    [Senate Hearing 119-218]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-218

                         NOMINATION OF STEVEN BRADBURY,
                        NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2025

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    62-167 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                           TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
    JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi                Ranking
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    TED BUDD, North Carolina             TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    JOHN CURTIS, Utah                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
    TIM SHEEHY, Montana                  JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming              LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
                     Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
               Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                         Liam McKenna, General Counsel
                       Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
                     Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
                         Jonathan Hale, General Counsel

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on February 20, 2025................................     1
    Statement of Senator Cruz........................................     1
        Letter dated February 12, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Chris Brown, Vice President of
          Government Affairs and Low Fare Airline Policy, National
          Air Carrier Association....................................    74
        Letter dated February 13, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Michael Robbins, President & CEO, AUVSI    75
        Letter dated February 13, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Ryan Streblow, President & CEO,
          National Tank Truck Carriers...............................    77
        Letter dated February 13, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Nicholas E. Calio, President and CEO,
          Airlines for America.......................................    78
        Letter dated February 13, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz from Kadir
          ``Kai'' Boysan, Chief Executive Officer, Flix North America
          Inc........................................................    80
        Letter dated February 13, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Ellen Voie, CAE, Founder, Women In
          Trucking Association, Inc..................................    81
        Letter dated February 14, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Chris Spear, President & CEO, American
          Trucking Associations......................................    82
        Letter dated February 14, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Jennifer A. Carpenter, President & CEO,
          The American Waterways Operators...........................    83
        Letter dated February 14, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from David Owen, President, National
          Association of Small Trucking Companies....................    84
        Letter dated February 14, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Kevan P. Stone, Executive Director &
          CEO, National Association of County Engineers..............    85
        Letter dated February 18, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Gary F. Petty, President and CEO,
          National Private Truck Council.............................    86
        Letter dated February 18, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Chris Burroughs, President & CEO,
          Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA)............    87
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Jeff Farrah, Chief Executive Officer,
          Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association....................    89
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from John Bozzella, President and CEO,
          Alliance for Automotive Innovation.........................    91
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Camille Fleenor, Vice President,
          Government Relations and Policy, Atlas Air.................    93
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz from Molly A.
          Wilkinson, Vice President, Regulatory and International
          Affairs, American Airlines.................................    94
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Jim Tymon, Executive Director, American
          Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials..    95
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Christa Lucas, Vice President,
          Governmental Affairs, Southwest Airlines...................    96
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Jeffrey D. Shoaf, Chief Executive
          Officer, Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)...    97
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Dave Cavossa, President, Commercial
          Space Federation...........................................    98
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz from Faye
          Malarkey Black, President & CEO, Regional Airline
          Association (RAA)..........................................    99
        Letter dated February 19, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon.
          Maria Cantwell from Steve Morrissey, Vice President,
          International Regulatory & Policy, United Airlines, Inc....   100
        Letter dated February 20, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz from Julie
          Landry, Vice President of Government Affairs, American
          Forest & Paper Association.................................   101
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     2
        Letter dated February 17, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz from Javier
          de Luis, PhD, Lecturer, Massachusetts Institute of
          Technology on behalf of: Catherine Berthet, Naoise
          Connolly, Nadia Milleron, Chris Moore, and Ike Riffel......     5
    Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    48
    Statement of Senator Blunt Rochester.............................    50
    Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    52
    Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    53
    Statement of Senator Schmitt.....................................    55
    Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................    57
    Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    59
    Statement of Senator Kim.........................................    60
    Statement of Senator Moreno......................................    62
    Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    64
    Statement of Senator Peters......................................    68
    Statement of Senator Markey......................................    70

                                   Witnesses

    Steven Bradbury, Nominee to be Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department
      of Transportation..............................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Biographical information.....................................    10

                                    Appendix

    Response to written questions submitted to Steven Bradbury by:
        Hon. Todd Young..............................................   105
        Hon. Ted Budd................................................   106
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   108
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   122
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   123
        Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................   125
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................   128
        Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester....................................   130

                         NOMINATION OF STEVEN BRADBURY,
                        NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Fischer, Moran,
    Blackburn, Schmitt, Moreno, Cantwell, Markey, Peters, Baldwin,
    Lujan, Hickenlooper, Kim, and Blunt Rochester.

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

        The Chairman. Good morning. The Senate Commerce Committee
    will come to order.
        We are here for the nomination of Steven Bradbury to be the
    Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation.
        If confirmed, Mr. Bradbury will serve as the department's
    second in command overseeing day-to-day operations and
    implementing critical safety policies for our Nation's
    transportation system.
        Mr. Bradbury is exceptionally well-qualified for this
    position. He served as General Counsel of the Department from
    2017 to 2021 and he served briefly as Acting Secretary of the
    Department.
        As DOT's Chief Legal Counsel, Mr. Bradbury supervised a
    team of over 500 attorneys and support staff. He oversaw
    rulemaking and enforcement as well as regulatory reforms,
    saving the department $98 billion. In 2020 Mr. Bradbury
    received the Secretary's Distinguished Service Award.
        Prior to the first Trump administration, Mr. Bradbury was a
    partner at major law firms here in Washington, D.C. He dealt
    with various transportation matters in private practice
    including a consequential airline merger and one of the largest
    automotive recalls in history.
        Mr. Bradbury also led the Office of Legal Counsel at the
    Department of Justice and he clerked at both the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.
        Simply put, his legal and policy credentials are of the
    highest caliber. But he is also suited for those aspects of the
    DOT role that cannot be captured in a resume--recognizing that
    lives are indirectly in your hands, listening to accident
    victims' families, and taking action to prevent future
    tragedies.
        More than many public servants, Mr. Bradbury has had to
    grapple with the fact that public policy has real-life
    consequences. He knows that with power comes responsibility.
        Mr. Bradbury will work closely with Secretary Duffy to help
    keep travelers safe and to responsibly invest in the Nation's
    infrastructure. I have made it clear that safety, particularly
    in the aviation sector, must be his foremost priority.
        To that end, Mr. Bradbury is ready to eliminate
    nonstatutory policy objectives that have been detracting from
    the department's core safety mission.
        I have also emphasized Congress' role in enhancing safety
    and the importance of complying with congressional oversight.
    Mr. Bradbury is prepared to be forthcoming with Congress in
    line with commitments Secretary Duffy made to this committee
    just a few weeks ago to turn over information we have
    requested.
        Finally, as I noted, Mr. Bradbury is a smart regulator. He
    has a track record of substantial cost savings at DOT and he
    will come onboard at a time when the administration and the
    American people are particularly focused on government
    efficiency.
        With Mr. Bradbury we get someone with the experience to
    drive intelligent change, the kind of change that improves
    outcomes while saving taxpayers money.
        I have received over 20 letters of support from Mr.
    Bradbury from major transportation groups representing sectors
    from aviation and trucking to ports and waterways.
        I, too, support his confirmation and I look forward to
    hearing more about his approach to the department.
        With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member for her
    opening remarks.

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

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bradbury, I appreciate you being here today and welcome
    to your family. I also would like to recognize and welcome two
    MAX family individuals that are here, Nadia Milleron and Konjit
    Baleker. Both of them have been so active in continuing the
    focus on safety and thank you for that advocacy.
        We are here right now because we need leadership at DOT
    that recognizes that safety is the top priority. There is no
    issue about saving dollars if you are not saving lives, and I
    think that what has been wrong at FAA and at DOT overall is
    that we have had too much of a light touch on these very
    important issues.
        So, Mr. Bradbury, I do have concerns about your record.
    During your time at DOJ you authored what is widely known as
    the torture memos justifying the use of waterboarding and other
    torture techniques.
        I am not going to go through the whole list of situations
    that arose from that, but alarming they found evidence that,
    quote, ``your legal analyses,'' quote, ``were written with the
    goal of allowing the ongoing CIA program to continue,'' end
    quote.
        These legal opinions were so contrary to what this country
    stood for that the Senate refused to confirm you as the
    Assistant Attorney General during the Bush administration, and
    Congress passed the McCain-Feingold-Feinstein amendment to the
    2016 NDAA codifying the illegality of the torture methods that
    you bent the law to justify.
        We cannot afford in the aviation sector someone who thinks
    that we can bend the law to an outcome. Your record of using
    the law selectively to predetermine the outcome raises
    questions about the time at DOT during the first Trump
    administration.
        You were, quote, ``responsible for overseeing the
    department's regulatory actions and implementing President
    Trump's regulatory reform agenda,'' end quote. In this role you
    orchestrated the rollback of multiple safety requirements under
    the guise of advancing a reform agenda.
        For example, just 9 days--nine days--after the first of the
    two fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes in 2018 your office sidelined
    a proposed safety management system rulemaking for aviation
    manufacturers like Boeing.
        I would say, Mr. Chairman, if somebody adds up all the
    costs that the MAX crashes have done to the aviation sector it
    is way more costly--way more costly than any efficiency that
    somebody has suggested.
        What that analysis did was the industry had agreed, the FAA
    had agreed, that we needed a mandatory safety management
    system. Why? Because that is the gold standard for aviation
    safety.
        Why was the rule sidelined? Well, according to a Bloomberg
    article titled, ``The Trump DOT blocked safety rule deemed
    critical in the 737 MAX probe,'' the counsel general--you used
    your general counsel position to shelve the draft rule.
        A former FAA official who chaired an industry committee on
    SMS, Tony Fazio, asserted that the Transportation Department
    under Mr. Bradbury's watch unleashed a restrictive policy that
    has run amok, undercutting FAA's workers to enhance the safety
    and sidelining the SMS rule.
        This is particularly alarming, given this committee's focus
    on safety and the fact that we passed an--a mandatory SMS rule.
        But after you sidelined the rule you next used the
    authority of the general counsel office to impede the
    Committee's investigation into the 737 MAX crashes.
        As you noted in your testimony today, the general counsel's
    office was involved in, ``the FAA's response to the 737 MAX
    disasters.''
        Well, your involvement, I would say, does'nt show for the
    better. According to the Committee's December 2020
    investigative report on the MAX crashes your office,
    ``intentionally withheld relevant information requested by the
    Committee,'' and, ``improperly redacted information in
    documents, hindering the Committee's oversight into the
    investigation.''
        The report further found evidence that your staff
    intervened and prevented the FAA from meaningfully engaging
    with the Committee on this investigation, and the report
    concluded that the FAA and DOT's cooperation with the
    Committee, ``has bordered on obstruction.''
        As Chairman Wicker at the time said himself during a
    committee hearing on June 17, 2020, the only conclusion we
    could reach based on the record is that, ``the FAA has
    deliberately attempted to keep us in the dark and by that I
    mean our investigative staff, our committee, and me.''
        I was here when Senator Wicker made those statements. I
    consider him a very demure Southern gentleman who sometimes
    pulls his punches. He did not pull his punches that day.
        As I noted at the time, these findings give me serious
    concerns about your commitment to the transparency that
    Congress and the American people deserve.
        The families of the 737 MAX crashes wrote to Chairman Cruz
    earlier this week to express their concerns. They specifically
    voiced their concerns about the role in obstructing the
    investigation.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I look--I ask unanimous consent to enter
    their letter into the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cantwell. From the general counsel's office, Mr.
    Bradbury, you also saw the loosening of fatigue prevention
    requirements for truck drivers at the same time vehicle safety
    was being called into question and we saw an increase in
    fatalities.
        There are some other issues that I will bring up but, Mr.
    Bradbury, we need a leader on safety. We need someone who is
    going to make it the number-one priority, not modify the rule
    to suit the industry.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Bradbury, we will now recognize you for your opening
    statement.

     STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRADBURY, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you.
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished
    members of the Committee, it is the highest honor of my life to
    come before you today as the President's nominee to be the
    Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
        I am profoundly grateful to President Trump for placing his
    trust in me and I am deeply thankful to Secretary Duffy for his
    confidence and his growing friendship.
        I also want to thank my family for their love and support.
    I am forever grateful for my wife Hilde, the love of my life,
    my rock, who is here to support me today, and for our three
    amazing children, each of whom has grown to be an accomplished
    role model for me. I learn from them.
        Let me take a moment too to remember my mother, Cora Gill
    Bradbury. The daughter of Cornish and Irish miners from Butte,
    Montana, she raised me as a single mom in Portland, Oregon,
    ironing clothes for 75 cents an hour and working nights in a
    bakery to supplement our social security checks.
        She was the kindest, most selfless person I have ever known
    and it was only because of her unfailing support and
    encouragement that I came to be the first in our family to
    attend a four-year university.
        After graduating from Stanford University and later from
    the University of Michigan Law School, I was drawn to the
    practice of law here in the Nation's capital.
        Early on I had the tremendous fortune of clerking for Judge
    James Buckley on the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C., and Justice
    Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, two of our greatest
    jurists and greatest Americans.
        Though coming from completely opposite backgrounds, both
    have had a profound influence on my life and career. That
    career has included more than 20 years of private practice in
    major law firms in Washington and nearly 10 years of extensive
    prior service in the executive branch.
        Back in the mid-2000s I headed the Office of Legal Counsel
    at DOJ, advising the President and Executive Branch officials
    on compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United
    States, and during the first Trump administration I was the
    Senate-confirmed General Counsel of DOT managing all legal
    matters and supervising more than 500 attorneys across the
    department.
        For the last year and a half of the administration I
    performed the duties of Deputy Secretary, among other things
    helping to lead the Department's response to COVID.
        At DOT safety is paramount and I have the deepest
    appreciation for the Department's safety mission. That mission
    is exceptionally important in no small part because the liberty
    and prosperity of the American people depend on the Nation's
    transportation systems and infrastructure.
        I believe I know the Department well and I have great
    affection and respect for the dedicated career staff of DOT.
        If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I will devote myself to
    helping the Secretary advance safety and efficiency through
    faithful application of the authorities and resources granted
    by Congress in accordance with the Constitution and the policy
    directions of the President.
        Of particular importance in light of the terrible aviation
    crashes of recent days I believe I can effectively assist the
    Secretary as he works with FAA to upgrade our Nation's air
    traffic control operations and improve the effectiveness of
    safety oversight and enforcement.
        I also expect to assist in advancing smart regulatory
    reforms that promote safety and affordability while maintaining
    competitive markets and the incentives necessary for
    innovation, as well as in supporting cost beneficial
    infrastructure improvements of national importance.
        In all these endeavors I would be an advocate for
    transparency with Congress and the public and I would stress
    the importance of maintaining open and candid channels of
    communication with this committee and all other committees of
    jurisdiction.
        I pledge to you that, if confirmed, I will bring these
    values to work with me every day at the Department of
    Transportation. With the Senate's consent I am eager to partner
    with Secretary Duffy to get to work for the American people.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
    Bradbury follow:]

