Senator moran the committee will reconvene, i recognize the senator from alaska. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for all that you d do. I want to give a special thanks for the shoreline mapping that we are seeing coming out of the department. Senator mruczkowski your support for this mapping on the senator murkowski your support for this mapping is wonderful. I want to thank you for the departments recent work on the disaster funds for the two fisheries disasters we have een. Its important and 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 to disappoint you today. I look through my seven priorities here for the department of commerce, six of those relate to fisheries or to our oceans. So 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. We have 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 tradeoff, effectively, that jeopardizes the core mission of managing our fisheries and supporting our u. S. Seafood producers. O question for you about the surveys and how noaa plans to accurately survey and i guess more broadly why the agency isnt requesting the funds that it needs for such a key part of its mission. If you dont have accurate surveys, you dont have sustainably managed fisheries. Mr. Ross we certainly agree that we need accurate surveys in order to have accurate regulations of the fisheries. I think you are aware that, for example, in terms of the pacific salmon treaty agreement, quite a few very specific items that we ave requested funding for. Those include 10 million in base grants for fishery sampling and monitoring, for spawning estimates, and for assessing fishery exploitation rates. 2 million in grants to states and tribes in order to support the coated wire tag program which provides some essential information on harvest rates for chinook and coho stocks managed under the treaty. Another 2 million for conservation puget sound critical stocks to preserve atrisk pew gent sound chinook stocks through the state and tribal hatchery conservation. Another 2 million for the conservation of puget sound critical stocks to preserve atrisk puget sound stocks through the ongoing implementation of the program. Senator murkowski if i can stop you there, we have seen what will be required under this treaty and it is substantial. It is it is significant. The request ely, underfunds. Now last year, there was an issue 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 it is far less than is needed for implementation of the pacific salmon treaty. It seems to me we got an issue here where we need to ensure that noaa is prioritizing the funding when because the federal government agreed to the obligations included in the treaty agreement. If we dont put the funding to allow for the full implementation, effectively what we end up doing is shirking our diplomatic responsibility to support this bilateral treaty we have entered into with canada. Dont ar is that if we have that 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 again, work with us not only on the pacific salmon treaty but the imperative for the fisheries surveys outside of what were talking about with pacific salmon treaty because that is completely another issue. You will hear me continue to enforce and reenforce the strength of our sustainably managed fisheries but we are so reliant on noaa, we are so reliant on making sure that we have accurate data. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My time has expired. Senator moran thank you. Senator van hollen. Senator van hollen thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Secretary. One of the benefits of going last, i get to check off the questions my colleagues haden a bipartisan basis. I share the concerns expressed about some cuts in the noaa budget with respect to the e. T. A. E. D. A. I strongly share the views of my colleagues, senator shaheen mentioned your own tweet in support of it, i pointed out before that the president s daughter, ivanka trump, appeared in baltimore a number of years ago to celebrate a successful e. D. A. Project. So there is this disconnect between the positive statements made by the administration for e. D. A. And the budget but i think were going to address hat on 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 cutting edge in key competitive technologies. 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 oh, including quantum computing. So the good news i see in this budget is youve increased the funding for a. I. Mr. Ross yes, sir. Mr. Van drew congress on a bipartisan mr. Van hollen congress on a bipartisan basis doubled 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 to work with you and the committee to get that investment in quantum computing at nist up to the authorized level going forward. On another part of your jurisdiction, i think youve inappropriately 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. In 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 moves to limit chinas access to chip technology. Subheading, Trump Administration targets huawei with proposed changes to restrict use of american chip making equipment, specifically 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 department of commerces penalties. I know youve thought of changing the rule so that its not a 25 u. S. Content based but 10 content based. So im support the direction your department seems to be taking. It seems other parts of the administration are rowing in a different direction. Could you bring us up to date on that . Mr. Ross well, theres always, on almost any trade issue, theres a lively interchange within people in the administration. I think thats good, not bad, because at the end of the day, its the president who sets policy and its important for him to hear all sides of it. As 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. And 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, please close to all this business. Mr. Van hollen just on that, it actually gave you credit for pushing forward on this issue. Whether you want it or not. Mr. Ross i am pushing forward. Mr. Van hollen im hoping youre winning this debate in the administration. But let me just say in terms of our Overall National strategy and winning the debate on huawei, i was at the munich conference this year. Senator shaheen was there. Actually, didnt make it this year. But just in terms of our overall strategy and the chairman mentioned section 232 earlier. A lot of us on this committee and in the senate have concerns with the way 232 has been applied. N terms of claims that these measures are taken for National Security reasons when a lot of us are scrept cal. But heres my