[inaudible conversations] well reconvene, and i now recognize the senator from alaska. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thank you for all that you do. I want to give a special thanks for the shoreline mapping that we are seeing coming out of the department. Your support for this mapping on the shoreline and near shore is appreciated. We recognize the value of the president s memorandum on mapping. I also want to thank you for the departments recent work on the disaster funds for the two fisheries disasters that we have seen. It is important to us, and as you know, there is more in that pipeline. When we first met some years back, i promised you that you were going to think of fishing when you visited with me, and im not going i to disappoint yu today [laughter] as i look through my seven priorities here for the department of commerce, six of those relate to fisheries or to our ocean. So let me, let me begin with funding for fisheries surveys. You know the significance of the fisheries in my state. We rely on annual surveys conducted by regional Science Centers to determine sustainable harvest levels. Weve heard continued concerns that surveys are at risk due to budget pressures. My concern has always been that noaa shouldnt be put in a situation where theyve got to choose between personnel and survey funding. Noaa shouldnt have to make the tradeoffs, effectively, that jeopardize the core mission of managing our fisheries and supporting our u. S. Seafood producers. So question for you about the surveys and how noaa plans to accurately survey, and i guess more broadly why, why the agency isnt requesting the funds that it needs for such a key part of its mission. Because if you dont is have accurate surveys, you dont have sustainablymanaged fisheries. Well, we certainly agree that we need accurate surveys in order to have accurate regulation of the fisheries. I think you are aware that, for example, in terms of the pacific salmon treaty agreement, there are quite a few very specific items that we have requested funding for. Those include 10 million in base grants for fishery sampling and monitoring, for spawning estimates and for assessing fishery exploitation rates. Two million in grants to the states and tribes in order to support the coded wire tag program which provides some essential information on harvest rates for chinook and stocks managed under the treaty. Another two million for conservation puget sound criticalal stocks to preserve atrisk puget sound chinook stocks through the ongoing implementation of state and tribal hatchery conservation. Another two million for the conservation of puget sound critical stocks to preserve atrisk puget sound chinook stocks through the ongoing implementation of the program. Mr. Secretary, if i can stop you there because we, we have seen what will be required under thiswi treaty, and it is substantial. It is, it is significant. And unfortunately, the request underfunds. Now, last year there was an issuehe because we didnt have a clear picture of what would actually be needed to support the treaty agreement, and now that we have a more clear picture, were still seeing that e,it is far less than is needed for implementation of the pacific salmon treaty. So it seems to me weve got an issue here where we need to insure that noaa is prioritizing the funding when because the federal government agrees to the obligations included in the treaty agreement. So if we dont put the fund dog allow for the full implementation, effectivelyve wt we end up doing is shirking our diplomatic responsibility to support this bilateral treaty that weve entered into with canada. So my if fear is that my fear is that if we dont have that add a adequate support on the federal side, you have states that are effectively expected to implement this federal treaty without the funding. And alaska has seen this situation before. So i just, i ask you and your team to look critically at the treaty, the requirements, what we know to fulfill that. And, engen, work with us and again, work with us not only on a the pacific salmon treaty, but the um pertive for the fisheries imperative for the fisheries surveys outside of what were talking about with pacific salmon treaty, because that is completely another issue. Is so you will hear me continue to enforce and reinforce the strength of our sustainablymanaged fisheries, but we are so reliant on noaa, were so reliant on making sure that we have accurate data. Thank you, mr. Chairman, my times has expired. Thank you, senator. Senator van hollen. Thanknk you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, mr. Secretary. One of the benefits of going last is i get to check off a lot of the questions i had as my colleagues have asked them on a bipartisan basis, although i do want to underscore a couple points theyve made. I share some of the concerns express about the cuts in the noaa budget. With respectt to eda, i strongly share the views of my colleagues, senator shaheen mentioned your own tweet in supportt of it. I have pointed out before that thes president s daughter, ivaa trump, appeared in baltimore a number y of years ago to celebre a successful eda project. So there is this disconnect between the positive statements made byve the administration for eda and the budget. But i think were going to address that onut a bipartisan basis. I also want to express my concerns about the 76 cut in the Minority Business Development agency. Now on to some areas of agreement. I know we share an interest in making sure the United States remains at the cutting edge in key competitive technologies. And i think we share a concern that if we dont have a plan and a strategy, we will fall behind. After all, china has its 2025 plan, and they say they want to dominate in certain Technology Areas including artificial intelligence, many others including quantum computing. So the good news i see in this budget isee youve increased the funding for a. I yes, sir. When it comes to quantum computing in the nist budget, its flat hughed. I know the administrations increased it this some other areas, but congress on a bipartisan basis doubled the authorization for