       Prepared Statement of Steven Gill Bradbury, Nominee to be Deputy
                  Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished Members
    of this Committee: It is the highest honor of my life to come before
    you today as the President's nominee to be the Deputy Secretary of
    Transportation.
        I am profoundly grateful to President Trump for placing his trust
    in me, and I am deeply thankful to Secretary Duffy for his confidence
    and his growing friendship.
        I also want to thank my family for their love and support and
    wisdom. I am forever grateful for the love of my life, my wife Hilde,
    my rock, who is here to support me today, and for our three amazing
    children, each of whom has grown to be an accomplished role model for
    me. I learn from them.
        Let me take a moment, too, to remember my mother, Cora Gill
    Bradbury. The daughter of Cornish and Irish miners from Butte, Montana,
    she raised me as a hard-working single mom in Portland, Oregon. She
    ironed clothes for customers at 75-cents an hour and worked nights in a
    bakery to support my grandmother and me and to supplement our monthly
    social security checks.
        She was the kindest, most selfless person I've ever known. It was
    only because of her unfailing support and encouragement that I came to
    be the first in our family to attend a four-year university.
        After graduating from Stanford University and later from the
    University of Michigan Law School, I was drawn to the practice of law
    here in the Nation's capital.
        Early on, I had the tremendous good fortune of clerking for Judge
    James L. Buckley on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and
    for Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court--two of our greatest
    jurists and greatest Americans who, though coming from completely
    opposite backgrounds, have both had a profound influence on my life and
    my career in the law.
        That career has included more than 20 years of private practice in
    major law firms in Washington, D.C., where my work focused primarily on
    the limits of administrative power and the proper exercise of the
    Federal government's regulatory authorities.
        I have also had the privilege of extensive prior service in the
    Executive Branch.
        From 2004 to 2009, I served as the Principal Deputy Assistant
    Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department
    of Justice, and for most of that time, I was the senior appointed
    official in charge of the Office. My job was to advise the President,
    the Attorney General, and the heads of executive departments and
    agencies on the requirements of the law, to help ensure faithful
    compliance with the Constitution and the statutes and treaties of the
    United States.
        More recently, during the first Trump administration, I served as
    the Senate-confirmed General Counsel of the Department of
    Transportation, managing all legal
        functions and matters for DOT and supervising the work of more than
    500 attorneys across the Department.
        As General Counsel, I was also the Regulatory Policy Officer of
    DOT, responsible for overseeing the Department's regulatory actions and
    for implementing President Trump's regulatory reform agenda. Under my
    tenure, DOT was a leader in achieving efficiencies and very sizable
    regulatory cost savings for the American economy without compromising
    safety.
        We favored performance-based standards over highly prescriptive
    rules to preserve incentives for private investment in safety-enhancing
    technologies. Among other reforms, we streamlined the FAA's commercial
    space licensing rules, we made headway in developing the regulatory
    frameworks for commercial drones and automated vehicles, and we reset
    the Nation's fuel-economy standards to promote safety and the
    affordability of new cars and trucks for America's families.
        We also put in place important procedural reforms to achieve
    greater transparency and public input in costly rulemakings, clearer
    requirements and consistency in the approval and use of guidance
    documents, and a firmer emphasis on due process in enforcement actions.
        In addition, I was involved in helping lead the Department's
    response to the unprecedented COVID public health emergency, when we
    succeeded in keeping America's vital transportation systems operating
    for the benefit of the American people. And I was proud to help
    supervise the Department's responses to significant oversight requests
    from Congress.
        As a member of Secretary Chao's senior leadership team, I
    participated in nearly all major policy decisions of the Secretary,
    including decisions on
        discretionary infrastructure grants, Build America Bureau loans,
    and budgetary proposals. And I provided advice and support to the
    Secretary in connection with significant challenges facing the
    Department, like the FAA's response to the 737-MAX disasters.
        By designation of the President, from September 2019 until the end
    of the first Trump administration, I exercised all the functions and
    duties of the Deputy Secretary of Transportation. In that capacity, I
    assisted in developing the Secretary's policy proposals for legislation
    and infrastructure projects, and I served as Chairman of the Board of
    Directors of the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation and as a
    member of the FAA's Management Advisory Committee.
        For eight days at the end of the first Trump administration, I was
    the Acting Secretary of Transportation in accordance with the
    Department's standing order of succession, and I kept a steady hand on
    the tiller to ensure the Department was responsibly managed as we
    prepared for the transition to the new administration.
        Since leaving government service in January 2021, including in my
    capacity as a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, I have
    continued to write and speak on issues of public policy relevant to the
    regulatory authorities of DOT.
        As a result of these experiences, I believe I know the Department
    well, and I have great affection and respect for the dedicated career
    staff of DOT.
        I have a deep appreciation for the critical safety mission of DOT
    and a commitment to the proper exercise of the Secretary's authorities
    in accordance with the law, including a healthy respect for the limits
    of those authorities vis-a-vis Congress and the States.
        DOT's mission is exceptionally important, in no small part because
    the liberty and prosperity of the American people depend on the safe,
    efficient operation of the Nation's transportation systems and
    infrastructure.
        If I am fortunate to be confirmed as Deputy Secretary of
    Transportation, I will devote myself to helping the Secretary promote
    transportation safety and efficiency through faithful application of
    the legal authorities and resources granted by Congress in accordance
    with the Constitution and the policy directions of the President.
        Of particular importance in light of the terrible aviation crashes
    experienced in recent days, I believe I can effectively assist the
    Secretary as he works with the FAA and Congress to upgrade our Nation's
    air traffic control operations and improve the effectiveness of FAA's
    safety oversight and enforcement.
        I would also expect to assist the Secretary in advancing smart
    regulatory reforms that maintain competitive markets and incentives to
    innovate consistent with the law, as well as promoting cost-beneficial
    infrastructure improvements of national importance in accordance with
    the authorizations and appropriations provided by Congress.
        And I would expect to help the Secretary achieve improved overall
    outcomes for the Department with greater systems efficiencies and lower
    costs and to eliminate unnecessary policy requirements that detract
    from the Department's ability to carry out its primary safety mission
    efficiently and effectively.
        In all these endeavors, I would be an advocate for transparency
    with Congress and the public, and I would stress the importance of
    maintaining consistently open and candid channels of communication with
    Congress, including with this Committee and the other Committees with
    jurisdiction over DOT.
        I pledge to you that, if confirmed, I will bring these values to
    work with me every day at the Department of Transportation.
        With this Committee's consent, I am eager to partner with Secretary
    Duffy to get to work for the American people.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement, and I would
    be happy to answer the Committee's questions.
                                     ______

                          a. biographical information
        1. Name (include any former names or nicknames used):

            Steven Gill (``Steve'') Bradbury.
            Former name used: Steven Dean Bradbury, 1958-1986 (judicial
            name change, July 15, 1986).

        2. Position to which nominated: Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
        3. Date of Nomination: January 22, 2025.
        4. Address (list current place of residence and office addresses):

            Residence: Information not released to the public.
            Office: The Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue,
            N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002

        5. Date and Place of Birth: September 12, 1958; Portland, Oregon.
        6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
    spouse (if married) or domestic partner, and the names and ages of your
    children (including stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).

            Spouse: Hilde Elisabeth Kahn. Occupation: Homemaker and
            community volunteer.
            Children: James, 30; Will, 29; Susanna, 26.

        7. List all college and graduate schools attended, whether or not
    you were granted a degree by the institution. Provide the name of the
    institution, the dates attended, the degree received, and the date of
    the degree.

            University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan--1985-
            1988.
                    J.D., magna cum laude, May 1988.

            Stanford University, Stanford, California--1976-1980.
                    B.A., English, June 1980.

            Lincoln College, Oxford University, Oxford, England--1979.
                    Tutorial study in Theory of Knowledge.

        8. List all post-undergraduate employment, including the job title,
    name of employer, and inclusive dates of employment, and highlight all
    management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to
    the position for which you are nominated.

            December 2022-Present:
            Distinguished Fellow
            The Heritage Foundation (public policy think tank)
            214 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.
            Washington, D.C. 20002

             * My work for The Heritage Foundation has involved, among
            other things, writing, speaking, and testifying on
            transportation-related public policy matters, including the
            regulatory authorities of DOT and other Federal agencies.

            November 2017-January 2021:
            General Counsel
            U.S. Department of Transportation
            1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
            Washington, D.C. 20590

            (During my tenure as General Counsel, I also served as Acting
            Secretary of Transportation in Jan. 2021, as Acting Deputy
            Secretary from Sept. 2019 to Dec. 2019, and as the President's
            designee in performing the functions and duties of the Office
            of Deputy Secretary from Sept. 2019 until Jan. 2021.)

            * My work at DOT gave me extensive management experience with
            the en-tire Department and extensive substantive knowledge of
            DOT's functions, duties, and authorities.

            July 2009-November 2017:
            Partner
            Dechert LLP (law firm)
            1900 K Street, N.W.
            Washington, D.C. 20006

            * My practice at Dechert included, among other things,
            representing clients in various transportation-related sectors
            and in matters before DOT and other regulatory agencies, and it
            involved managing teams of attorneys on complex cases.

            April 2004-January 2009:
            Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
            Office of Legal Counsel
            U.S. Department of Justice
            950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
            Washington, D.C. 20530

            (During my tenure as Principal Deputy AAG, I also served as the
            Acting Assistant Attorney General of OLC for ten days in Feb.
            2005 and from my nomination to be the AAG in June 2005 until
            April 2007.)

            * In this position, I gained significant experience (a)
            managing a busy office of attorneys on a host of important
            legal matters for the President, the Attorney General, and the
            Executive Branch, and (b) testifying before Congress and
            briefing Members of Congress and their staffs on significant
            issues.

            September 1993-April 2004:
            Partner (Oct. 1994-Apr. 2004)
            Associate (Sept. 1993-Oct. 1994)
            Kirkland & Ellis LLP (law firm)
            1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (current address)
            Washington, D.C. 20004

            * My practice at Kirkland & Ellis included, among other things,
            representing clients in various transportation-related sectors
            and in matters before DOT and other regulatory agencies, and it
            involved managing teams of attorneys on complex cases.

            July 1992-July 1993:
            Law Clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas
            Supreme Court of the United States
            1 First Street, N.E.
            Washington, D.C. 20543

            July 1991-July 1992:
            Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel
            U.S. Department of Justice
            950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
            Washington, D.C. 20530

            July 1990-July 1991:
            Law Clerk to Judge James L. Buckley
            U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
            333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
            Washington, D.C. 20001

            September 1988-July 1990:
            Associate
            Covington & Burling LLP (law firm)
            850 10th Street, N.W. (current address)
            Washington, D.C. 20001

            May 1987-July 1987:
            Summer Associate
            Covington & Burling LLP (law firm)
            850 10th Street, N.W. (current address)
            Washington, D.C. 20001

            May 1986-August 1986:
            Summer Associate
            Miller Nash LLP (law firm) (current name)
            1140 SW Washington Street, Suite 700 (current address)
            Portland, OR 97205

            September 1983-August 1985:
            Legal Assistant
            Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (law firm)
            450 Lexington Avenue (current address)
            New York, NY 10017

            November 1981-September 1983:
            Assistant Editor (Feb. 1983-Sept. 1983)
            Editorial Assistant (Nov. 1981-Feb. 1983)
            Avon Books, then a Division of the Hearst Corporation
            (Now part of HarperCollins Publishers)
            195 Broadway (current address)
            New York, NY 10007

            August 1981-October 1981:
            Waiter & Bus Boy
            Off Broadway Company (restaurant)
            Then located near West 69th Street & Broadway
            New York, NY
            (No longer in business)

            April 1981-June 1981:
            Waiter
            Le Cafe Meursault (restaurant)
            Palo Alto, CA
            (No longer in business)

            September 1980-October 1980:
            Food Service (sandwich maker)
            Stanford Coffee House
            Tresidder Student Union
            Stanford University
            Stanford, CA 94305

            June 1980-September 1980:
            Installer of insulation blankets for water heaters in
            university housing
            Stanford Conservation Center
            Stanford University
            Stanford, CA 94305

        9. Attach a copy of your resume.
        Resume attached.
        10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
    service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
    than those listed above after 18 years of age.

            Chair, Board of Directors, Union Station Redevelopment
            Corporation, 9/2019-1/2021.

            Member, Management Advisory Committee, Federal Aviation
            Administration, 9/2019-1/2021.

            Regulatory Policy Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation,
            11/2017-1/2021.

        11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
    partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
    corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
    educational, or other institution.

            Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, 12/2022 to
            present.

            Volunteer, Trump-Vance Transition, Inc., 12/2024-1/2025.

            Member, The Federalist Society, intermittently 1993-2017, 7/
            2024 to present.

            Consultant, Mosaic Research Management, 3/2023.

            Consultant, TIG Advisors LLC, 3/2023.
            Chair, Board of Directors, Union Station Redevelopment
            Corporation, 9/2019-1/2021.

            Member, Management Advisory Committee, Federal Aviation
            Administration, 9/2019-1/2021.

            Regulatory Policy Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation,
            11/2017-1/2021.

            Partner, Dechert LLP, 7/2009-11/2017.

            Chair (9/2015-6/2017) and member (9/2012-6/2017), Editorial
            Board for Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments, ABA
            Section of Antitrust Law.

            Member, Capital Markets Litigation Advisory Committee, U.S.
            Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center, 5/2012-6/2017.

            Chair, International Law Working Group, John Hay Initiative, 5/
            2015-6/2017.

            Member, National Security Law Working Group, The Heritage
            Foundation, 2/2012-6/2017 and 1/2023-Present.

        12. List all memberships you have had after 18 years of age or
    currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational,
    political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religiously
    affiliated organization, private club, or other membership organization
    (You do not have to list your religious affiliation or membership in a
    religious house of worship or institution). Include dates of membership
    and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note
    whether any such club or organization restricts membership on the basis
    of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or disability.

            Verse Condominium Association, Tysons, VA; resident unit owner,
            1/2020 to present.

            D.C. Bar, member since 12/1988.

            American Bar Association; member, 1988-1992 and 2009 to
            present.

            ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Editorial Board for Annual Review
            of Antitrust Law Developments; Chair, 9/2015-6/2017, and
            member, 9/2012-6/2017.

            U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center, Capital Markets
            Litigation Advisory Committee; member, 5/2012-6/2017.

            Federalist Society; member off and on beginning in 1993 and
            currently; was not a member while serving in government.

            The Heritage Foundation, National Security Law Working Group;
            participating member, 2/2012-6/2017 and 1/2023 to present.

            John Hay Initiative, International Law Working Group; chair, 5/
            2015-6/2017.

            Alexander Hamilton Society; member, 2012-2014.

            Supreme Court Historical Society; member, 2013.

            Stanford University Alumni Association; member since 1980.

            Michigan Law School Alumni Association; member since 1988.

            Chesterbrook Swim and Tennis Club (community pool and tennis
            courts in McLean, VA); member, 6/2008-3/2013.

            River Falls Community Center Association, Inc. (community pool
            and tennis courts in Potomac, MD); member, 8/1996-9/2007.

            Civic Association of River Falls; member, 8/1996-9/2007.

            Registered member of the Republican Party.

            Virginia Republican Party; currently a member.

            Maryland Republican Party; was a member while living in MD
            (until 2007).

            * To my knowledge, no organization of which I have been a
            member has ever had a policy of restricting membership on the
            basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or
            disability.

        13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
    (elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
    campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
    personally liable for that debt.
        As listed above, I have held appointed office in the U.S.
    Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Justice, and I
    have served as a law clerk to two Federal judges. I have not campaigned
    for public office and do not have any campaign debt.
        14. List all memberships and offices held with and services
    rendered to, whether compensated or not, any political party or
    election committee within the past ten years. If you have held a paid
    position or served in a formal or official advisory position (whether
    compensated or not) in a political campaign within the past ten years,
    identify the particulars of the campaign, including the candidate, year
    of the campaign, and your title and responsibilities.
        I served as a volunteer consultant to the Trump-Vance Transition,
    Inc., 12/2024-1/2025.
        I served as a volunteer attorney for the Romney Victory, Inc.,
    campaign in Colorado on Election Day in 2012.
        15. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
    organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
    entity of $200 or more for the past ten years.
        I have made the following political contributions of $200 or more
    in the last 15 years:

    09/27/2016                     $1,000    National Republican Senatorial
                                              Committee
    02/21/2016                     $2,700    Marco Rubio for President
    06/18/2015                     $2,700    JEB2016, Inc.
    04/30/2014                       $250    Cotton for Senate
    09/19/2012                     $2,500    Romney Victory, Inc.
    05/08/2012                       $500    Ted Cruz for Senate
    09/14/2011                     $1,500    Romney for President
    07/26/2011                     $1,000    Romney for President
    07/22/2010                      $ 300    Nat'l Republican Congressional
                                              Committee
    02/24/2010                     $1,000    National Republican Senatorial
                                              Committee

        16. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
    society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
    for outstanding service or achievements.

            The Heritage Foundation's Drs. W. Glenn and Rita Ricardo
            Campbell Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Analysis and
            Promotion of the Free Society, 2024.

            Secretary of Transportation's Distinguished Service Award for
            Leading DOT's Response to the COVID-19 National Public Health
            Emergency, 2020.

            Edmund J. Randolph Award for Outstanding Service to the U.S.
            Department of Justice, 2007.

            Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, Nov.
            2006. National Security Agency's Intelligence Under Law Award,
            May 2008.

            Director of National Intelligence's 2007 Intelligence Community
            Legal Award (Team of the Year, FISA Modernization).

            Criminal Division's Award for Outstanding Law Enforcement
            Partnerships, U.S. Department of Justice, Nov. 2006.

            Included in the list of Washington's top 40 lawyers under the
            age of 40, Washingtonian Magazine, Aug. 1998.

            J.D., Magna Cum Laude, University of Michigan Law School, May
            1988.

            Order of the Coif, University of Michigan Law School, 1988.

            Article Editor, Michigan Law Review, 1987-1988.

            Dean's 1987-1988 Law Review Award for Outstanding Contribution
            to the Michigan Law Review.

            Book Awards for Top Grade in Law School Classes: Administrative
            Law, Civil Procedure II, and Legal Process.

            Supreme Court Clerkship, Justice Clarence Thomas, Oct. Term
            1992.

            D.C. Circuit Clerkship, Judge James L. Buckley, 1990-1991.

            Received Full-Tuition Financial-Aid Awards from Stanford
            University.

            Student Body President, Washington High School, Portland, OR,
            1976.

            Voted Class Leader, Washington High School, Portland, OR, 1976.

            Physics Award, Washington High School, Portland, OR, 1976.

            National Merit Scholarship Letter of Commendation, Washington
            High School, Portland, OR, 1976.

            Officer, Honor Society, Washington High School, Portland, OR,
            1975-1976.

        17. List all books, articles, columns, letters to the editor,
    Internet blog postings, or other publications you have authored,
    individually or with others. Include a link to each publication when
    possible. If a link is not available, provide a digital copy of the
    publication when available.

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, CAFE Duplicite: Disinformation
            in Fuel Economy Regulation, The Heritage Foundation (Aug. 26,
            2024).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, Democracy and the Abuses of Our
            Ruling Elites, The Heritage Foundation (June 27, 2024).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, Major Questions Raised by EPA's
            EV Mandates, The Heritage Foundation (June 5, 2024).

            S.G. Bradbury, Observation: When a Man Loves a Woman,
            SGBradbury
            .Medium.com (May 12, 2024).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, Sayonara Chevron, The Daily
            Signal (Apr. 15, 2024).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, Secretary Mayorkas Deserves To
            Be Impeached, The Heritage Foundation (Mar. 12, 2024)
            (reprinted & expanded).

            Steven G. Bradbury, California's Ruinous (and Unlawful) Assault
            on America's Trucking Industry, The Heritage Foundation, Legal
            Memorandum No. 350 (Feb. 13, 2024).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Evaluation of the Competing House Bills on
            FISA Reform: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, The Heritage
            Foundation, Backgrounder No. 3812 (Feb. 12, 2024).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Letter to the Editor, ``Secretary Mayorkas
            Deserves to Be Impeached,'' Wall Street Journal (Feb. 11,
            2024).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Update: EPA Prepares the Way for
            California's In-Use Locomotive Regulation, Washington Legal
            Foundation, WLF Legal Pulse (Nov. 7, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, Virginia Should Make Its Own
            Decisions About EVs, The Heritage Foundation (Oct. 20, 2023)
            (reprinted).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Op-Ed, Virginia Should Make Its Own
            Decisions About EVs, The Viginian-Pilot (Oct. 18, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, Congress Must Take California
            Out of the Driver's Seat on Electric Car Mandates, The Heritage
            Foundation (Oct. 3, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Train Wreck Comin': Now California Wants to
            Dictate Locomotive Technology for Our Nation's Rail System, The
            Heritage Foundation, Legal Memorandum No. 341 (Sept. 28, 2023)
            (reprinted and reformatted).