overall point 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. I just think we would be much better off 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 provide a united front across the array of issues with our european partners. Mr. Ross i believe, sir, that even allies have to obey the rules. And if people disobey the rules, we intend to enforce against them. Mr. Van hollen youre not going to get a dispute there. But i would argue strongly, and i think on a bipartisan basis, theres a strong argument that the use of section 232, the way been been using it, has if maybe in a very legalistic sense, ok, it certainly was not the intent a lot of us expected with respect to use of National Security powers by the president on trade issues. Mr. Ross two things, senator. One, i believe that the 232, the presence of the steel and aluminum tariffs and the threat of automotive tariffs helped in the negotiations with china. I believe for sure they helped in the negotiations with japan. I believe they helped in the negotiations with usmca. So i would hope that you would 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 haul. Mr. Van hollen if i may, mr. Chairman, just for a second. Look, i think it is in a greater haul but 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 i would say one of the most important fronts, with respect to huawei and this kind of critical technology, if were olding a threat of section 232 , our auto tariffs over their head, its harder to get their cooperation. Anyway, i look forward to continuing the conversation with you, mr. Secretary. Mr. Ross frankly, i think weve had better cooperation with them on trade issues in general since we began the 232s than we did before. For the first time ever, on three separate occasions, e. U. Has joined with japan and u. S. In written attacks on the intellectual property policies of china. They never did that before. Mr. Van hollen are you satisfied with the u. K. s position on huawei . Mr. Ross no. I think its a mistake. Mr. Van hollen how about germany . A little better but still a mistake . Mr. Ross im not a tech nolings, but the Technology Experts tell me that 5g is not something that you can so readily separate core from periphery. 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. Mr. Van hollen we agree on that. I just want to make sure were all aligned in terms of the strategy. Thank you. Mr. Moran thank you, senator. Mr. Secretary, were going to have another round of questions but the good news is that theres a vote scheduled in 15, 16 minutes. So mr. Ross ill speak fast. Mr. Moran there is a finite time in which this hearing will come to a conclusion. Im going to try to get two questions in, in my five minutes. And the first one is just a followup on what auto ive already asked you. We talked about section 232, ex clues process. I indicated that exclusion process. I indicated that my calculations, my staffs calculations are that were going to spend roughly 18. 5 million in that process in f. Y. 2021. 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. Mr. Ross we believe it is, sir. Mr. Moran thank you of the i also want to talk about a priority, you visited with me personally on the phone about this a year aveplgt ive had conversations with general raymond at Space Command regarding this issue. Your departments f. Y. 2021 budget this years budget, again proposes to combine two offices 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 legislation pending in authorizing committees that would change and, ult matly among other things, create a bureau of space commerce. There were a few steps i was thinking and i still believe need to take place before this decision is made. 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 . Mr. Ross the reason is to elevate it and to send both an internal and an external message that it is an increasingly important and, frankly, increasingly urgent need. You may be aware that within the last 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 better Space Situational Awareness and space traffic management. Thats the fundamental activity that space director three added to what wed had. In addition, elevating it to the secretarial level facilitates cooperation between the office of space, commerce and nist. Nist, 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 an you are in you are its an urgent need, its an important need 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 you. Let me ask you about the money. Youre asking for 15 million which is 11 million above that that was enacted. Mr. Moran what ive also been trying to determine is, what it costs d. O. D. 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, we theed to know what the amount is. We cant get an answer yet as to what it costs d. O. D. To perform the functions that would then be performed in your office. Mr. Ross right. I think, sir, the purpose of the transfer, and i assume the gentleman expressed his support for our Department Taking it over. Weve already had a fellow at it, vandenberg, for quite a few months, trying to get arms around it. And i spent time at vandenberg myself. So i think youll find that general raymond, general whiting all are supportive 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. Mr. Moran would you ask i dont disagree with what you just said. But would you ask yourself to staff to help us, my staff, get information from d. O. D. As to what it costs today to perform the functions . Mr. Ross i dont know whether d. O. D. Has kept separate figures. But the main purpose is 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 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. Mr. Moran 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. Mr. Ross i will certainly try. I have no control over d. O. D. I would suggest maybe you fellas have better control than i do with the appropriation process. Mr. Moran thank you. Mrs. Shaheen thank you, mr. Secretary. My question is really about the census. But this exchange has raised an issue in my mind and that is, youre aware of, i know, we are generally discouraged from authorizing in Appropriations Bills and i understand there is a bill in the Commerce Committee that would address the transfer of this responsibility into the department of commerce. Can you give me give us an update on where that bill is and why were trying to authorize through the appropriations process this new entity. Mr. Ross im not quite sure i understood the question. What is the information youre seeking . Mrs. Shaheen 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 secretary, to do this responsibility. As you