow kindergarten through twelfth grade students the
opportunity to learn more about careers in STEM and space from
current undergraduate and graduate students. Graduate and
undergraduate students will be trained on effective
communication strategies and teach pedagogies to prepare them
to bring current research and hands-on activities into HSC's
classrooms.
I would greatly appreciate the committee's consideration of
this community project, as we seek to get more young talent,
and in particular young Latinos, on track for careers in space
and STEM. Additionally, I want to flag for the committee a
general programmatic request that I co-led with my colleague,
Representative Scott Peters, requesting $65 million in funding
for the NASA space grant program.
Space grant is a competitive state/federal partnership that
functions through consortia in all 50 states, Puerto Rico,
Guam, and the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. The
program enables students to engage in outreach activities and
research projects that prepare them for STEM careers. The Texas
Space Grant Consortium is part of NASA's national space grant
college and fellowship program. In my district, I have five
community colleges, represented on campuses from three
different school systems. And each of those systems are
partners with NASA's space grant program.
In Texas, this program has--awarded more than $2 million to
more than 1,000 students for undergraduate STEM scholarships,
STEM educator scholarships, and graduate fellowships.
So this program is incredibly important in developing the
next generation of STEM researchers and leaders in Texas. I
appreciate your consideration on both of these requests, and I
am happy to answer any questions that you may have. And again,
thank you all, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and all the
members for giving us this member day to talk about some of the
priorities and concerns for this next budget cycle.
Thank you. And with that, I yield back.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Representative Garcia. And we do
have your written testimony and request for community project
funding for the Houston Independent School District, as well as
the regular programmatic request for the NASA space grant
program.
We have accepted your written testimony, and it will be
entered into the record in its entirety.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. And at this time, I will open it up to the
subcommittee to see if there are any questions for you.
Seeing and hearing no obvious questions from our
subcommittee members, I think you have escaped without
interrogation. And, Representative----
Ms. Garcia. I thought Mr. Cline would do it since he is a--
we were on a committee together, and I know he is a lawyer. I
was expecting a cross-examination.
Mr. Cline. I missed judiciary, Sylvia, but appropriations
committee has taught me to be more gentle. And so it is good to
see you, though.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. Yes, Representative Garcia, the
intervention on behalf of Mr. Cline is going well. And it is a
well-reputed finishing school we have sent him to.
But I thank you for the temerity to invite his cross-
examination. Again, we thank you for your remarks, and thank
you for your testimony. And we are happy to excuse you. And
seeing that there are no other witnesses, if there is nothing
else for the good of the order, members of the subcommittee, I
hereby declare this member hearing day adjourned.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you all.
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
_______________________________________________________________________
[No Public Hearing Was Held for Outside Witnesses. Statements are
Provided for the Record:]
=======================================================================
_______________________________________________________________________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
_______________________________________________________________________
[No Public Hearing Was Held for Outside Witnesses. Statements are
Provided for the Record:]
=======================================================================
_______________________________________________________________________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg48781_chrg-117hhrg48781.htm
- Size
- 369,692 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1adbd1663687750671492f5141dc35774d8852d0ba1ac78b5364ed7802f49c55
- Original
- No public link identified.