            Steven G. Bradbury, California's Attempt to Dictate Locomotive
            Technology for Our National Rail System Unlawfully Conflicts
            with Federal Law, Washington Legal Foundation, Legal
            Backgrounder, Vol. 38, No. 14 (Sept. 8, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Tribute, Judge James L. Buckley: An
            Inspiring Life of Service and Faith, National Review, The
            Corner (Aug. 18, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, How to Fix the FBI, The
            Heritage Foundation (July 12, 2023) (reprinted).

            Steve Bradbury, Commentary, How to Fix the FBI, The Daily
            Signal (July 10, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, How to Fix the FBI, The Heritage
            Foundation, Backgrounder No. 3777 (July 10, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, We Must Reform America's
            Politicized Law Enforcement. Here's How to Start., The Heritage
            Foundation (June 12, 2023) (reprinted).

            Steve Bradbury, Commentary, We Must Reform America's
            Politicized Law Enforcement. Here's How to Start., The Daily
            Signal (June 9, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Impeachable High Crimes and Misdemeanors:
            Not Limited to Criminal Offenses, The Heritage Foundation,
            Backgrounder No. 3756 (Mar. 23, 2023).

            Hans A. von Spakovsky, Lora Ries, & Steven G. Bradbury,
            Commentary, Angry Federal Judge Orders Biden's DHS: End Mass
            Parole of Illegal Aliens, The Heritage Foundation (Mar. 16,
            2023) (reprinted).

            Hans A. von Spakovsky, Lora Ries, & Steve Bradbury, Commentary,
            Angry Federal Judge Orders Biden's DHS: End Mass Parole of
            Illegal Aliens, The Daily Signal (Mar. 13, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, Impeaching Mayorkas: The
            House's Duty, The Heritage Foundation (Feb. 17, 2023)
            (reprinted).

            Steve Bradbury, Commentary, Impeaching Mayorkas: The House's
            Duty, The Daily Signal (Feb. 15, 2023).

            Hans A. von Spakovsky, Lora Ries, & Steven G. Bradbury,
            Commentary, Impeaching Mayorkas Is a Must, He Violated His Oath
            and Committed ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' The Heritage
            Foundation (Feb. 15, 2023) (reprinted).

            Hans A. von Spakovsky, Lora Ries, & Steven G. Bradbury,
            Opinion, ``Im-peaching Mayorkas is a must, he violated his oath
            and committed `high Crimes and Misdemeanors','' FoxNews.com
            (Feb. 13, 2023).

            Hans A. von Spakovsky, Lora Ries, & Steven G. Bradbury, The
            Case for Impeachment of Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary
            of Homeland Security, The Heritage Foundation, Special Report
            No. 266 (Feb. 6, 2023).

            Steve Bradbury, Commentary, Case for Impeaching Mayorkas Over
            Border Crisis Is Clear, Compelling, The Daily Signal (Feb. 2,
            2024).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, California's Radical Effort to
            Transform America's Auto Industry: Not Your Forefathers' Idea
            of Federalism, The Heritage Foundation (Jan. 30, 2023)
            (reprinted).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Commentary, Biden's California Waiver: An
            Assault on Federalism, The Heritage Foundation (Jan. 27, 2023)
            (reprinted).

            Steve Bradbury, Commentary, California's Radical Effort to
            Transform America's Auto Industry: Not Your Forefathers' Idea
            of Federalism, The Daily Signal (Jan. 27, 2023).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Op-Ed, Biden's California Waiver: An
            Assault on Federalism, The Washington Times (Jan. 25, 2023).

            S.G. Bradbury, Appreciation: Just Like a Ringin' a Bell,
            SGBradbury
            .Medium.com (Sept. 29, 2022).

            S.G. Bradbury, Observation: Cliff Notes, Adespotoi.Substack.com
            (Sept. 16, 2022).

            S.G. Bradbury, Observation: Revalidating the Electoral Count
            Act, Adespotoi
            .Substack.com (Aug. 17, 2022).

            S.G. Bradbury, Rumination: A Commission for KBJ,
            Adespotoi.Substack.com (Apr. 28, 2022).

            S.G. Bradbury, Observation: Will Smith in the Briar Patch,
            SGBradbury
            .Medium.com (Apr. 19, 2022).

            S.G. Bradbury, Observation: The Prevalent Confusion of Number,
            SGBradbury
            .Medium.com (Jan. 15, 2022).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant,
            SGBradbury
            .Medium.com (Jan. 9, 2022) (reprinted).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Abridged), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Jan. 9, 2022).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Complete) (Part 9 of 9), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Nov. 21,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Complete) (Part 8 of 9), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Nov. 21,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Complete) (Part 7 of 9), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Nov. 21,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Complete) (Part 6 of 9), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Nov. 21,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Complete) (Part 5 of 9), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Nov. 21,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Complete) (Part 4 of 9), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Nov. 21,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Complete) (Part 3 of 9), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Nov. 21,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Complete) (Part 2 of 9), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Nov. 21,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: Through the Wilderness with Sam Grant
            (Complete) (Part 1 of 9), Adespotoi.Substack.com (Nov. 21,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Observation: Coca-Cola, What Were You Thinking?,
            SGBradbury
            .Medium.com (Oct. 8, 2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Rumination: The Problem Is Not ``180ism'',
            Adespotoi
            .Substack.com (Aug. 15, 2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Rumination: Dr. Seuss in the Dock,
            Adespotoi.Substack.com (July 27, 2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Appreciation: Celebrating Justice Thomas's 30
            Years on the Supreme Court, Adespotoi.Substack.com (July 26,
            2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Appreciation: Fire on the Mountain, a Musical
            Intervention, SGBradbury.Medium.com (July 24, 2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Rumination: The USA PATRIOT Act,
            Adespotoi.Substack.com (July 24, 2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Rumination: The Rules Governing Offensive Cyber
            Operations, Adespotoi.Substack.com (July 24, 2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Appreciation: Toward Reason in Capital
            Sentencing, Adespotoi.Substack.com (July 23, 2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Appreciation: The Perfect OLC Opinion,
            Adespotoi.Substack.com (July 6, 2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Appreciation: The Greatest Example of Heads-Up
            Base Running, SGBradbury.Medium.com (June 7, 2021).

            S.G. Bradbury, Appreciation: Facadism in the Nation's Capital,
            Adespotoi.Substack.com (May 18, 2021) (reprinted same day in
            SGBradbury
            .Medium.com).

            S.G. Bradbury, Rumination: Nature and the Human Environment,
            Adespotoi.Substack.com (May 4, 2021) (reprinted same day in
            SGBradbury
            .Medium.com).

            S.G. Bradbury, Appreciation: Edward Gibbon,
            Adespotoi.Substack.com (Apr. 7, 2021) (reprinted same day in
            SGBradbury.Medium.com).

            S.G. Bradbury, Appreciations: George Catlin & Francis Parkman,
            Adespotoi
            .Substack.com (Apr. 7, 2021) (reprinted same day in
            SGBradbury.Medium.com).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: A Physicalist Sutra,
            Adespotoi.Substack.com (Apr. 6, 2021) (reprinted).

            S.G. Bradbury, Essay: A Physicalist Sutra,
            SGBradbury.Medium.com (Feb. 4, 2021).

            Steven G. Bradbury, ``National Security and the `New Yellow
            Press','' published as chapter 11 in Journalism After Snowden:
            The Future of the Free Press in the Surveillance State, p.172
            (Emily Bell, Taylor Owen, et al., eds., Columbia Journalism
            Review Books, Columbia Univ. Press 2017).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Justice Thomas and the Second Amendment:
            Protecting Liberty and Promoting Equal Justice,
            JusticeThomas.com (Oct. 24, 2016).

            Steven Gill Bradbury, ``Celebrating Justice Thomas's 25 Years
            of Service on the Supreme Court,'' Letter of Tribute Addressed
            to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
            (Sept. 16, 2016) (published in the Congressional Record).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Opinion, ``Clarence Thomas's 25 years on
            the Supreme Court are a triumph of perseverance,'' FoxNews.com
            (June 27, 2016).

            John Hay Initiative International Law Working Group, Chaired by
            Steven G. Bradbury, ``Update on China's Expansion in the South
            China Sea'' (May 6, 2016) (no digital copy found).

            John Hay Initiative International Law Working Group, Chaired by
            Steven G. Bradbury, ``JHI Backgrounder: China's Maritime
            Expansion in the South and East China Seas'' (Sept. 21, 2015)
            (no digital copy found).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Balancing Privacy and Security, Harv. J.L.
            & Pub. Pol'y (Federalist Ed.), Vol. 2, No. 1, p.5 (Winter
            2015).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Op-Ed, ``Opposing view: Preserve this
            critical tool [NSA telephone metadata program],'' USA Today,
            p.10A (Mar. 28, 2014).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Op-Ed, ``Don't limit the NSA's
            effectiveness,'' Wash. Post, p.A13 (Jan. 5, 2014).

            Michael B. Mukasey, Steven G. Bradbury, & David B. Rivkin Jr.,
            Op-Ed, ``An ill-founded ruling against the NSA,'' Wash. Post,
            p.A27 (Dec. 20, 2013).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Understanding the NSA Programs: Bulk
            Acquisition of Telephone Metadata Under Section 215 and
            Foreign-Targeted Collection Under Section 702, Lawfare Research
            Paper Series, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Sept. 1, 2013).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Op-Ed, ``The use of phone data:
            Constraining the NSA would make Americans less safe,'' Wash.
            Post, p.A15 (July 23, 2013).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Op-Ed, ``Opposing view: `The system works
            well as it is': FISA court judges serve the rule of law,'' USA
            Today, p.8A (July 19, 2013).

            Thomas P. Vartanian & Steven G. Bradbury, How to Fight Back
            Against Bad Agency Decisions, American Banker BankThink (Jan.
            16, 2013).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Anticipating How the U.S. Supreme Court May
            Rethink Fraud-on-the-Market Standards for Securities Class
            Actions, Bloomberg BNA (Aug. 24, 2012).

            George G. Gordon & Steven G. Bradbury, K-Dur: The Rejection of
            ``Scope of the Patent'' Test, Law360 (July 24, 2012).

            Co-Author (with several other Dechert LLP partners), FTC
            Recommends Improvements to Patent System, Intellectual Prop. &
            Tech'y L.J. (June 2011).

            Timothy C. Blank, Steven G. Bradbury, & Christopher R.
            Boisvert, The Dawn of Internet Privacy?, Law360 (Apr. 22,
            2011).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Keynote Address, The Developing Legal
            Framework for Defensive and Offensive Cyber Operations, 2 Harv.
            Nat'l Sec. J. 629 (Mar. 2011)

            Steven G. Bradbury & John P. Elwood, Op-Ed, ``Recess is
            canceled: President Obama should call the Senate's bluff,''
            Wash. Post, p.A19 (Oct. 15, 2010).

            Steven G. Bradbury, After further review, NFL's ``Hail Mary''
            pass ruled incomplete: Supreme Court holds NFL's joint
            trademark licensing subject to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
            Lexology (May 28, 2010).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Guest Commentary, Supreme Observations:
            American Needle v. NFL, Washington Legal Foundation, WLF Legal
            Pulse (May 24, 2010).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Gearing up for American Needle v. NFL,
            Law360 (Jan. 11, 2010).

            Steven G. Bradbury & Grant M. Dixton, Court Ruling Wrongly
            Creates New Right to Sue Telecom Companies, Washington Legal
            Foundation, Legal Opinion Letters, Vol. 12 No. 22 (Aug. 30,
            2002) (discussing Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP v. Bell
            Atlantic Corp., 294 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2002), a case later
            reversed by the Supreme Court).

            Steven Bradbury & Kelion Kasler, Kirkland & Ellis, Verizon
            Communications: The Merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE, published
            in Corporate Finance, Global M&A Yearbook 2000: New Strategies
            in M&A, p.47 (Nov. 2000) (no digital copy found).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Paul T. Cappuccio & Patrick F. Philbin,
            Kirkland & Ellis, Telecommunications, published in
            International Financial Law Review, United States: A Legal
            Guide, p.33 (June 1998).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Paul T. Cappuccio & Patrick F. Philbin,
            Kirkland & Ellis, United States, published in International
            Financial Law Review, Tele-communications: An International
            Legal Guide, p.69 (Aug. 1997).

            Steven G. Bradbury, The Unconstitutionality of Qui Tam Suits,
            The Federalist Society, Federalism & Separation of Powers News,
            Vol. 1 No. 1 (Fall 1996) (discussing pending cert. petition in
            Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer) (no
            digital copy found).

            Steven G. Bradbury, Original Intent, Revisionism, and the
            Meaning of the CGL [Comprehensive General Liability Insurance]
            Policies, 1 Environmental Claims J. 279 (Spring 1989).

            Note, Corporate Auctions and Directors' Fiduciary Duties: A
            Third-Generation Business Judgment Rule, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 276
            (1988).

            Book Note, 85 Mich. L. Rev. 941 (1987) (reviewing The Moral
            Dimensions of Politics, by Richard J. Regan, S.J. (Oxford Univ.
            Press 1986)).

            A Cattleman's Calling (short story), published in The Hoboken
            Terminal, Vol. 1 No. 1 (Spring 1982) (no digital copy found).

        * In addition to the publications listed above: (a) I signed
    numerous memoranda, orders, and notices of rulemaking actions on behalf
    of the U.S. Department of Transportation in my official capacity as
    General Counsel of DOT from 2017 to 2021 which were posted on the DOT
    website at www.transportation.gov or published in the Federal Register;
    (b) I signed numerous legal opinions for the Office of Legal Counsel
    (OLC) of the U.S. Department of Justice during my tenure as Principal
    Deputy and Acting AAG of OLC from 2004 to 2009, many of which can be
    found at www.justice.gov/olc/opinions-main and www.justice.gov/olc/olc-
    foia-electronic-reading-room.; and (c) as an attorney in private
    practice at the law firm Dechert LLP from 2009 to 2017 and at the law
    firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP from 1993 to 2004, I filed numerous briefs
    and other court filings and I assisted in preparing numerous online
    client alerts on a variety of legal topics, including several which
    were posted on the Dechert LLP website at www.dechert.com.

        18. List all speeches, panel discussions, and presentations (e.g.,
    PowerPoint) that you have given on topics relevant to the position for
    which you have been nominated. Include a link to each publication when
    possible. If a link is not available, provide a digital copy of the
    speech or presentation when available.
        Note: I have given many speeches, panel presentations, and other
    public remarks, mostly addressed to legal and public policy matters not
    directly relevant to DOT or the position of Deputy Secretary of
    Transportation. The following is the most complete list I could compile
    of my speeches, panel discussions, and presentations. Those marked with
    an asterisk (*) concerned topics of potential relevance to DOT:

            * Panel Speaker, ``Panel One: Does Deference Make a Difference?
            The Effect of Loper Bright and Relentless on Business,'' The
            Future of Business Lawyering Conference, The Federalist
            Society, In-House Counsel Network, Nashville, TN (Sept. 27,
            2024) (no digital copy found).

            * Panel Speaker, The Future of the Executive State, The
            Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. (Sept. 25, 2024).

            Panel Moderator, Weaponization of U.S. Government Symposium,
            The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. (Apr. 9, 2024).

            * Debate with Prof. Ron Levin re Should the Supreme Court
            Repudiate Chevron Deference?, Washington University Law School
            Federalist Society Chapter, St. Louis, MO (Mar. 28, 2024) (no
            digital copy found).

            * Panel Speaker, Assessing the Biden EPA's Vehicle and Power
            Plant Rules, Florida International Univ. Environment Forum, FIU
            Law School, Miami, FL (Feb. 23, 2024).

            * Panel Speaker, The Administrative State, Its Supporters and
            Its Discontents, The Federalist Society, National Lawyers
            Conference, Washington, D.C. (Nov. 10, 2023).

            Guest Speaker re Biden Administration Regulatory Policies,
            Valis Network Event, Washington, D.C. (Oct. 31, 2023) (no
            digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, DOJ, FBI, & the Trump Indictment, Meese Center
            Legal Strategy Forum, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
            (Oct. 26, 2023) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, The Trump Indictments: Is the Justice System
            Rigged?, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. (Oct. 6,
            2023).

            * Panel Speaker, The Big Government Car Theft, The Heritage
            Foundation, Washington, D.C. (June 12, 2023).

            Panel Speaker, The Role of Executive Branch Lawyers and the
            Presidential Records Act Compliance, The Federalist Society,
            Executive Branch Review Conference, Washington, D.C. (Apr. 25,
            2023).

            * Panel Speaker, The Administration of Antitrust: The FTC and
            the Rule of Law, Global Antitrust Institute & C. Boyden Gray
            Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Scalia Law
            School, George Mason University (Oct. 14, 2022).

            Panel Speaker, Event on Bipartisan Consensus on Elections
            Legislation and Results (Addressing Proposals to Amend the
            Electoral Count Act and the Presidential Transition Act),
            Hosted by the National Institute for Civil Discourse of the
            University of Arizona, CommonSenseAmerican.org, Washington,
            D.C. (June 26, 2022).

            * Panel Speaker, ``Panel 1--Congress versus the Executive
            (Emergency Authority, the Border, Regulatory Reform, &
            Oversight),'' Congress's Interbranch Role: The Executive, the
            Court, and Dobbs, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the
            Administrative State, Scalia Law School, George Mason
            University (held in the Capitol Visitors Center, Washington,
            D.C.) (May 22, 2022).