know, appropriators are generally discouraged from authorizing new language, new departments, new entities within Appropriations Bills. And so i wonder you dont need to do that now, but perhaps your office could get us an update on what the challenges are there and why that hasnt been done before were trying to provide the funding. Mr. Ross well be happy to do so. Mrs. Shaheen that would be great. Mr. Ross so we will come back to you, senator. Mrs. Shaheen thank you. I wanted to go back to the census. Because i know that a number of my colleagues on the committee have expressed a great deal of interest. Its been a huge topic of public interest, sometimes of controversy over the last several years, as weve been gearing up to both provide the money and make sure that we have an accurate census. One of the concerns that has een raised has been around communities of color. Also around confusion with respect to the census. I know senator reid talked about the issue with the Providence County and people being a little confused. One of the things that i would hope we would all try and do is to do everything we can to reduce confusion around the census. Thats why i wanted to show you this blowup of something. This has been in the news recently about misinformation that seems to be deliberate to try and confuse people about the census. As you can see, this is labeled as an official document. It says its a 2020 Congressional District census. It says that the envelopes are labeled do not destroy, official documents. Its actually something thats being put out by the republican party, the Republican National committee. If you go down and read the fine print, it does say that. But i guess my concern is that this seems deliberately designed to confuse people about the census. Weve seen some ads, some online ads from the president Trumps Campaign that also seem to be designed to try and confuse people around the census. So i would ask, are there efforts that you see under way within the department or within the Census Bureau to try and respond to this kind of misinformation . Is this something that you are willing to speak out about, that this is not helpful as were trying to get an accurate census count . Mr. Ross im relieved to be confirmed that thats not a census document. It didnt look like one to me. Mrs. Shaheen but to the unknowing and uneducated citizen who is not as familiar with the census as you are, they dont know the difference between this document and what comes out officially from the census. Mr. Ross that could be. Ive asked the career staff at census to look into this and see what appropriate action, if any, we should be taking to deal with it. Mrs. Shaheen thank you. Will you report back to this committee and do you have a timeline for when you might be able to get that done . Mr. Ross sure. As soon as they give me a response, i will give you. As you know, the first mailings will be received on the 12th of march. And there will be an accelerated schedule as we go on out into the summer. So the other thing weve done is weve created a rumor page on our website to try to deal with things. We also have made arrangements with the big Internet Service providers. Weve made arrangements with facebook, with google, with twitter, with all of them. Theyre being reasonably cooperative with trying to help us deal with the problem. But having said that, we are in a world where, as i understand it, the experts feel that globally Something Like 15 of all the social media users are bots. Thats a big problem. Mrs. Shaheen it is a very big problem. I dont think any of us should buy into the fact that thats ok. [talking simultaneously] mr. Ross i do not. But the reason i cite the statistic, it illustrates the magnitude of the problem. Mrs. Shaheen lootly. But on Something Like this, i think your voice would resonate very loud and clear with groups that might be doing using the census for political purposes. Both to confuse and to try and affect the outcome. So i hope you will mr. Ross as i said, ive asked the career staff at census to tell me what there is that we can do and what do they recommend. Well see what they come up with. And we will report back. Mrs. Shaheen thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Moran senator murkowski. Ms. Murkowski thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to continue on with the census question. Move off fish for a movement as you know, the census has started in alaska, out in a community somewhere between 600, 700 people. The director was there to kick it off. I think the team learned a little bit of the challenge of conducting a census in places that are not connected by roads and when youre weathered down and you end up sleeping in the school, sometimes getting those census workers to come out in these areas has been a challenge. Were hopefully working through. That the question i want to raise with you this morning is the implementation of this new privacy system known as this differential privacy. Its going to be starting for the first time with this census. We know that the intention here is to balance the data accuracy with data privacy. But what weve learned is that theres some concern that when you have small populations, and specifically with groups like American Indians or alaska natives, you could be in a situation where in order to provide for that level of privacy needed, you could end up with an undercount. And its estimated right now, they did a recent analysis of certain alaska native villages, they found that by apleaing differential privacy could result in a nearly 30 undercount of alaska native people in this 2020 census. , s is a real concern for us as it has the potential to greatly undercut and erode a tribes funning. I know the bureau is a funding. I know the bureau is aware of this but i would like to ask about the progress in development of privacy systems that meet the users needs as well as protecting confidentiality. And whether or not you have enough time to develop and implement a privacy system that will in fact not undercut the count, given the fact that the census has already started. Mr. Ross right. Well, that is certainly our objective. Weve heard from many stakeholders on the impact of it, particularly in smaller communities. Number one. Number two, the Census Department has a team that is actively modifying procedures and incorporating the feedback. We have not gelled on exact formulas yet. Its a very complicated algorithm thats needed because you want to introduce enough static or enough, if you will, noise into the process to protect privacy and yet not result in the undercount. I dont know where