gone tunnel compute quantum commuting and did it very deliberately because we think this needs to be something where we increase our investments across the board. So id like to work with you and the committee to get that investment up to the authorized level going forward. On another part of your jurisdiction can, i think youve been appropriately aggressive in terms of trying to prevent Chinese Companies from taking advantage of Technology Theft over the years and taking advantage of unfair trade practices. Inpr fact, i think youve been appropriately aggressive and sometimes other parts of the administration have actually, you know, reined in the department of commerces recommendations. On that score, could you update me on the wall street journal article from a few weeks ago saying u. S. Weighs new move to limit chinas access to chip technology, subheading Trump Administration targets huawei with proposed changes, specificallyme semiconductors. And on a related matter, a number of u. S. Companies have been or other and other companies have been finding ways to sell equipment to huawei without running afoul of the d. Of commerces penalties. And i know you thought of changing the rule so that its 25 u. S. Contentbased, but 10 contentbased. So im concerned i support the direction your department seems to be taking. Out seems other parts of the administration are rowing in a different direction. Could you bring us uptodate on that . Well, theres always on almost any trade issue, theres a lively interchange within people in the administration. I think thats good and not bad because at the end of the day, its the president who sets policy, and its important for hum to hear all sides of him to hear all sides of it. To huawei itself, i think its quite clear my view that they do pose genuine security threats both to us and to any other country that uses them. Andm. So i intend to continue to try to implement those views. As to the wall street journal article, if i recall it correctly, it was the usual stuff of unidentified sources, people close to, all this business. I, mr. Secretary, just on that, it actually gave you credit for pushing forward on this issue whether you want it or not well, i am pushing forward. So im hoping youre winning this debate inte the administration. [laughter] but let me just say in terms of our Overall National strategy in winning the debate on huawei, i was at the munich conference this year, senator shaheen was there but just in terms of our overall strategy, and the chairman mentioned section 232 earlier. Right. Asrl you know, a lot of us on this committee and in the senate have concerns with the way 232 has been applied, okay . In terms of, you know, claims that these measures are taken for National Security reasons when a lot of us are skeptical. But heres my overall point. When you go to munich conference and we as a country are trying to get germany and the u. K. And others to support us with our strategy with respect to huawei and others, its a lot harder to get their cooperation on those issues when were threatening to beat them with a stick with section 232 on the other. And i just think we would be much better offe and more successful in keeping our eye on the main goal here which is making sure that we dont get ripped off by chinas unfair trade practices and Technology Theft in this area if we were to to provide a united front on, across the awe ray of issues with our european partners. Well, i believe, sir, that even allies have to obey the rules. And if people disobey the rules, we intend to enforce against them. Youre not going to get a dispute there, but i would are strongly, and i think on a bipartisan basises theres a strong a argument that the use f section 232, the way weve been using it, has been if maybe, you know, in a very legalistic sense, okay, it certainly was not the intent a lot of us expected with respect to use of National Security powers by the president on ue well, two things, senator. One, i believe that the 232, the presence of the steel and aluminum tariffs and the threat of automotive tariffs help in the negotiations with china. I believeve for sure they help n the negotiations with japan. I believe they helped in the negotiations with usmca. So i would hope that all look at the end result of the whole package of trade activities that were doing rather than isolate one portion of them. I think its an integrated whole. If i may, mr. Chairman, just look, i think it is an integrated whole, but it seems to me in order to be successful, we need partners. And i just can tell you youve heard this when our european allies say that we ask for cooperation on one front and a very, i wouldan say, one of the most important fronts with respect to huawei and this kind of critical technology, if were holding the threat of section 232 or auto tariffs over their head, it is o harder to get ther cooperation. Anyway, i look forward to continuing the conversation, mr. Secretary. Sure. Well, frankly, i think weve had better cooperation with them on trade issues in general since we began the 232 than we did before. For the firstef time ever, on three separate occasions, e. U. Joined with japan and u. S. In written attacks on the intellectual property policies of china. They never did that before. So are you satisfied with the u. K. s position on huawei . No. I think its a mistake. How about germanys . A little better but still a mistake . Im not a technologist, but the Technology Experts tell me that 5g is not something that you can so readily separate core from periphery. And i also think that the danger in case theyre wrong in their theory that they can mitigate the danger of shutting down your entire economy, shutting down your entire government is a risk thats not worth taking. And we agree on on that. I just wanted to make sure were all in alignment in terms of the strategy. Thank you. Youre welcome. Mr. Secretary, were goingve to round of questions, but the good news is theres a vote scheduled in 15, 16 minutes. Ill speak fast. So there is a finite time in which thisa hearing will come o conclusion. Im going to try to get two questions in in my five minutes, and the first is to follow up, we talked about 232 exclusion process. I indicated that calculations, my staffs calculations are that were going to spend roughly 18. 