            * Panel Speaker, Breakout Panel: The Executive Branch's Duty to
            Enforce, The Federalist Society, Executive Branch Review
            Conference, Washington, D.C. (May 3, 2022).

            * Welcome Address, ABA Forum on Air and Space Law (held
            virtually) (Sept. 10, 2020) (discussing DOT's response to the
            COVID-19 public health emergency, with particular focus on the
            aviation industry and air traffic control operations)
            (presented in my official capacity as General Counsel of DOT)
            (no digital copy found).

            * Panel Speaker, ``Panel 3--Reform from the Field: Codifying
            the Administration's Best Practices,'' U.S. Department of
            Justice Summit on Modernizing the Administrative Procedure Act
            (Dec. 6, 2019).

            * Participant, Joint News Conference of the EPA Administrator
            and Secretary of Transportation, Fuel Economy Standards and
            Emissions Limits for New Light-Duty Vehicles--the Need for One
            Set of Federal Standards, EPA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
            (Nov. 19, 2019) (in my official capacity as General Counsel of
            DOT).

            * Participant, Meeting of the National Space Council Chaired by
            Vice President Pence (Aug. 20, 2019) (in my official capacity
            on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation).

            * Panel Speaker, General Counsels of Federal Agencies, National
            Republican Lawyers Association Conference (Apr. 5, 2019).

            * Remarks, Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting,
            Washington, D.C. (Jan. 13-17, 2019) (presented in my official
            capacity as General Counsel of DOT) (no digital copy found).

            * Panel Speaker, TRB Annual Workshop on Transportation Law,
            Cleveland, OH (July 22, 2019) (in my official capacity as
            General Counsel of DOT) (no digital copy found).

            * Remarks, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
            (INGAA) Washington Update Meeting, Washington, D.C. (2019)
            (presented in my official capacity as General Counsel of DOT)
            (no digital copy found).

            * Remarks, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA)
            Legislative & Policy Forum, Washington, D.C. (Nov. 18-20, 2019)
            (presented in my official capacity as General Counsel of DOT)
            (no digital copy found).

            * Panel Speaker, ABA Air and Space Law Forum, Chicago, IL
            (Sept. 27-28, 2018) (in my official capacity as General Counsel
            of DOT) (no digital copy found).

            * Remarks, Announcing the North Dakota Selection for DOT's
            Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Pilot Program, North Dakota
            Capitol Building, Bismarck, ND (May 9, 2018) (in my official
            capacity as a representative of the Secretary of
            Transportation).

            * Keynote Address, Policy Update on DOT Regulation of
            Commercial Drones, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems
            International (AUVSI) XPONENTIAL Conference 2018, Colorado
            Convention Center, Denver, CO (May 1, 2018) (presented in my
            official capacity as General Counsel of DOT and representative
            of the Secretary) (no recording found but detailed draft
            outline of remarks can be provided in digital form from DOT
            files).

            * Panel Speaker, ``Workshop: A Beginner's Guide to
            Preemption,'' Third-Annual FAA UAS Symposium, 2018, Baltimore
            Convention Center, Baltimore, MD (Mar. 6, 2018) (in my official
            capacity as General Counsel of DOT) (no digital copy found).

            * Moderator, ``AV Policy Best Practices from All Levels of
            Government,'' and Closing Remarks, U.S. Department of
            Transportation Public Listening Summit on Automated Vehicle
            Policy, DOT Headquarters, Washington, D.C. (Mar. 1, 2018) (in
            my official capacity as General Counsel of DOT) (no digital
            copy found).

            Panel Presentation, ``How to Shut It Down: Creative Strategies
            that Ended Government Antitrust Investigations,'' Dechert LLP's
            2017 Annual Antitrust Spring Seminar, Philadelphia, PA (Apr. 4,
            2017) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Presentation, ``Financial Services Breakfast Briefing:
            Current Developments Affecting the Fund Industry--Washington
            Update,'' Investment Company Institute (ICI) 2017 Annual Mutual
            Funds and Investment Management Legal Conference, Palm Desert,
            CA (Mar. 14, 2017) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Presentation, ``A Term in Review: An Overview of Key
            Supreme Court Decisions from the 2015 Term & Thoughts About the
            Upcoming Term,'' Dechert LLP CLE Seminar, Washington, D.C.
            (Nov. 29, 2016) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Presentations, ``A Bitter Pill?: Recent Developments in
            Pharma''; and ``Antitrust in the Next U.S. Administration,''
            Dechert LLP's 2016 Annual Antitrust Spring Seminar,
            Philadelphia, PA (Apr. 13, 2016) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Presentation, ``What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About
            Recent Supreme Court Cases,'' Dechert LLP CLE Seminar,
            Washington, D.C. (Sept. 16, 2015) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Presentation, Dechert LLP's 2015 Annual Antitrust Spring
            Seminar, Philadelphia, PA (Apr. 28, 2015) (no digital copy
            found).

            Debate Participant, FISA Section 215: A Debate about Its
            Legality, Usefulness and Civil Liberties, The Heritage
            Foundation, Washington, D.C. (Mar. 17, 2015) (debating Prof.
            Laura Donohue of Georgetown Law School).

            Remarks, ``The Legal Framework for Cybersecurity,'' Presented
            to the Legal Department of Raytheon Company, Waltham, MA (Nov.
            4, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Featured Speaker, IS It Legal? Legal Authority for the Campaign
            Against the Islamic State, The Federalist Society, D.C. Young
            Lawyers Chapter, and the Alexander Hamilton Society, Mayflower
            Hotel, Washington, D.C. (Oct. 22, 2014) (appearing with John B.
            Bellinger II).

            Moderator, Discussion Between Two Former SEC Commissioners
            Regarding ``Corporate Disclosure Effectiveness: Ensuring a
            Balanced System [of SEC Disclosure Requirements] that Informs
            and Protects Investors and Facilitates Capital Formation,''
            U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (July 29, 2014) (no
            digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Discussion Regarding Supreme Court's Decision in
            Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA Striking Down EPA Rule on
            Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Stationary Sources, ABA
            Administrative Law Section Forum, Washington, D.C. (July 24,
            2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Presentation, Dechert LLP, ``So the Government Thinks
            Your Deal Is Anticompetitive: Restructuring Your Deal to
            Overcome Antitrust Hurdles,'' Lawline CLE Webinar, New York, NY
            (June 24, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Video-Recorded Remarks Discussing Supreme Court's Decision in
            Halliburton Case (Addressing Securities Law Class Action
            Standards), Federalist Society YouTube Video Series,
            Washington, D.C. (June 23, 2014).

            Panel Speaker, ``Executive Branch Action in a Time of Political
            Dysfunction?,'' American Constitution Society, Annual
            Convention, Washington, D.C. (June 20, 2014).

            Panel Speaker, ``Debrief on Supreme Court's UARG v. EPA Opinion
            Regarding Greenhouse Gas Rules,'' Environmental Law Institute,
            Associates Seminar, Washington, D.C. (June 19, 2014) (no
            digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, ``Foreign Intelligence Surveillance in an Era of
            `Big Data'--Is There a Need to Recalibrate Boundaries?,'' ABA
            Standing Committee on Law and National Security, Washington,
            D.C. (May 2, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Presentation, ``What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About
            Recent Supreme Court Cases,'' Dechert LLP CLE Seminar, New
            York, NY (Apr. 30, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Presentation, ``Apple Mash-Up--Cautionary Tale or Sui
            Generis?,'' Dechert LLP's 2014 Annual Antitrust Spring Seminar,
            Philadelphia, PA (Apr. 29, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Forum on Data Privacy and Balancing National
            Security and Civil Liberties, Clements Center for National
            Security, University of Texas Law School, Austin, TX (Apr. 3,
            2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Panel Discussing Data Privacy and
            Constitutionality of National Security Surveillance Activities,
            Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy Spring Symposium,
            Washington, D.C. (Mar. 27, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Panel Discussing Constitutionality of Border
            Searches of Electronic Media by TSA Officials, National Press
            Club, Washington, D.C. (Mar. 20, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Featured Speaker, ``National Security versus Data Privacy,''
            Ferrum College Annual Forum, Roanoke, VA (Mar. 19, 2014) (no
            digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, ``Balancing Privacy and Security,'' Federalist
            Society's 33rd Annual National Student Symposium, Univ. of
            Florida Levin College of Law, Gainesville, FL (Mar. 7, 2014).

            Panel Speaker, Addressing the Halliburton Case and the Supreme
            Court's Reconsideration of the Basic v. Levinson Presumption of
            Reliance in Securities Fraud Litigation, D.C. Bar Luncheon,
            Washington, D.C. (Mar. 5, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Addressing Individual Privacy and National
            Security, Chicago Bar Association Forum, Union League Club,
            Chicago, IL (Mar. 3, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, ``Erica P. John Fund & Beyond: The Past,
            Present, and Future of Securities Class Actions,'' U.S. Chamber
            of Commerce, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 28, 2014) (no digital copy
            found).

            Panel Speaker, ``Debrief of the Supreme Court's Oral Argument
            on EPA's Greenhouse Gas Rulemakings,'' D.C. Bar Association,
            Washington, D.C. (Feb. 25, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Constitutionality of NSA Programs, Organized by
            the National Security Law Committee of the Federalist Society,
            Held at the Offices of Jones Day, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 24,
            2014) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Addressing Fallout from the NSA Revelations for
            Foreign Relations and the Legal Regime Governing Surveillance
            in the U.S. and Among Our Allies, Breakfast Panel Debate,
            Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 20, 2014)
            (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Conference on Privacy and Security, Chicago
            Council on Global Affairs and Notre Dame Law School's
            International Security Program, Chicago, IL (Feb. 14, 2014) (no
            digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, ``Reforming the NSA Surveillance System:
            Assessing the Options,'' at the State of the Net Conference,
            Organized by the Internet Education Foundation and the National
            Cable and Telecommunications Association, The Newseum,
            Washington, D.C. (Jan. 28, 2014).

            Featured Speaker, Address on the Constitutional Underpinnings
            of the NSA Programs, Stanford Law School Constitutional Law
            Center, Stanford, CA (Jan. 23, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Webinar Presentation, ``Supreme Court Takes on the Clean Air
            Act: EME Homer and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA,''
            Bloomberg BNA Webinar (Dec. 17, 2013) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Addressing Cybersecurity and the NSA
            Disclosures, Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention,
            Washington, D.C. (Nov. 15, 2013) (no digital copy found).

            Debate Participant, ``NSA Surveillance: A Necessary Evil?,''
            Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS),
            Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C. (Oct. 28, 2013)
            (debating Prof. David Cole of Georgetown Law School, moderated
            by SAIS Prof. John McLaughlin, former Deputy Director of the
            CIA) (no digital copy found).

            Participant, Debate on National Security versus Privacy
            Interests, St. Thomas Law School, St. Paul, MN (Oct. 3, 2013)
            (no digital copy found).

            Panel Presentation, CLE Seminar on Antitrust Law Developments,
            Presented to Time Warner Inc. Legal Department, New York, NY
            (Sept. 24, 2013) (no digital copy found).

            Participant, Debate on Legality of NSA Programs, Milbank Tweed
            Forum, NYU Law School, New York, NY (Sept. 18, 2013) (debating
            Liza Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice, among others)
            (no digital copy found).

            Participant in Nationally Televised Debate Addressing the
            Propriety and Legality of the NSA Programs Disclosed by Edward
            Snowden, PBS News Hour, Shirlington, VA (July 31, 2013)
            (debating author and NSA critic Jim Bamford) (no digital copy
            found).

            Participant in Radio Debate Addressing the Legality of the NSA
            Program Disclosed by Edward Snowden, Minnesota Public Radio's
            Daily Circuit Program (July 30, 2013) (debating Marc Rotenberg
            of EPIC).

            Podcast Debate, Bulk Data Collection and the NSA, Debate on
            Constitutionality of NSA Programs Disclosed by Edward Snowden,
            Federalist Society Teleforum, Washington, D.C. (July 23, 2013)
            (debating Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law School).

            Webinar Presentation, ``FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: The Unsettling of
            Hatch-Waxman Settlements,'' BNA Bloomberg Webinar (July 16,
            2013) (no digital copy found).

            Guest on Public Radio Program To The Point With Warren Olney
            Discussing the FISA Court and NSA Programs (July 10, 2013)
            (debating with Cong. Adam Schiff of California) (no digital
            copy found).

            Prepared Remarks and Q&A Addressing Legal Bases for NSA
            Programs, Delivered before a Workshop of the Privacy and Civil
            Liberties Oversight Board, Washington, D.C. (July 9, 2013).

            Live Analysis, SCOTUS Decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., Dechert
            LLP, Washington, D.C. (June 19, 2013) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Addressing Cost-Benefit Analysis and OMB Review
            of Administrative Rulemaking, Federalist Society Luncheon
            Event, National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (June 11, 2013)
            (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker in Live Conference and Podcast, The Pentagon, the
            National Security Agency, and Domestic Cybersecurity,
            Federalist Society International & National Security Law
            Practice Group, Washington, D.C. (May 3, 2013).

            Panel Presentation, Dechert LLP's 2013 Annual Antitrust Spring
            Seminar, Philadelphia, PA (Apr. 17, 2013) (no digital copy
            found).

            Webinar Participant, Briefing on Supreme Court Case FTC v.
            Actavis, Inc. Regarding Intersection of Patent Law and
            Antitrust, American Intellectual Property Law Association
            Webinar, Washington, D.C. (Apr. 2, 2013) (no digital copy
            found).

            Panel Speaker, ``The Importance of Cost-Benefit Analysis in
            Agency Rulemaking,'' U.S. Chamber of Commerce Center for
            Capital Markets Competitiveness, Washington, D.C. (Mar. 12,
            2013) (no digital copy found).

            Featured Speaker, ``Agency v. Agency (and Other Problems of
            Overlapping Jurisdiction),'' Federalist Society Event, Duke Law
            School, Durham, NC (Jan. 31, 2013) (no digital copy found).

            Panel Speaker, Private Attorneys and the War on Terror, The
            Federalist Society, National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (Dec.
            6, 2012).

            Debate Presentation, ``Debating the USA PATRIOT Act: 10 Years
            Later,'' Appellate Judges Education Institute, 2012 Annual
            Summit, New Orleans, LA (Nov. 18, 2012) (debating Susan Herman,
            National President of the ACLU) (no recording found but I later
            published the substance of my presentation on my Substack site
            at Rumination: The USA PATRIOT Act).

            Webinar Participant, ``The Legal Challenge to the CFTC's New
            Registration Regime for Mutual Funds,'' Mutual Fund Directors
            Forum Webinar, Washington, D.C. (Oct. 9, 2012).

            Web Video, Addressing Federal Trade Commission's Policy Change
            in Seeking Restitution in Enforcement Proceedings, Washington
            Legal Foundation Web Video, Washington, D.C. (Aug. 30, 2012)
            (no digital copy found).

            Debate Participant, ``After Oral Argument: The Supreme Court
            and the Affordable Care Act,'' American Constitution Society
            Annual Convention, Washington, D.C. (June 16, 2012) (debating
            Walter Dellinger, former Acting Solicitor General; moderated by
            Adam Liptak of the New York Times) (no digital copy found).

            Mock Oral Argument on the Constitutionality of the Individual
            Insurance Mandate in the Affordable Care Act, Georgetown Law
            School Supreme Court Institute, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 1, 2012)
            (arguing opposite Walter Dellinger, former Acting Solicitor
            General, before a distinguished panel of Supreme Court
            practitioners sitting as mock justices) (no digital copy
            found).

            Panel Speaker, Addressing Developments in Cybersecurity Law,
            Steptoe & Johnson Forum, Washington, D.C. (June 28, 2011) (no
            digital copy found).

            Featured Speaker, Roundtable Discussion on the Developing Legal
            Framework for Defensive and Offensive Cybersecurity, Council on
            Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C. (Apr. 18, 2011) (no digital
            copy found).

            Keynote Address, ``The Developing Legal Framework for Defensive
            and Offensive Cyber Operations,'' Harvard National Security
            Journal Forum on Cybersecurity, Harvard Law School, Cambridge,
            MA (Mar. 4, 2011).

            Remarks Addressing Matrixx Initiatives Supreme Court Case,
            Federalist Society Press Call, Washington, D.C. (Jan. 6, 2011)
            (no digital copy found).

            Moderator, ``Merck & Co. v. Reynolds,'' Law Seminars
            International TeleBriefing (May 8, 2010) (panel presentation
            included Richard Cordray, then Attorney General of Ohio) (no
            digital copy found).

            Panel Presentation, Dechert LLP, Spring Antitrust CLE Seminar,
            Philadelphia, PA (Apr. 28, 2010) (no digital copy found).

            Remarks on Receiving the Intelligence Under Law Award, NSA's
            Law Day, National Security Agency, Fort Meade, MD (May 1, 2008)
            (no digital copy found).

            Remarks, Farewell Ceremony for Attorney General Alberto R.
            Gonzales, Great Hall of the U.S. Department of Justice,
            Washington, D.C. (Sept. 17, 2007).

            Remarks Delivered to Attorneys of My Former Law Firm, Kirkland
            & Ellis LLP, Concerning the Functions of the Office of Legal
            Counsel and My Experiences as Acting AAG, Washington, D.C.
            (Jan. 22, 2007) (no digital copy found).

            Guest on NPR's Morning Edition Radio Program, Explaining the
            Legal Basis for the Special NSA Surveillance Program Authorized
            by the President, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 14, 2006).

            Continued Guest Appearance, Explaining the Legal Basis for the
            Special NSA Surveillance Program Authorized by the President,
            C-SPAN Washing-ton Journal, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 8, 2006).