that 30 figure came from. Thats not something ive heard. Ms. Murkowski its the algorithm that is being used or was initially being used. Mr. Ross the algorithm is a work in progress. I dont believe that they have finalized it. Because weve been actively modifying things. We had formal consultation in alaska with the alaska native leaders on this very topic. We take very seriously the legal and professional obligations to safeguard the information that we gather from the public. And thats why were doing the deferential privacy. We think the Gold Standard for Privacy Protection in all of Computer Science and cryptography. So were working very hard. Remember, we are sworn by law to protect personal information. So we cannot sacrifice that at all. Ms. Murkowski we understand that there is a balance. We want to make sure that we get there, knowing that you are on this working with us is important. So well keep in touch as we move forward with that. I want to end my comments going back to things that swim in the water. This time just a little bit bigger. Id like to talk about the humpback whales. Noaa has recently proposed a esignation of critical habitat. 175,000plus square nautical miles as critical habitat for three distinct populations of humpback whats. The majority of this area whales. The majority of this area, over 120,000 square nautical miles, is off the coast of alaska. This designation has the potential to impact our fisheries, our tourism, our shore site infrastructure in a very significant way. Noaa, unfortunately, did not estimate any potential costs of the designation other than the directed a misk costs of future e. S. A. Consultations. They basically said that other regulatory costs were just going going to be too difficult to predict. On top of that, they failed to engage the state as they went into this designation process. They denied written requests from the Alaska Department of fish and game to be engaged or to n the rulemaking conduct interagency review. That would have helped to resolve issues with both the biological and the economic conclusions in the rules. So right now there is incredible consternation in our coastal communities in southeastern waters. Southeast has been dess southeastern waters have been designated as critical habitat for the mexican humpback whale, the mexican humpback whales do not come to the southeastern waters. In the kodiak area, in the gulf, these communities have already been devastated by the listing of a sea lion. So its important that noaa take into account the comments that have been submitted by the coastal communities, by the stakeholders, specifically the requests for improved Economic Analysis and an exclusion of the Southeast Alaska area from the proposed designation. So im just asking im asking for your commitment to work with us, look critically at this. Your administration, the Trump Administration has been so good in looking to provide those opportunities for economic activity. If youre a Coastal Community in alaska, and your entire region is shut down by a designation that has not been thoroughly thought through or really based on that sound data, that really impacts those economies. So id ask for your help on that. Mr. Ross well, thank you, senator, for raising this concern. Ill be happy to look into this matter further and follow up with you. Ms. Murkowski i know that the state is hoping that the request will be honored from the state to be engaged early in the process, to allow the partner reviews and really to be given the same opportunity for collaboration as other impacted states. Mr. Ross thank you for raising the concern. Ms. Murkowski thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Moran mr. Secretary, were just about done. Only thing that stands between me and pounding the gavel is i have one more thought and question. E. D. A. s strategy program. In the e. D. A. Administers a program called the Regional InnovationStrategies Program or r. I. S. , r. I. S. In f. Y. Twenlt this subcommittee and the full committee and the congress included a 33 million amount for r. I. S. With the intent of using that to further support the two existing programs, one thats called i6 challenge and the other thats called seed fund program. Earlier this year, and without consulting with congress, perhaps more concerning is without consulting any stakeholders, e. D. A. Announced that it was establishing a third r. I. S. Program called the industry challenge. This program may be well intentioned, but i would think that it would be appropriate for e. D. A. To consult with this committee and consult with stakeholders and i would ask you if you agree with that, although i assume your answer boo need to be yes would need to be yes. Mr. Ross your asy your assumption is correct. Mr. Moran thank you, sir. The competition is being labeled blue economy. And while i sit here next to senator shaheen, who and senator murkowski, who just left, we have no coastlines in kansas. I want to make certain that this program that we thought was going to enhance existing programs, this new program, does not disadvantage landlock states like my own and many others and i would ask you to help me assure that to be assured that thats the case. Mr. Ross i will work with staff and follow up with you, chairman. Mr. Moran thank you, mr. Secretary. Let me bring this hearing to a conclusion. There are no further questions. Weve run out of time. Senators may, however, submit additional written questions for the official hearing record. We would request the department respond within 30 days and the hearing now thank you. Here is a look at the primetime schedule. 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan, the house subcommittee meets to examine the military Coronavirus Response and other Health Related issues. 9 00 eastern on cspan two, more about the coronavirus and interagency coordination to stop the virus from spreading. At 8 00 p. M. On cspan3, a review of the pentagons policies with the vetting of International Military students. Cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Morning, friday discussing u. S. Response to the coronavirus with dr. Christopher morris, a professor at Gw University and edmon from the National Association of county and city health officials. Watch washington journal live at 7 00 eastern friday mornings. Join the discussion. Federal Coronavirus Response came up today at the speakers weekly briefing. Congresswoman nancy pelosi highlighted the house vote to spend about 8 billion on the response. She also addressed massachusetts democratic senator elizabeth warrens decision to drop her president ial bid