5 million in that process in fy21, and i wanted you to tell me, to confirm if you would that that is a sufficient amount to execute the policy under section 232 exclusion. We believe it is, sir. Thank you. I also want to talk about a priority you visited with me personally on the phone about this a year ago. That conversation was general raymond at Space Command regarding this issue. Your departments fy212 budget, this years budget, again proposes to combine two offices or that are currently a part of noaa and establish an office of space commerce under the secretary within your office. We rejected that last year not because im not sympathetic, but we think some steps need to be taken, and theres some legislations pending in authorizing committees that thwould change and ultimately, among other things, create a bureau of space commerce. So theres a few steps that i was thinking i still believe need to take place before this decision is made. But one of the issues i have is im not certain, i dont understand why this new combined entity while it seemingly has value to me, why does it need to be in the office of the secretary is . The reason is to elevate it and to send both an internal and an external message that it is an increasingly important and, frankly are, increasingly urgent need. You may be a aware that within the few weeks there have been two very, very near misses of satellites. One got within a couple hundred feet of a collision. Theres a desperate need for betterd Space Situational Awareness and space Traffic Management. Thats the fundamental activity that space directive three added to what we had. In addition to elevating it to the secretarial level facilitates cooperation between the office of space commerce and nist. Nist the, as you know, has an Important Mission of standards. And especially standards involving international cooperation. There is no ability to regulate space Traffic Management because its an international thing. I believe elevating the office will make it much easier for us to get the cooperation of the European Space agency of the australian, of the japanese and all the others because we need their cooperation. And eventually we need standards, hopefully very quickly, so that everybody can understand rules of the road that have been agreed. Its the an urgent need, its an important need,ne and i hope we dont wait until two satellites collide and cause more space debris and more economic loss, which is what im worried if we keep postponing it we will. Thank thank you, mr. Secreta. Let me ask you about the money. Youre asking for a total of 15 million which is 11 million above that was enacted. What ive also been trying to determine is what it costs dod to perform their functions today in Space Situational Awareness, and maybe you can help me determine were trying to calculate how much money is being spent today, and if we move that amount of money to the department of commerce, transfer it, we need to know what the amount is. And we cant get an answer yet as to what it costs dod to perform the functions that wod then be performed in your office. Right. I think, sir, the purpose of the transfer and i assume that general raymond expressed to you his support for our Department Taking it over weve actually a fellow out at vandenberg for quite a few months trying to get arms around it, and ive spent time at vandenberg myself. So i think youll find that general raymond, general hayden and general whiting all are in support of what we are recommending. In addition, the National Space council is unanimously in support, so is their industry users group. Basically, the big operators. So in terms of people directly involved with this situation, there is no controversy. They all support what were trying to do. I dont disagree we what you said, but would you ask your staff to help us, my staff, get information from dod as to what it costs today to perform the functions . Yeah. I dont know whether dod has kept separate figures, but the main purpose is, frankly, not saving money as important as that is. The main purpose is improving the conditions under which information is communicated to the satellite industry. Commerce distributes 40 of all the factual information that is i mitted by the u. S. Government emitted by the u. S. Government. Were very good at communicating with the commercial sector, and so this is a safety issue more than it is a transfer of budget issue. That i fully understand as well. Im just trying to make sure we justify the amount of money that we appropriate based upon the facts. Yeah. I will certainly try. I, obviously, have no control over dod. I would suggest maybe you fellas have better control than i do with the appropriation process. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Senator shaheen. Well, thank you, mr. Secretary. My questions really about the census, but this exchange raised an issue in my mind, and that is youre aware, i know, we are generally discouraged from authorizing an appropriations bill. And ier understand that there ia bill in the Commerce Committee that would address the transfer of this responsibility into the department of commerce. Can you o give me, give us an update on where that bill is . And why were trying to authorize through the appropriations process this new entity . Im not quite sure i understood thete question. What is the information youre seeking . Where the bill is in the committee, the senate Commerce Committee with respect to this process, because what youre suggesting is that we set up a new bureau within the department of commerce, within the office of the is secretary to do this responsibility the office of the is secretary to do this responsibility. And as you know, appropriators are generally discouraged from authorizing new language, new departments, new entities within appropriations bills. And so i just i wonder, you dont need to do that now, but t perhaps your office could gets an update on what the challenges are there and why that hasnt been done before