            Guest Appearance, Explaining the Legal Basis for the Special
            NSA Surveillance Program Authorized by the President, C-SPAN
            Washington Journal, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 8, 2006).

        * In addition to the presentations listed above, in private
    practice with Kirkland & Ellis LLP between 1993 and 2004, I
    participated in several panel discussions for industry or bar
    associations concerning matters or issues on which I was working; these
    included: a Washington Legal Foundation panel discussing an upcoming
    Supreme Court Term; a panel discussing antitrust litigation in the
    securities industry at the Securities Industry Association Annual Law
    and Compliance Seminar; and a panel discussing airline industry mergers
    at the ABA's Air and Space Law Section Annual Conference.
        19. List all public statements you have made during the past ten
    years, including statements in news articles and radio and podcasts and
    television appearances, which are on topics relevant to the position
    for which you have been nominated, including dates. Include a link to
    each statement when possible. If a link is not available, provide a
    digital copy of the statement when available.
        Note: I have made many public statements during the past ten years
    on a wide range of topics, mostly addressed to legal and public policy
    matters not directly relevant to DOT or the position of Deputy
    Secretary of Transportation. The following is the most complete list I
    could compile of my TV appearances, radio segments, podcasts, and other
    public statements made since 2014 that are not listed in response to
    previous questions. Those marked with an asterisk (*) concerned topics
    of potential relevance to DOT:

            Quoted in Christina Lewis, Heritage Launches $1 Million
            Campaign to Expedite Senate Confirmation of Trump's Cabinet
            Picks, The Daily Signal (Nov. 21, 2024).

            * Comments for the Record Submitted to EPA re ``California
            State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean
            Fleets Regulation; Request for Waiver of Preemption and
            Authorization'' (Sept. 13, 2024) (submitted in my personal
            capacity).

            * Radio Segment re CAFE Regulation, Steve Gruber Show, WJIM,
            Grand Rapids, MI (Sept. 3, 2024).

            * Video Interview re CAFE Regulation, Conducted by Motivo
            Documentary producers for prospective documentary entitled
            ``Shaped: CAFE Standards and EVs,'' under production for The
            Federalist Society (Aug. 22, 2024) (recording currently
            unavailable; documentary expected to be released in Spring
            2025).

            Webinar, Courthouse Steps Decision: United States of America v.
            Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira, The
            Federalist Society (July 31, 2024).

            Radio Segment re Project 2025 Myths & Truths, Jimmy Barrett
            Show, KPRC, Houston, TX (July 29, 2024).

            Radio Segment re Project 2025 Myths & Truths, Mornings with JT,
            WERC, Birmingham, AL (July 26, 2024).

            Quoted in Jarrett Stepman, Supreme Court Throws Back `Chevron
            Deference' in Ruling on Fishermen's Case Against Government,
            The Daily Signal (June 28, 2024).

            TV Appearance, Fischer v. United States: Supreme Court Sides
            with Jan. 6 Protester, Newsmax, The Record with Greta Van
            Susteren (June 28, 2024).

            Quoted in Claire Heddles, SCOTUS Is Poised to Make It Easier to
            Beat the Government. Big Law Is Ready to Make a Killing., NOTUS
            (May 30, 2024).

            Quoted in Gram Slattery, Sarah N. Lynch & Andrew Goudsward,
            Donald Trump wants to control the Justice Department and FBI.
            His allies have a plan., Reuters (May 29, 2024).

            Audio Interview re Proposals for FBI Reform, Conducted by Zoe
            Chace for This American Life Podcast (May 16, 2024) (no part of
            my interview was used in the released podcast episode,
            available here: Come Retribution).

            Podcast, Trump v. United States--Post-Argument SCOTUScast, The
            Federalist Society (May 2, 2024).

            Interviewed re FISA Reauthorization in The World and Everything
            in It: May 1, 2024, World News Group Radio Program (May 1,
            2024).

            TV Appearance, Supreme Court Weighs Presidential Immunity,
            Newsmax, Newsline with Bianca de la Garza (Apr. 25, 2024).

            Live Podcast, ``How Far Can the EPA Go in Regulating a State's
            Emissions?,'' Constituting America Series, Constitutional Chats
            (Apr. 23, 2024).

            * Comments for the Record submitted to EPA re ``California
            State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; In-Use
            Locomotive Regulation; Requests for Authorization'' (Apr. 19,
            2024) (submitted jointly with Washington Legal Foundation)
            (submitted in my personal capacity).

            Radio Segment re FISA Reauthorization, Moon Griffon Show, KPEL,
            Lafayette, LA (Apr. 17, 2024).

            Radio Segment re FISA Reauthorization, Stacy on the Right,
            National (Apr. 16, 2024) (no digital copy found).

            Video Conference Call with Reporters re FISA Reauthorization,
            The Heritage Foundation (Apr. 15, 2024) (participating
            reporters included Sean Moran from Breitbart, John Hines from
            OAN, Luis Martinez from NTD, and Jackson Richman from Epoch
            Times).

            Quoted in Leo Briceno, Reforms to spy law pass despite GOP
            fracture, World News Group (Apr. 12, 2024).

            Radio Segment re FISA Reauthorization, Scripps News with
            Stephanie Liebergen (Apr. 11, 2024) (no digital copy found).

            * TV Appearance re Baltimore Bridge Collapse, Newsmax2, First
            Edition (Mar. 27, 2024) (no digital copy found).

            * TV Appearance, Investigation Underway into Baltimore Bridge
            Collapse, Fox Business, Mornings with Maria (Bartiromo) (Mar.
            27, 2024).

            * TV Appearance re Baltimore Bridge Collapse, Newsmax2, Todd
            Starnes Show (Mar. 26, 2024) (no digital copy found).

            * TV Appearance, Baltimore Bridge Collapses After Cargo Ship
            Crash, Newsmax, National Report (Mar. 26, 2024).

            * Audio Podcast in Brian Gottstein, Distracted By Climate
            Change? Former Trump Transportation Official Weighs in on
            Bridge Collapse, The Daily Signal (Mar.  26, 2024).

            * Prepared Remarks, EPA Public Hearing on California's Request
            for Authorization for CARB's In-Use Locomotive Regulation (Mar.
            20, 2024) (presented in my personal capacity).

            * Video Message re NHTSA's Consideration of Kill Switch
            Technology, The Heritage Foundation (Mar. 5, 2024).

            * Comments for the Record Submitted to NHTSA re ``Advanced
            Impaired Driving Prevention Technology'' (Mar. 5, 2024)
            (submitted in my personal capacity).

            TV Appearance, Supreme Court Watch: Nation's High Court
            Expected to Rule on Trump Ballot Case, Newsmax, The Record with
            Greta Van Susteren (Mar. 1, 2024).

            * Radio Segment re CARB Trucking Regulations, Your Financial
            Editor, WFMD, Frederick, MD (Feb. 17, 2024).

            * Radio Segment re CARB Trucking Regulations, Voice of Iowa
            Morning Show with Doug Wagner, Iowa (Feb. 15, 2024).

            Radio Segment re Mayorkas Impeachment, First News with Toby
            Howell, KARN, Little Rock, AR (Feb. 7, 2024) (no digital copy
            found).

            Radio Segment re Mayorkas Impeachment, Afternoon Show, WBAP,
            Dallas, TX (Feb. 6, 2024) (no digital copy found).

            Radio Segment re Immigration Issues and Mayorkas Impeachment,
            John Stiegerwald Show, Salem Radio, Pittsburgh, PA (Feb. 5,
            2024).

            Quoted in Leo Briceno, Both parties push for FISA reform after
            intelligence abuses, World News Group (Dec. 7, 2023).

            * Radio Segment re Virginia EV Rules, Freedom & Prosperity
            Radio (Nov. 1, 2023).

            * Townhall Discussion, Virginia Tele-Town Hall re Virginia EV
            Rules (Oct. 30, 2023) (no digital copy found).

            Live Podcast, The Fourth Amendment, Constituting America Series
            (Oct. 24, 2023).

            * Comments for the Record Submitted to NHTSA re ``Corporate
            Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light
            Trucks for Model Years 2027-2032 and Fuel Efficiency Standards
            for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030-
            2035'' (Oct. 16, 2023) (submitted jointly with Mario Loyola)
            (submitted in my personal capacity).

            * Quoted in Jarrett Stepman, Opinion, As Biden Admin Advances
            War on Fossil Fuels, Here's How You Can Fight Back, The Daily
            Signal (Oct. 13, 2023).

            * Radio Segment re Biden EV Push, Ditch in the Morning, WKIM,
            Memphis, TN (Sept. 19, 2023).

            * Interviewed in Samantha Achieris, Biden Admin, California
            Regulators Aim to Force Carmakers to Produce `100 percent
            Electric' Vehicles, Heritage Expert Warns, The Daily Signal
            (Sept. 18, 2023).

            Training Video, Executive Order Drafting & Implementation,
            Project 2025 Presidential Administration Academy, Conservative
            Governance: Advancing Policy (Aug. 29, 2023).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Salem Radio News, Salem Radio
            Network (Aug. 9, 2023) (no digital copy found).

            * Quoted in Alex Gage, Joe Biden Enjoys His 1967 Corvette While
            Forcing You to Go Electric, The Daily Signal (Aug. 7, 2023).

            Video Podcast Interview, What's Inside Third Trump Indictment,
            The Daily Signal (Aug. 2, 2023).

            Quoted in Virginia Allen, Surprising What Is--and Isn't--in 3rd
            Trump Indictment, Legal Expert Says, The Daily Signal (Aug. 2,
            2023).

            Quoted in Tyler O'Neil, Secret Service Refuses to Hand Over
            `Known Pool of Individuals' List in White House Cocaine
            Incident, The Daily Signal (July 27, 2023).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Kevin McCullough Show, WMCA, New
            York, NY (July 27, 2023) (no digital copy found).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, First News, WWL, New Orleans, LA
            (July 24, 2023) (no digital copy found).

            TV Appearance, How to Fix the FBI, Real America's Voice,
            America's Voice Live (July 20, 2023).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, The Morning Wire, Daily Wire (July
            15, 2023).

            Interviewed in Samantha Achieris, What's at Stake If FBI Isn't
            Fixed, The Daily Signal (July 14, 2023).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Morning News Show with Drew Cline,
            WFEA, Manchester, NH (July 14, 2023) (no digital copy found).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Live and Local with Kevin Wall,
            KMZQ, Las Vegas, NV (July 13, 2023).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Dave Elswick Show, Salem Radio,
            Little Rock, AR (July 13, 2023) (need better link).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Rush to Reason, KLZ 560, Denver,
            CO (July 13, 2023).

            * Quoted in Samantha Achieris, How Proposed EPA Electric
            Vehicle Rule Would Compromise Auto Safety, The Daily Signal
            (July 13, 2023).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Mornings with JT, WERC,
            Birmingham, AL (July 12, 2023).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Lee Elci Voice of Freedom, WJJF,
            New London, CT (July 12, 2023) (no digital copy found).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Rod Arquette Show, KNRS, Salt Lake
            City, UT (July 11, 2023) (no digital copy found).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Talk of the Town, 100.7 FM, Utica,
            NY (July 11, 2023).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, Andy Caldwell Show, KUHL, Santa
            Barbara, CA (July 11, 2023).

            Radio Segment re FBI Reform, John Stiegerwald Show, AM 1250,
            Pittsburgh, PA (July 10, 2023).

            * Comments for the Record Submitted to the EPA re ``Multi-
            Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later
            Light-Duty and Medium Duty Vehicles'' and ``Greenhouse Gas
            Emissions Standards for Heavy Duty Vehicles--Phase 3'' (July 5,
            2023) (submitted in my personal capacity).

            Radio Segment re Canadian Wildfires, Lee Elci Show, WJJF, New
            London, CT (June 9, 2023).

            Radio Segment re Canadian Wildfires, Paul Pacelli Show, WICC,
            Bridgeport, CT (June 8, 2023).

            Video Message re Canadian Wildfires, The Heritage Foundation
            (June 8, 2023).

            Quoted in Virginia Allen, Rep. Andy Biggs Asks If Mayorkas
            Violated Border Security Law. `Yes,' Expert Answers., The Daily
            Signal (June 7, 2023).

            * Quoted in Terri Wu, In-Depth: EPA Faces Backlash, Court
            Battles Over Its New Emissions Rules, The Epoch Times (Apr. 23,
            2023).

            * TV Appearance, EPA to Approve California Diesel Regulations,
            One America News (OAN), In Focus with Addison Smith (Mar. 22,
            2023).

            * TV Appearance, Norfolk Southern CEO Testifies Over Toxic
            Train Derailment, Newsmax, American Agenda (Mar. 10, 2023).

            Quoted in Virginia Allen, The 1 Million Illegal Immigrant
            Encounters in Past 5 Months Is Equivalent to Population of
            Biden's Delaware, The Daily Signal (Feb. 27, 2023).

            Quoted in Virginia Allen, Supreme Court Cancels Arguments for
            Health Measure Limiting Illegal Immigration, The Daily Signal
            (Feb. 17, 2023).

            Quoted in Virginia Allen, 4 Reasons Why Republicans Call for
            Impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, The
            Daily Signal (Feb. 8, 2023).

            * TV Appearance, FAA NOTAM system could be more efficiently
            operated if privatized: Steven Bradbury, Fox News Live (Jan.
            14, 2023).

            * TV Appearance, FAA System Outage Causes Nationwide Flight
            Delays and Cancellations, Newsmax, Saturday Agenda (Jan. 14,
            2023).

            * TV Appearance re America Grounded: FAA Software Outage Forces
            Nationwide Ground Stop, Fox Business (Jan. 11, 2023).

            * TV Appearance, Flight Cancellations Leave Thousands Stranded,
            Newsmax, Spicer & Co. (Dec. 28, 2022).

            News Release, Heritage Welcomes Former Acting Transportation
            Secretary Steven Bradbury as Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage
            Foundation (Dec. 12, 2022).

            * Audio Podcast, Deep Dive Episode 226--Due Process Protections
            in Agency Enforcement Actions, The Federalist Society (June 30,
            2022) (audio version of webinar listed below).

            * Webinar, Due Process Protections in Agency Enforcement
            Actions, The Federalist Society (May 31, 2022).

            Teleforum, Pending Litigation and the New Administration, The
            Federalist Society (Feb. 8, 2017) (no digital copy found).

            Teleforum, The Second Annual Mike Lewis Memorial Teleforum, The
            Federalist Society (Jan. 24, 2017) (discussing the Obama
            administration policy regarding the legal bases for using
            military force against terrorist organizations) (no digital
            copy found).

            Audio Podcast, Zivotofsky v. Kerry--Post-Decision SCOTUScast,
            The Federalist Society (June 11, 2015).

            Teleforum, The President vs. Congress: Zivotofsky v. Kerry, The
            Federalist Society (June 8, 2015) (no digital copy found).

            Guest Appearance, Discussion and Debate on Reauthorizing the
            PATRIOT Act, C-SPAN Washington Journal, Washington, D.C. (May
            16, 2015) (debating Neema Singh Guliani of the ACLU).

            Video Commentary, Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, The
            Federalist Society (June 24, 2014).

            Teleforum, Fraud on the Market?--Oral Argument Preview of
            Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, The Federalist Society (Mar.
            4, 2014) (no digital copy found).

            Guest on Radio Program Discussing FISA Court Process and NSA
            Programs, NPR Philadelphia Affiliate (Jan. 21, 2014) (no
            digital copy found).

            Teleforum, NSA Court Decision [Discussing District Court
            Decision Enjoining NSA Metadata Program], The Federalist
            Society (Dec. 19, 2013) (no digital copy found).

            * In addition to the public statements listed above, I made
            numerous posts and reposts on X.com and LinkedIn on a wide
            range of topics, some of which were relevant to DOT. All such
            posts are available at my X.com and LinkedIn accounts
            identified in response to Question 20.

            * Furthermore, my current employer, The Heritage Foundation,
            has made the following posts on X.com that refer to me or my
            writings or that include video clips of me:

         1.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1870306115809849758 (Dec. 20,
            2024) (video re FBI reform).

         2.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1860104543163363383 (Nov. 22,
            2024) (video re President's nominees).

         3.  *https://x.com/Heritage/status/1843794346534940935 (Oct. 8,
            2024) (video re CARB vehicle regulation).

         4.  *https://x.com/Heritage/status/1831340140381311300 (Sept. 4,
            2024) (paper re CAFE regulation).

         5.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1806692026366181387 (June 28,
            2024) (paper re Democracy and the abuses of our ruling elites).

         6.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1797651308121604359 (June 3,
            2024) (paper re FBI reform).

         7.  *https://x.com/Heritage/status/1764756195804373217 (Mar. 4,
            2024) (video re impaired driving sensors).

         8.  *https://x.com/Heritage/status/1757497029435990335 (Feb. 13,
            2024) (paper re CARB trucking regulation).

         9.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1757458866533523627 (Feb. 13,
            2024) (paper re FISA reform proposals).

        10.  *https://x.com/Heritage/status/1733175858800787892 (Dec. 8,
            2023) (video of congressional testimony re EPA vehicle
            emissions rules).

        11.  *https://x.com/Heritage/status/1708485166392389771 (Oct. 1,
            2023) (paper re CARB locomotive regulation).

        12.  *https://x.com/Heritage/status/1705020947156042064 (Sept. 21,
            2023) (video re EV mandates).

        13.  *https://x.com/Heritage/status/1688629581874343936 (Aug. 7,
            2023) (video re EPA vehicle emissions rules).

        14.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1684279581811826690 (July 26,
            2023) (video of congressional testimony re border crossing
            numbers).

        15.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1679256822644080640 (July 12,
            2023) (video re FBI reform).

        16.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1666899952658702352 (June 8,
            2023) (video re Canadian wildfires).

        17.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1666843879012806667 (June 8,
            2023) (video of congressional testimony re immigration
            enforcement).

        18.  https://x.com/Heritage/status/1666527622581440521 (June 7,
            2023) (video of congressional testimony re border crossing
            numbers).

        20. List all digital platforms (including social media and other
    digital content sites) on which you currently or have formerly operated
    an account, regardless of whether or not the account was held in your
    name or an alias. Include the full name of an ``alias'' or ``handle'',
    including the complete URL and username with hyperlinks, you have used
    on each of the named platforms. Indicate whether the account is active,
    deleted, or dormant. Include a link to each account if possible.

            X.com: @SGBradbury--www.x.com/sgbradbury

            LinkedIn: Steve Bradbury--www.linkedin.com/in/steve-bradbury-
            8814a82b

            www.Adespotoi.Substack.com (my own Substack site)

            www.SGBradbury.Medium.com (my own Medium site)

            Truth Social: SGBradbury--www.truthsocial.com/sgbradbury (not
            active)

            Instagram: SGBradbury--www.instagram.com/sgbradbury (not
            active)

            Facebook: SGBradbury--www.fb.com/sgbradbury (not active)

        21. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
    orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
    governmental capacity and specify the date, committee, and subject
    matter of each testimony.

            Hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary,
            Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and
            Enforcement, ``The Border Crisis: Is the Law Being Faithfully
            Executed?'' (June 7, 2023) (testimony presented in my personal
            capacity).

            Hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and
            Accountability, Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy,
            and Regulatory Affairs, ``Driving Bad Policy: Examining EPA's
            Tailpipe Emissions Rules and the Realities of a Rapid Electric
            Vehicle Transition'' (May 17, 2023) (testimony presented in my
            personal capacity).

            Off-Site Discussion Convened by Congressman Andy Biggs of
            Arizona, ``Potential Legal Bases for Impeachment of Alejandro
            Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security'' (Feb. 8,
            2023) (testimony presented in my personal capacity).

            Confirmation Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce,
            Science, and Transportation of Steven Gill Bradbury to be
            General Counsel of the Department of Transportation (June 28,
            2017).

            Hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary,
            ``Examining Recommendations to Reform FISA Authorities'' (Feb.
            4, 2014).

            Hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on
            Intelligence, ``Legislative Proposals for Modifying NSA
            Programs and Amending FISA Authorities'' (Oct. 29, 2013).

            Hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary,
            ``Oversight Hearing into the Administration's Use of FISA
            Authorities'' (July 17, 2013).

            Hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, ``The
            Ramifications of the Supreme Court's Ruling on the Affordable
            Care Act'' (July 10, 2012).

            Hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, ``The
            Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate in the Affordable
            Care Act'' (Mar. 29, 2012).

            Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, ``The Due
            Process Guarantee Act: Banning Indefinite Detention of
            Americans'' (Feb. 29, 2012).

            Hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary,
            Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil
            Liberties, ``Oversight of the Justice Department's Office of
            Legal Counsel'' (Feb. 14, 2008).

            Classified Hearing before the Senate Select Committee on
            Intelligence Concerning Legal and Policy Review of CIA Program
            (Apr. 12, 2007).

            Hearing before the House Committee on Armed Services,
            ``Standards of Military Commissions and Tribunals Following the
            Supreme Court's Decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'' (Sept. 7,
            2006).

            Hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary,
            Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,
            ``Legislative Proposals to Update the Foreign Intelligence
            Surveillance Act'' (Sept. 6, 2006).

            Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, ``The
            Authority to Prosecute Terrorists under the War Crimes
            Provisions of Title 18'' (Aug. 2, 2006).

            Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, ``FISA
            for the 21st Century'' (July 26, 2006).

            Hearing before the House Committee on Armed Services,
            ``Standards of Military Commissions and Tribunals Following the
            Supreme Court's Decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'' (July 12,
            2006).

            Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, ``Hamdan
            v. Rumsfeld: Establishing a Constitutional Process for Military
            Commissions'' (July 11, 2006).

            Confirmation Hearing before the Senate Committee on the
            Judiciary, Nomination of several nominees, including Steven G.
            Bradbury to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
            Legal Counsel, Department of Justice (Oct. 6, 2005).

        22. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
    operational objectives of the department/agency/commission/corporation
    to which you have been nominated, what in your background or employment
    experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment
    to the position for which you have been nominated, and why do you wish
    to serve in that position?
        I believe I am qualified to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation
    based on my extensive previous experience managing the Department of
    Transportation, including as the Acting Secretary of Transportation for
    a brief period of 8 days in January 2021; as the Acting Deputy
    Secretary of Transportation and the presidentially designated official
    who carried out the functions and duties of the Office of Deputy
    Secretary from September 2019 to January 2021; as the Senate-confirmed
    General Counsel, or chief legal officer, of DOT from November 2017 to
    January 2021; and as the designated Regulatory Policy Officer for DOT
    and a member of the Secretary's senior leadership team during my entire
    tenure as General Counsel.
        Furthermore, in my many years of private legal practice before
    November 2017, I represented numerous clients in significant regulatory
    matters before the U.S. Department of Transportation, from which I
    derived additional valuable experience with the Department's exercise
    of its statutory authorities.
        And since leaving government service in January 2021, including in
    my capacity as a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, I
    have continued to write and speak on issues of public policy relevant
    to the regulatory authorities of DOT.
        23. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
    ensure that the department/agency/commission/corporation has proper
    management and accounting controls, and what experience do you have in
    managing a large organization?
        If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Transportation, my
    responsibilities will be to assist the Secretary of Transportation in
    carrying out the directions, policies, and priorities of the President
    of the United States and in properly and efficiently managing all
    programs, functions, offices, and activities of the U.S. Department of
    Transportation in the exercise of the Secretary's statutory authorities
    in accordance with the law and the Constitution.
        I previously managed the functions and duties of the U.S.
    Department of Transportation and the exercise of the Secretary's legal
    authorities in my capacity as Acting Secretary of Transportation,
    Acting Deputy Secretary of Transportation, and General Counsel of DOT.
    I also gained significant organizational management experience as a
    litigation partner in two large international law firms and as the
    Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant
    Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice.
        24. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
    department/agency/commission/corporation, and why?
        I see the major challenges facing the Department of Transportation
    to be:

        (a) promoting the safety and efficiency of America's great
    transportation systems through the reasonable and effective application
    of the legal authorities granted to the Secretary by Congress in
    accordance with the policies and priorities of the President, while
    eliminating all irrational, discriminatory, and non-statutory policy
    goals and requirements that have detracted from or undermined the
    Department's primary safety mission;
        (b) achieving rational deregulation and smart regulatory reform in
    accordance with the President's directions and consistent with law and
    with the preservation of competitive markets and incentives for private
    investment in innovation; and
        (c) advancing critical and cost-beneficial transportation
    infrastructure improvements of national importance to the American
    people in accordance with the authorizations and appropriations
    provided by Congress and consistent with the President's policies,
    priorities, and directions.
                       b. potential conflicts of interest
        1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
    agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
    clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
    accounts, such as a 401(k) or pension plan.
        I currently am employed as a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage
    Foundation (``Heritage'') (a non-profit public policy think tank). If
    confirmed, I will resign from that position. Following my separation
    from Heritage, I will have no continuing financial arrangements,
    deferred compensation agreements, or other business dealings with
    Heritage or any other organization, associates, clients, or customers.
        I currently participate in a 401(k) retirement plan and a 403(b)
    retirement plan through my employment with Heritage. Following my
    separation from Heritage, I will not continue to participate in these
    Heritage retirement plans and plan to roll out of them.
        I currently hold a 401(k) retirement plan and a 401(a) retirement
    plan from my previous employment with Dechert LLP. The plan sponsor
    ceased making contributions to these plans upon my separation from
    Dechert LLP in 2017, and I plan to roll out of these plans upon my
    separation from Heritage.
        I hold a health savings account (HSA) stemming from my previous
    employment with Dechert LLP. The account sponsor ceased making
    contributions to this HSA upon my separation from Dechert LLP in 2017.
    I plan to continue to hold this HSA.
        2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
    to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
    association, or other organization during your appointment? If so,
    please explain.
        No.
        3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
    relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
    the position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you will
    resolve each potential conflict of interest.
        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
    the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation
    (DOT) Designated Agency Ethics Official to identify potential conflicts
    of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved
    consistent with the terms of the ethics agreement I have entered into
    with the DOT Designated Agency Ethics Official, which will be provided
    to this Committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts of
    interest stemming from investments, obligations, liabilities or other
    continuing relationships.
        4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
    transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for
    yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
    any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
    position to which you have been nominated. Explain how you will resolve
    each potential conflict of interest.
        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
    the Office of Government Ethics and the DOT Designated Agency Ethics
    Official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential
    conflicts of interest will be resolved consistent with the terms of the
    ethics agreement I have entered into with the DOT Designated Agency
    Ethics Official, which will be provided to this Committee.
        As a law partner in Dechert LLP prior to my appointment as General
    Counsel of DOT in November 2017, I represented TK Holdings, Inc., the
    U.S. subsidiary of Takata Corporation, in an enforcement matter before
    NHTSA, a component of DOT, involving the recall of defective airbag
    inflators. Consistent with the rules of professional responsibility
    applicable to me as a member of the D.C. Bar and in accordance with the
    commitment I made to this Committee in connection with my nomination to
    serve as General Counsel of DOT, I have recused myself from any
    involvement on behalf of DOT or any other party in the ongoing
    enforcement matter concerning the recall
        of Takata airbag inflators since my separation from Dechert LLP in
    November 2017. Should I be confirmed as Deputy Secretary of
    Transportation, I will continue to recuse myself from any involvement
    in the Takata airbag recall matter, including as it may relate to any
    successor of Takata Corporation or TK Holdings, Inc.
        I am not aware of other potential conflicts of interest stemming
    from my prior business relationships, dealings, or financial
    transactions. Should I become aware of any such potential conflict of
    interest, I will follow the requirements of all ethics laws and
    regulations and the advice of the DOT Designated Agency Ethics Official
    as necessary and appropriate to resolve and eliminate the potential
    conflict.
        5. Identify any other potential conflicts of interest and explain
    how you will resolve each potential conflict of interest.
        In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
    the Office of Government Ethics and the DOT Designated Agency Ethics
    Official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential
    conflicts of interest will be resolved consistent with the terms of an
    ethics agreement I will enter into with the DOT Designated Agency
    Ethics Official, which will be provided to this Committee. I am not
    aware of any other potential conflicts of interest.
        6. Describe any activity during the past ten years, including the
    names of clients represented, in which you have been engaged for the
    purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or
    modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and
    execution of law or public policy.
        I have not been engaged by a client during the past ten years to
    influence legislation.
        Since December 2022, as part of my work on public policy matters
    for The Heritage Foundation (a 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank), I have
    analyzed the merits (pros and cons) of proposed legislation and of
    regulations, as well as potential legislative and regulatory reforms.
    In my personal capacity, not on behalf of The Heritage Foundation or
    for any client, I have submitted comments to the EPA and NHTSA on
    proposed regulatory actions and have testified on public policy issues
    (1) before Committees of Congress, (2) as part of an off-site
    discussion held by a Member of Congress, and (3) in a public hearing
    hosted by the EPA. In 2023, I signed a letter in my personal capacity
    concerning a nomination for FAA Administrator then pending before this
    Committee.
        In June and August 2022, prior to my employment with The Heritage
    Foundation, in my personal capacity and not for any client, I
    participated in a panel discussion and I authored an online article on
    my personal Substack site supporting congressional enactment of
    amendments to the Electoral Count Act (legislation subsequently enacted
    as the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022).
        Prior to my separation from Dechert LLP in November 2017, I
    represented clients (including TK Holdings, Inc., as noted above) in
    matters involving agency investigations and potential enforcement
    actions, including before DOT. In all such matters, I presented good
    faith arguments on behalf of my clients relating to the interpretation
    and application of relevant laws.
                                c. legal matters
        1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics,
    professional misconduct, or retaliation by, or been the subject of a
    complaint to, any court, administrative agency, the Office of Special
    Counsel, an Inspector General, professional association, disciplinary
    committee, or other professional group? If yes:

      a.  Provide the name of the court, agency, association, committee, or
            group;

      b.  Provide the date the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or
            personnel action was issued or initiated;

      c.  Describe the citation, disciplinary action, complaint, or
            personnel action;

      d.  Provide the results of the citation, disciplinary action,
            complaint, or personnel action.

        No. I am aware that in May 2009 a coalition of groups announced an
    intention to submit bar complaints against two former Attorneys General
    and several other attorneys who served in senior positions in the U.S.
    Department of Justice, including me, in connection with legal advice
    previously provided to the President with regard to the War on Terror.
    To my knowledge, no such complaints were accepted for filing by my bar,
    the D.C. Bar, and no bar complaint proceedings were ever initiated
    against me. The D.C. Bar has informed me that there is no record of any
    bar complaint against me.
        2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
    any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
    State, county, municipal, or foreign government entity, other than for
    a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain.
        No, except as described in response to Question 4 below.
        3. Have you or any business or nonprofit of which you are or were
    an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency
    proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation? If so, please
    explain.
        I have not been a party to civil litigation, administrative agency
    proceedings, or criminal proceedings, except as described in response
    to Question 4 below. My current employer and the law firms of which I
    have been a partner in the past have on occasion been parties to
    litigation, but none of those litigation matters has concerned
    activities involving me personally, and I am not personally familiar
    with the details of any such litigation matters.
        Certain legal opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)
    of the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002 and 2003 (before my time as
    Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OLC) were the subject
    of an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
    of the Department of Justice, and in the course of that investigation,
    OPR also considered certain later OLC opinions that I signed. OPR did
    not make any finding that my opinions failed to satisfy standards of
    professional responsibility. The final OPR report of July 2009 made
    recommendations concerning the earlier OLC opinions and did include
    criticisms of my later opinions, but that report was overruled and its
    recommendations were rejected by the senior career official of the
    Department of Justice (the career Associate Deputy Attorney General) in
    January 2010, and the OPR report does not have continuing official
    force or validity.
        4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
    contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
    offense? If so, please explain.
        Yes, as follows:

      a)  Moving violation: Failure to yield right of way on a left turn
            (in connection with a traffic accident on Bradley Blvd. in
            Montgomery County, MD on 06/05/2002). On 10/01/2002, I pleaded
            guilty in Circuit Court of Montgomery County, MD, and paid a
            $37 fine plus $23 in court costs. The court reduced the points
            for this violation from 3 to 1.

      b)  I received a citation on 10/02/1981 for entering the New York
            City subway system without paying the fare. On 11/02/1981, I
            pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court of New York City and paid
            a $10 fine.

        5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
    assault, sexual harassment, or discrimination on the basis of sex,
    race, religion, or any other basis? If so, please explain. No.
        6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
    favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
    connection with your nomination. None.
                       d. relationship with the committee
        1. Will you ensure that your department/agency/commission/
    corporation complies with deadlines for information set by
    congressional committees, and that your department/agency/commission/
    corporation endeavors to timely comply with requests for information
    from individual Members of Congress, including requests from members in
    the minority?
        Yes, to the extent reasonable and feasible and in accordance with
    Executive Branch guidance.
        2. Will you ensure that your department/agency/commission/
    corporation does whatever it can to protect congressional witnesses and
    whistleblowers from reprisal for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
        3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
    witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
    firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee?
        Yes, to the extent consistent with legal and customary
    requirements.
        4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
    constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
    reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bradbury.
        Let us start with this. If you are confirmed as Deputy
    Secretary of Transportation what legacy would you like to leave
    in transportation and infrastructure?
        Mr. Bradbury. I would like the legacy to be that the
    Department had achieved greater efficiency in directing the
    dollars to the projects of most national importance for the
    American people, basically greatest bang for the buck for the
    American taxpayer in terms of infrastructure projects.
        And we need to assess how the Department exercises the
    discretion that Congress has given it with regard to funding
    programs to ensure that we are focusing our attention on safety
    and efficiency in those projects, and we need to improve the
    capacity and expand the capacity of infrastructure in the
    United States.
        So those are the things I hope we can achieve over the next
    four years.
        The Chairman. So this past month has been a harrowing month
    for air travel. In this past month there have been fatal
    aircraft accidents here in Washington, D.C., in Philadelphia,
    in Alaska, and just yesterday in Arizona. Fortunately, all the
    passengers and crew survived the crash in Toronto earlier this
    week.
        How would you help restore confidence in air travel and
    maintain a safe national airspace?
        Mr. Bradbury. We need to bring resources to bear
    immediately. I think the Secretary has indicated he is doing
    this to review all of the safety systems we use in air traffic
    control in the FAA.
        We need to upgrade those systems. There has been a lot of
    talk for decades about improving the efficiency and
    effectiveness of the systems, making sure we have up-to-date
    technical systems for the FAA, and yet we still see that
    systems are obsolete.
        They have not performed the way they need to perform as
    we--the process of upgrading is too slow. We need somehow to
    break through. We need new thinking on it. I think that is what
    the Secretary is focused on very keenly.
        But we also, Mr. Chairman, need to improve, expand the
    capacity of the training of new air traffic controllers, get
    the bright--best and brightest in there, and we have to take a
    hard look at that process and the capabilities of our air
    traffic controllers.
        So we still have the safest air system in the world, but we
    cannot fall down on the job and these recent disasters are just
    a horrible reminder that we need to be constantly vigilant
    because we have a zero tolerance for commercial air disasters.
        The Chairman. Yesterday Secretary Duffy published an op-ed
    in which he said, quote, ``America's air traffic systems need
    an urgent upgrade.'' DOT is addressing aging networks and
    systems like NOTAM. It is taking a close look at personnel,
    boosting its recruitment of air traffic controllers.
        The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which Senator Cantwell
    and I wrote, requires maximum hiring of air traffic controllers
    for the next five years.
        Should the FAA continue to exempt safety critical staff
    like controllers from any potential hiring freezes or layoffs?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, the Secretary will make that judgment
    but he has been pretty clear that all safety critical officials
    are exempt from the recent cuts and the focus, and air traffic
    controllers certainly fall into that category.
        We need more air traffic controllers. We need a faster
    pipeline, larger capacity in that, and clearly Congress has
    spoken on that and I think it is a major priority.
        The Chairman. And just to clarify what the Secretary has
    said, there has been a lot of news coverage about the reduction
    in force at the FAA.
        My understanding is it is less than 1 percent of the
    workforce and what Secretary Duffy has said is that no air
    traffic controllers were included in that and that no safety
    critical positions were included in that. Is that your
    understanding as well?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes. I heard those statements and that is
    very consistent with what I know to be his focus to ensure that
    as we achieve greater efficiencies in funding and staffing
    throughout the Department that those cuts where appropriate
    will be made without compromising safety and he will ensure
    that safety critical staffing is sufficient to address those
    needs.
        The Chairman. So in his confirmation hearing Secretary
    Duffy made various commitments to this committee and I want to
    run through a few of them right now to make sure you and he are
    on the same page, and to make this easier the answer to each of
    these questions should be yes.
        Will you work with my office to ensure that the new Center
    for Advanced Aviation Technology created by the FAA
    Reauthorization Act of 2024 is established in Dallas-Fort Worth
    consistent with congressional intent?
        Mr. Bradbury. I will certainly support the Secretary's
    efforts in that regard.
        The Chairman. Will you prioritize the renewal of TXDOT's
    NEPA assignment authority on reasonable terms before its
    expiration in March 2025?
        Mr. Bradbury. I think the Department--certainly, I
    personally strongly support NEPA authority being assigned to
    states that have the capability of undertaking complex NEPA
    assessments. I certainly understand that Texas is one of those
    states and I think this is a good, efficient process.
        The Chairman. For nearly four years five deepwater port
    license applications have languished in the U.S. Maritime
    Administration--MARAD.
        Will you commit to expediting MARAD's review of the
    application from Texas-based Delfin and LNG?
        Mr. Bradbury. I definitely intend to look into that and
    make sure that MARAD is moving those applications forward as
    quickly and that there are not any unnecessary, unreasonable
    delays in that. I totally support the effort with deepwater
    ports.
        The Chairman. Will you commit to reviewing penalties issued
    by the FAA against SpaceX and curtailing bureaucratic overreach
    at the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes, and I strongly support further
    streamlining efforts with regard to commercial space licensing
    regulation.
        The Chairman. OK. And two more.
        Will you commit to providing my office with the DOT staff
    ratings for all discretionary grant applications over the last
    four years in which the California high-speed rail project
    received an award?
        Mr. Bradbury. I understand that the Secretary received that
    request and we will be responding to that and I will work with
    the Secretary to make sure that this committee and you, Mr.
    Chairman, get what you need.
        The Chairman. He said yes and I will take that as a yes as
    well.
        And, finally, do you agree that pipelines are one of the
    safest modes of surface transportation and that DOT should let
    data drive regulatory decisions?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Bradbury, I brought up the SMS rule in my opening
    statement and I am assuming you know enough about safety
    management systems to have this discussion, that safety
    management system is about a continuous improvement and an
    analytical approach.
        So it basically means when you come up with a problem you
    are going to stop and fix it. So it is not--you cannot keep
    moving forward.
        So in this article that was reported in--let me just put in
    the chart then.
        We know that the rule was halted nine days after the MAX
    crash. Why did you stop the rulemaking from happening?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I do not know that I stopped it.
        Senator Cantwell. That is what is reported in the paper and
    I mentioned the FAA person who was in charge of the process who
    said the industry and everybody wanted to move forward and it
    was submitted, and then next thing you know it is pulled. So--
    --
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, certainly we go through a review of
    every regulation and as I recall in that regulation there were
    questions on the merits about which entities it should apply to
    and how it might apply to small businesses or small entities.
        Those are the kinds of questions that need to be addressed
    whenever you----
        Senator Cantwell. So you are saying you might have killed
    the SMS rule because you did not want it to apply to small
    manufacturers?
        Mr. Bradbury. I did not--I would not say I killed the SMS
    rule and let me say----
        Senator Cantwell. We still do not have one. Our committee
    has worked hard to get one and now it is going to be in law.
    But I have more questions about this.
        But yes, you did stop it from happening. There was a
    recommendation to move forward on it and your office stopped
    it.
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, Senator Cantwell, let me say I strongly
    support safety management systems as an approach to regulation.
        Senator Cantwell. A mandatory. A mandatory, not an
    optional----
        Mr. Bradbury. I would support mandatory safety management
    systems and I would appreciate the opportunity to work with
    this committee to make sure we have them in place not just in
    aviation but in other transportation sectors because I think it
    is a smart way to regulate.
        You put the onus on the operators and the manufacturers to
    avoid safety problems defects. You put it on them. They have to
    come up with the system to do it and then you hold them
    accountable. I think we can----
        Senator Cantwell. Do you agree with the FAA's decision to
    allow the Boeing Company to continue to fly MAXes after the
    first crash?
        Mr. Bradbury. That was, I know, an agonizing period and I
    know the experts at FAA were looking very hard at it, looking
    at what might have been involved in that, and the secretary's
    office--I was assisting the secretary. We were very closely
    monitoring the FAA, the professionals at the FAA in that.
        We certainly supported their decision to ground the 737
    MAX. In hindsight a lot could be said for doing it sooner. It
    was an unprecedented situation for the FAA to ground an entire
    fleet of aircraft like that but I think they made the right
    decision.
        And then, you know, we were very involved for----
        Senator Cantwell. The right decision----
        Mr. Bradbury. To ground the plane. To ground the plane.
        Senator Cantwell. OK. But back to--the FAA went to Seattle
    after the Indonesian crash and basically did not do any kind of
    thorough review. Again, a safety management system would have
    required an analysis. That is what safety management system--of
    critical features.
        But the FAA, filled with light touch people, which we have
    tried to root out and that is why we try to pass strong
    legislation, because we do not want a light touch in aviation
    and we cannot have an efficiency approach or a bean counter
    approach because that is not saving lives and in reality it is
    not saving money either.
        So we need an FAA and a DOT and a general counsel who is
    going to stand up to get these rules in place.
        Mr. Bradbury. I agree. I agree that we need strong safety
    management systems, as I indicated before, with
    accountability----
        Senator Cantwell. OK.
        Mr. Bradbury.--with real penalties, and we need to be
    tougher on Boeing. We need to be tougher on the--we need to be
    tougher on the railroads as we have seen with the East
    Palestine disaster.
        Senator Cantwell. OK. I do not have a ton of time left.
        But so when this committee passed--so we did what the FAA
    would not do. We mandated a safety management system. That
    still is now rolling out.
        But you were still there when we passed that. You could
    have just popped up the rule and said, let's go. But you
    did'nt. Do you know why?
        Mr. Bradbury. I do not recall the ins and outs but we--let
    me just----
        Senator Cantwell. Do you see what I am saying about that?
    You had this old rule in your back pocket. We passed it. We
    said now do this. You were still there.
        You could have said, well, let us get going. This is clear.
    Let us get going. But you did'nt. Did you have any thoughts
    about that? Because I have one more issue I wanted to get to
    quickly.
        Mr. Bradbury. I never stopped regulatory efforts directed
    at safety in order to achieve cost savings or meet the
    President's two-for-one requirement on rulemaking. We never
    stopped safety critical rules for that reason.
        Senator Cantwell. OK. Here is one that is really bothersome
    right now and that is this letter that came out from Eleanor
    Holmes Norton that now shows this week that ADB-S Out was
    routinely turned off by the military.
        He says in the letter--I have it, I will enter it in for
    the record. The question was due to the sensitive nature of
    missions supporting the movement of very important personnel in
    and around the NRC that the Army Aviation Brigade at Fort
    Belvedere and Marine helicopter squadron will execute 100
    percent of their missions with ADS-B Off.
        That was June 8, 2023. So the military was saying--now, the
    reason this is important is because the Obama administration
    said, let's have a rule and let's not have these people
    exempted from the rule.
        The Trump administration came in and said, no, we are going
    to write a rule and they are exempted. Oh, but by the way, it
    is really only in these few instances and these few times, and
    then we find this letter that basically says it is 100 percent
    of the time we are not having that turned on.
        So you were involved in rulemaking that was different than
    the prior administration's attempt to try to rein this in and
    so, listen, I get it. I have been in the private sector.
        Guess what? There is bureaucracy in the private sector. Big
    is a problem, OK. Big is a problem everywhere.
        But in this instance what this country needs right now is
    people that will adhere to safety first. It is the gold
    standard. It will help us lead in the next generation.
        But we cannot do it if we continue to have people who fall
    into this yes, we are going to allow this exemption. We are
    going to allow this to happen. We are going to do this in the
    name of efficiency.
        So I am sure we will have more time, Mr. Chairman, but if
    you have a response that you know of now to this ADS-B issue,
    great. If not, I will take it for the record.
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I do think the Secretary will want to
    work with the Secretary of Defense with regard to military
    aircraft in civilian airspace in the U.S. to ensure that
    systems that are needed for safety are used as appropriate, and
    that is an example of something where there needs to be
    coordination.
        Senator Cantwell. Like, just for the record, your thoughts
    on the former Obama rule and then the rule you proposed
    exempting them.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you. And I would note that the Ranking
    Member and I think are both agreed that the military's policy
    of routinely turning off ADS-B on flights in and around Reagan
    and other airports even on routine training missions was
    completely indefensible and needs to be altered.
        I suppose for clarity I should point out that the letter
    the Ranking Member quoted from written to Eleanor Holmes Norton
    was written in 2023 and in 2023 Joe Biden was the President and
    Lloyd Austin was the Secretary of Defense.
        It was a Democrat administration that followed the policy
    of turning off ADS-B Out. I think we are now agreed on both
    sides of the aisle that was a mistake. But to be clear, you
    were not at the Department of Transportation in 2023. Is that
    right?
        Mr. Bradbury. That is correct.
        Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody knew
    that that was their policy. When you and I----
        The Chairman. I agree. I agree.
        Senator Cantwell. When we had a briefing they never said
    that that was their policy. This just came to light when some--
    my guess is whistleblower or someone in the community saw all
    of this happening and came and said, oh, there is this letter.
    This is what their policy really is. Or at least this is what
    somebody stated to Eleanor Holmes Norton.
        The Chairman. Well, and the Department of the Army did tell
    us in our briefing here--they came close to telling us that
    they regularly turn off ADS-B Out. They did not say 100
    percent. A hundred percent is--sadly, it is not--it is not
    surprising and I think it is indefensible.
        I feel confident that policy will change either by this
    administration unilaterally or I feel confident that Congress
    will make that policy change given the tragedy that happened
    over DCA.
        Senator Fischer.

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

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bradbury, as you know, rural communities rely heavily
    on the Essential Air Service program. It provides them with
    connectivity and access to critical services.
        In my home state of Nebraska we have seven communities that
    are served by Essential Air Service. It provides these
    communities not just with an increased opportunity to connect
    with the outside world, but it serves to help them attract
    business, attract visitors, and it drives local economies.
        Yesterday in our meeting to get to know each other and have
    a good conversation--thank you for coming--you mentioned
    looking at potential reforms to the Essential Air Service and
    you said including examining the subsidies that airports
    receive.
        Are you willing to commit to me and the Committee today
    that you stand with rural America and ensure that our airports
    are able to maintain Essential Air Service that meets those
    needs?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes, Senator, and I appreciated our chance to
    meet together. Thank you very much for being available to meet
    with me. I appreciated that.
        The Secretary, I think, in his hearing made it very clear
    he is a strong supporter of Essential Air Service and I
    certainly know how important it is to small and medium
    communities across the country and clearly it has very strong
    support in Congress.
        And whatever proposals may have been made to reconsider
    that or phase it out, I do not think that is realistic and I do
    not expect to be pushing for anything approaching sunsetting or
    eliminating Essential Air Service.
        There are still decisions that the Department makes in
    implementing the program and examining whether communities are
    meeting the metrics stated for the program and that is a
    process that happens periodically.
        And it is a very important process and sometimes
    communities--new communities come into the program, et cetera,
    and that is something the Secretary will look at and I expect
    to assist him in that and with an eye to preserving the
    effectiveness of the program.
        Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you.
        I also appreciated the opportunity yesterday to show you my
    frustration with FHWA. They seem to be struggling to provide
    any kind of clear, consistent guidance across their division
    offices and as I stated yesterday I have heard from state
    departments of transportation that there is a lack of that
    consistent guidance from U.S. DOT regarding the requirements
    needed for states such as to justify building back better after
    a disaster.
        If confirmed, how will you work across the Federal Highway
    Administration to ensure that division offices are consistent,
    that they are clear in their guidance to our state DOTs?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, thank you, Senator.
        It really requires strong leadership from the head of FHWA
    and the Secretary out to those field offices. Consistency is
    critical but also making clear that the states have a strong
    role in deciding the use of the funds that come into them from
    the Highway Trust Fund.
        But we need a focus on safety, efficiency, capacity, and
    resilience of our infrastructure and not to be distracted by
    other goals--policy goals that may not be necessary and that
    may divert from those central important goals of safety and
    efficiency.
        So I think that consistency is critical and working closely
    with the state and the state DOTs is absolutely essential.
        Senator Fischer. I hope we can work together on that.
    Extremely important, and we can certainly see cost savings when
    things are more streamlined and made available to the states so
    they can get those projects out there and get them going.
        On rail service, Americans they want safe and reliable rail
    service. With Amtrak that has not always been fiscally
    responsible, I believe, nor have they been cooperative with
    their state rail partners who are operating profitable rail
    service across the network.
        I have some legislation on that, the Amtrak Transparency
    Act. It would require them to have open board meetings to state
    partners and requires disclosure of executive bonuses.
        I am sure you recall the articles that came out about those
    bonuses several months ago. Totally indefensible that they were
    given.
        As the DOT Deputy Secretary how will you address concerns
    over Amtrak's fiscal responsibility and ensure that they work
    well with their state rail partners?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, thank you.
        I appreciate those goals and definitely would look forward
    to working with you and this committee on any legislation that
    would address that.
        But with regard to the current situation with Amtrak, it
    is--there is so much additional funding that has been provided
    to Amtrak.
        There is so much money in the system. We really need to
    take a careful look and ensure that it is being used
    efficiently and effectively, and there should not be any
    wasteful spending, unnecessary bonuses that do not make sense,
    and certainly they need to cooperate closely with states and
    local interests on their passenger service.
        You know, just before COVID hit Amtrak was on the brink of
    finally being in the black for the first time across their
    network. Of course, that still does not include or that still
    assumes a lot of grant money coming from Congress.
        A real tragedy for Amtrak what COVID did in terms of
    hitting it and it is still coming back. But we really need to
    take a hard look at the economics.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt Rochester.

                STATEMENT OF HON. LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

        Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chair Cruz and Ranking
    Member Cantwell.
        Like many of my colleagues, my office has been getting
    flooded with calls and messages from thousands of Delawareans
    deeply concerned by the Federal funding freeze and firings, and
    when I met with Secretary Duffy he promised me that he would
    follow the law.
        Congress authorized and appropriated dollars through
    various programs such as the bipartisan infrastructure law to
    help our communities fund critical projects and to bring our
    Nation's infrastructure into the 21st century.
        President Trump's funding freeze executive order and
    Secretary Duffy's more recent cancelation of electric vehicle
    charging programs breaks the law.
        Mr. Bradbury, does the President or any Cabinet Secretary
    have the authority to withhold funds Congress has appropriated
    in the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law?
        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you, Senator.
        The Secretary and all of us at DOT need to follow the law
    and where things are required by law we need to comply with
    those requirements.
        Where funding programs have some modicum of discretion at
    certain points in the process I do believe it is very fair for
    the President and Secretary to take a hard look at how that
    discretion has been exercised, what decisions have been made,
    whether that is consistent with the legislative purpose,
    whether it makes good sense or is wasteful, and various things
    may follow from that.
        It may be that the President may wish to propose to
    Congress that a program be rescinded or repealed. It may be
    that the program----
        Senator Blunt Rochester. Which makes sense. The President
    can propose that and your answer is no, they cannot break that
    law. Do you believe the cancelation of the national electric
    vehicle infrastructure funding by Secretary Duffy is legal?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I do not know all the ins and outs of
    what is happening right now with particular funding programs.
        I am confident the Secretary is focused on complying with
    the law and following through on the President's instruction to
    pause programs, to audit them, to take a hard look at how the
    money is being used, what the effect of it is. I think that is
    a healthy process.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. The problem is we worked very hard
    on behalf of the American people. Passed legislation, got the
    funding. People have started programs. Shovels are in the
    ground.
        I do not think it is appropriate to pause something that we
    passed in law. And, as you know, the Department sets the
    corporate average fuel economy, also known as CAFE standards,
    and Secretary Duffy's first action was to reverse those
    standards.
        And we all know--it is no secret that transportation is one
    of our largest contributors to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
    The science is really clear. Why are we going backwards?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I do not believe the Secretary canceled
    the standards. He directed that there be a review of the
    standards and that a proposal be put forward to reset, change
    the standards, or potentially rescind the previous standards.
        And I think it clearly reflects a view that standards in
    recent years have gone way beyond what the program was designed
    to achieve through corporate average fuel economy and was
    really becoming an instrument to----
        Senator Blunt Rochester. Can you just confirm? Did you say
    he has not or it is paused or just--I am just trying to get
    clarity. He has not?
        Mr. Bradbury. I believe he directed NHTSA to review the
    standards and proposed replacements for them.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. OK. Proposed, not change or stop
    or--OK.
        And I personally think this reversal should it happen is
    bad for business. I think it is bad for automakers, who are
    seeking certainty from us as the government, and it is bad for
    the environment as well as I think a bad decision for lowering
    the cost of goods for American families.
        As Deputy Secretary of Transportation you will also, once
    again, play an outsized role in the government's operation of
    vital safety programs.
        There are numerous public reports detailing your role in
    obstructing the Boeing 737 MAX investigation conducted by this
    committee. Senator Cantwell shared very clearly some of those
    concerns. We believe that the safety of our families should be
    a nonpartisan issue.
        I have some more questions that I will submit for the
    record because my time has run out. But thank you so much, and
    I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Blackburn.

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

        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
    Bradbury, congratulations on the nomination.
        We look forward to moving you out of this committee,
    getting you confirmed and getting you to work because there is
    a lot that needs to be done.
        I appreciated our visit. I did want to talk with you for
    just a moment about banning Federal procurement of Chinese
    drones and that is legislation that I have had. It has been
    signed into law.
        But we know the CCP never stops lying, cheating, stealing.
    It is kind of their business model, and one of the things that
    we have found is even though we have been able to ban some of
    these companies from the drones and even though they are on the
    Commerce Department's Entity List they are still, because of
    some of these affiliations and murky corporate structures and
    partnerships, they are still selling EV chargers into the U.S.
    and that needs to come to a stop because these chargers just
    really grab massive amounts of consumer data, and if there are
    going to be charging stations and if there are going to be
    programs this is something that needs to be reviewed.
        So where are you when it comes to dealing with these
    Chinese entities and will you work with us on this?
        Mr. Bradbury. Oh, absolutely, I will work with you. This is
    a real serious concern, not just in the particular areas that
    you referenced, Senator, but across the board with lots of
    Chinese products coming into the U.S. including EVs and other
    products and the components that go into them.
        It is a national security concern in terms of sensors
    collecting data and where does that data go, who controls it--
    is it the CCP, et cetera.
        But it is also an economic concern because these products
    are often subsidized by the Chinese government and undercutting
    U.S. industry and potentially gutting U.S. industry.
        So it is a very serious concern. I know the President is
    very focused on that and I look forward, if I am fortunate to
    be confirmed, to helping support that effort.
        Senator Blackburn. Excellent. Also, talk to me a little bit
    about raising the pilot age. Of course, the last administration
    their Ambassador to ICAO refused to participate in this and, as
    you know, keeping the pilot age where it is is pretty much a
    giveaway to the pilot union.
        And we have got a lot of pilots that would like to keep
    flying. Some want to move from long calls to regional flights
    and I think they should have that option.
        Mr. Bradbury. I think that is something that should be
    looked at very seriously because some of our more experienced
    pilots want to keep flying and they may not--they may have
    opportunities, as you suggest, to move from long haul flights.
        They may be interested in continuing their careers in
    regional or short haul flights, and it seems like something
    that should be--we should be open to that possibility, just as
    the Secretary has suggested it would be good to keep some of
    our more experienced and seasoned air traffic controllers on
    the job too, and some artificial age limitation or required
    retirement age may not be in the best interest of the country.
        Senator Blackburn. We agree with that. One thing I did want
    to put on your radar, during President Trump's first term DOT
    took some steps to help combat human trafficking in
    transportation.
        I know you are aware of that. We would like to see those
    steps implemented once again. This is an area where I have done
    a lot of work. There is opportunity for you all to support that
    and we would appreciate that.
        Memphis--we talked about Memphis a little bit. Of course,
    we are the logistics hub. All of the class one railroads are
    there. The Port of Memphis is there.
        FedEx, of course, which is the largest express carrier in
    the world, is there. So our logistics needs are incredibly
    important.
        And just as we were so grateful that Secretary Duffy made
    his first trip to Tennessee and North Carolina to see the
    damage on I-40, which also runs through Memphis--goes from
    North Carolina to California, all across the country--and we
    appreciated his attention to that in the aftermath of Hurricane
    Helene.
        But we would like to get you to Memphis and see firsthand
    some of our needs there as we are the logistics hub of the
    country.
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I would welcome that opportunity. Those
    intermodal facilities are so critical to our national freight
    network and to the economy. It touches every American.
        Senator Blackburn. Yes, it does. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Baldwin.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Bradbury, to meet and
    have discussions prior to this hearing.
        I am going to mention that during Secretary Duffy's hearing
    I asked him about the Department of Transportation's finalized
    rule to discontinue manufactured products general waiver.
        We talked about ``Buy America'' standards and rules when we
    met. To discontinue this waiver that had been in place for 40
    years and has allowed the Federal Highway Administration to
    sidestep ``Buy America'' rules.
        It is a straightforward idea. When we use taxpayer dollars
    to build infrastructure we should be using American products
    and we should be supporting American small businesses and
    workers.
        So I asked Secretary Duffy for his commitment on following
    through on this ``Buy America'' rule and I want to ask the same
    of you.
        Are you committed to implementing this final rule as
    written?
        Mr. Bradbury. Oh, yes, I am, and I think the President will
    have a strong emphasis on ``Buy America'' as will the
    Secretary. We did in the previous administration and I would
    expect that to be even redoubled.
        With this rule change we now include engineered products in
    the ``Buy America'' requirements and we need to be candid that
    is going to present some challenges.
        But I welcomed the opportunity to discuss with you
    yesterday the example that you gave of being proactive and
    actually going to those foreign manufacturers where there are
    instances where there is no other option available and getting
    them to invest in the U.S. to support jobs and businesses in
    the U.S. and that is exactly what the ``Buy America''
    requirement is designed to achieve.
        We have to work very, very hard at it but I think we are
    going to be committed and we are not going to be granting
    waivers left and right.
        Senator Baldwin. That is very important to hear, and it is
    about job creation here in the United States, bringing jobs
    that we have lost back and keeping many here.
        On the topic of safety I wanted to reference something that
    the Ranking Member noted in her opening comments. I am
    concerned about that record at the Department of Transportation
    when you were last there.
        In 2019 our committee opened an investigation into the
    crashes of the two Boeing 737 MAX aircrafts that killed 346
    people.
        You led the Department of Transportation's Office of
    General Counsel at that time. When Chair Wicker's staff
    compiled evidence and it suggested that you intentionally
    withheld relevant information requested by the Committee, and I
    am quoting from the report, ``and improperly redacted
    information and produced documents hindering the Committee's
    oversight investigation.''
        Chair Wicker's staff report concluded that the level of
    cooperation by FAA and DOT was unacceptable and at times
    bordered on obstruction. It is--this is cited in a Republican
    report.
        So how can we trust that you are the right person for this
    job when it sounds like you were not the right person in your
    previous job at the Department of Transportation?
        Mr. Bradbury. I appreciate the question, Senator, because I
    really would like an opportunity to respond on this point.
        The Department went through what was the most intensive set
    of investigations, I think, in probably in the history of the
    Department with regard to 737 MAX disasters.
        I think it was completely appropriate. It was not just the
    Senate Commerce Committee. It was also the House T&I Committee
    at the same time.
        The FAA was inundated with requests and I believe the
    Secretary--Secretary Chao made the right decision that it was
    important for the Office of the Secretary to ensure that there
    was a full and efficient response to those oversight requests.
        So what we were doing was attempting to facilitate the
    response to the oversight requests, not impede them, not block
    them or stonewall the requests.
        Senator Baldwin. I am going to have to cut you off there
    because I do have a couple of additional questions. But you can
    more fully answer if you would like in writing after the
    hearing.
        I want to just ask a series of yes or no questions. Yes or
    no, do you support privatizing the air traffic control system?
        Mr. Bradbury. This is not----
        Senator Baldwin. Yes or no.
        Mr. Bradbury. This is not something I am going to propose
    or push to the Secretary.
        Senator Baldwin. OK. Do you support eliminating or
    defunding the Essential Air Service?
        Mr. Bradbury. As I have discussed, no.
        Senator Baldwin. Do you support reforming or repealing the
    Jones Act?
        Mr. Bradbury. No.
        Senator Baldwin. Do you support eliminating Federal
    discretionary grants at the Department of Transportation?
        Mr. Bradbury. No.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Schmitt.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to congratulate you, Mr. Bradbury. Enjoyed our visit
    in the office, and I think that your track record and your
    results-oriented leadership puts you, you know, in a really
    good position to help lead this department that in many ways
    has sort of lost focus of its core mission.
        I will also point out I have seen you in this committee
    more times than I ever saw Pete Buttigieg, which is an
    interesting little fun fact.
        I want to talk to you a little bit what we--in our office
    we have talked about sort of 21st century airports, and having
    grown up in the shadow of Lambert in St. Louis it is sort of
    embarking on this new mission.
        There is a lot of opportunities and we talked about it but
    I just wanted to reinforce the point. Look forward to working
    with you on that and maybe have you come out to Missouri and
    see not just Lambert but some other DOT assets.
        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to that,
    too.
        Senator Schmitt. On the topic of--on infrastructure in
    general China is in many ways coming for our lunch on a whole
    host of things and they are moving at rapid speed on a lot of
    things--infrastructure projects, clearly, in their own country
    but the ``One Belt One Road'' initiative in our country is sort
    of--hopefully we get back to focusing on real transportation
    projects here, not woke tag lines.
        What are some things that can be done to help streamline
    that process, the approvals? Could you talk a little bit about
    maybe some challenges with the way currently NEPA plays out in
    these projects?
        Mr. Bradbury. Absolutely. We have a real opportunity to
    undertake some fundamental review and reform of the NEPA
    process and the permitting.
        Obviously, it is a critical priority for the President
    because infrastructure projects depend on those permits getting
    efficiently resolved so that the projects can move forward.
        The President has issued an order to ensure that that
    happens. I think there is going to be a complete review of the
    regulations across the executive branch.
        Each department and agency with an important stake in
    infrastructure projects will be redoing their NEPA regulations,
    and I look forward to working with CEQ--Council of
    Environmental Quality at the White House--and all the other
    departments and agencies in a cross-government effort to
    streamline NEPA, and there is a lot that can be done to
    streamline it and focus the review on the types of issues that
    I think Congress intended when it conceived of NEPA. It should
    not hold up projects for years.
        Senator Schmitt. Well, in the interim between your time
    previously and now a couple of significant court cases have
    been handed down--EPA versus West Virginia, the major questions
    doctrine. Then, of course, the Loper Bright case where the
    Chevron deference was overturned, thankfully.
        Could you just talk a little bit about how you see the
    interaction between the department and the legislature changing
    a little bit or kind of what you foresee with the shifting
    tides here?
        Mr. Bradbury. Oh, absolutely.
        With the Loper Bright decision it is very clear we cannot
    creatively interpret statutes to expand our authority into new
    areas. That is discretion that resides with Congress in terms
    of changing, expanding the law, and the jurisdiction of
    agencies and I think the courts are going to be stricter now in
    interpreting statutes to ensure we stay in our proper bounds.
        And the major questions doctrine very important and I think
    that implicates some of the things that DOT has been doing in
    recent years.
        When it comes to massive new regulatory efforts on the part
    of departments like DOT that have economic impacts for the
    lives of Americans across the economy it is clear the Supreme
    Court has said now, wait a minute, there has got to be a clear
    authorization in statute from Congress before the agency can
    entertain that kind of transformational rule and I really think
    that is a critical restraint, and we see that with, I believe,
    with the CAFE program, for example.
        Senator Schmitt. Great. I appreciate that.
        One last question. So under the FAA--I think we talked
    about this in my office--is the Office of Commercial Space
    Transportation, or AST, which is responsible for licensing and
    regulating all commercial rocket launch and reentry activities.
        AST is a mess--a total mess right now. Would you work with
    me on helping try to streamline that and cut out some of the
    bureaucracy and get things right with AST?
        Mr. Bradbury. Oh, absolutely. You know, we did work hard to
    streamline the commercial space launch regulations last time
    but it is clear as the cadence of launches increases we need to
    do much more. We need to streamline it further. It is an
    important function but we need it to be much more efficient.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you. Congratulations.
        Thank you, Mr. President--or thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I will take the promotion.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.

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

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Bradbury, thank you very much. I grew up reading the
    science fiction writer Ray Bradbury and, obviously, Butte is a
    long way away from his domain. But I have met--you are the
    third Bradbury I have met. I have always--it is an unusual
    name.
        Anyway, I appreciate your journey through Stanford,
    Michigan, and all your service both in the legal field and in
    government.
        I want to talk a little bit about impaired and distracted
    driving. Obviously, it is a big issue. Thirteen thousand people
    died in alcohol-impaired accidents last year nationwide.
        In Colorado it is one out of every three highway deaths is
    connected to some form of impairment, and we have a standard
    for impairment with alcohol but we do not have any standards
    yet for people driving while high with marijuana--THC.
        How should DOT work with the Department of Justice and HHS
    to develop a science-based impairment system that we can
    address this with?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, that is a very interesting question.
    Thank you, Senator.
        As you know, just as you said we do not have a blood test
    or a breath test, as I understand it, for being high on
    marijuana and driving, and it is a growing problem in the
    country.
        I think NHTSA has put funds in and worked with local first
    responders and local sheriffs offices on training for local
    police and sheriffs and first responders who get to a scene to
    assess whether a driver is high on marijuana, and it is really
    a physical assessment at the scene and it is very important to
    have that training and capability available with our local law
    enforcement and first responders.
        So there needs to be a lot of support for that and I
    believe the Justice Department could play an important role
    there through Justice grants programs and their law enforcement
    relationships.
        So that is certainly the first way I would think about
    assessing that. I know that there are technological solutions
    that are being discussed and potentially on the horizon, and
    that Congress has directed the Department, NHTSA in particular,
    to look at those options for potentially being part of the new
    motor vehicle, and that is something we need to take a hard
    look at.
        I am not sure that the accuracy and reliability is yet
    there but we need to continually assess the availability, the
    cost of that technology, the accuracy and reliability because
    that could be a solution.
        But it needs to be something that is accepted by the
    American people if you are going to talk about something that
    you put in a new motor vehicle.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right. It will take the right process
    to get there to make sure that people buy into it.
        Mr. Bradbury. I think we are closer for drunk driving and
    that is something that may be on the horizon and is very
    important. As you say, 13,000 drunk driving deaths a year. Get
    that number down.
        Senator Hickenlooper. That number--just so you are clear,
    on per lane miles driving that number has plummeted over the
    decades. So the National Highway Transportation Safety Board
    has done a pretty good job on that. But we still--13,000 is too
    many. It was not too long ago that it was 30,000.
        In terms of aviation safety, we are seeing too many
    accidents--you are aware of that--and they are not all at major
    airports. I look at airports and so much of it is the volume
    and they are big enterprises.
        DIA in Denver International Airport is a massive
    enterprise. I was concerned with some of the recent formulas.
    Now we are going to look at birth rates in your state as a
    function of how some allocations of Federal infrastructure
    investments will be made. That is concerning.
        But I also look at it in terms of the smaller airports
    which, again, in some of the western states we do not have that
    high birth rates and we do--obviously, as certain people try to
    encourage that as much as possible.
        But we have always pursued efficiency when we look at
    government spending in our workforce and try to target clear
    goals on things like public safety, and I think in terms of our
    small airports, what is your sense of being able to make sure
    that we have the staff with the proper experience to be able to
    address this at a time when we are facing cutbacks?
        And I worry that those are the--in many cases, are viewed
    as the people that are most expendable. Is there some
    commitment you can give us to make sure we preserve and, if
    anything, expand that skill base within our workforce?
        Mr. Bradbury. I am sorry, Senator. Are you are talking
    about staffing at airports? Airport authority staffing or----
        Senator Hickenlooper. The FAA. So the Air Force authorities
    are more autonomous but that to a certain extent the
    infrastructure in those small airports is coming in most cases
    to blend the Federal dollars and local dollars.
        Mr. Bradbury. That is right. That is right.
        The grants that FAA administers for new terminals, new
    runways, et cetera, expansions at airports, a very sizable
    grant program that is administered by FAA, and certainly we
    need the staff at FAA to administer the program effectively.
        And I think as we look at achieving greater efficiencies,
    doing more with less at the Department of Transportation, it is
    incumbent on the Secretary, and I will help him in this regard
    to ensure that those cuts are done in a way that preserves our
    capability.
        We have the adequate staff to administer the programs that
    by law we need to administer and those are important ones.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I appreciate that, and making sure we
    have the adequate staff, I think, is the key word there.
        I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Moran.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

        Senator Moran. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Bradbury, welcome to the Committee. Nice to see you
    again.
        I think that some of the things that--at least one of the
    things I will ask you has been asked but I have to do it and
    hear it from you as well.
        This is not that topic, but we were clearly involved--this
    committee--in the FAA reauthorization. We made significant
    attempts in the FAA's aviation rulemaking role to improve the
    ability for the FAA to timely provide answers and provide
    technical standards to enable new innovation in aviation.
        I come from the air capital of the world where we
    manufacture many of the planes that are flown today, general
    aviation and commercial, and the challenges we face in keeping
    up with technology and safety are significant, and in part the
    challenges are attributed to the need for an additional level
    of workforce at the department for purposes of completing the
    tasks but also having a workforce that has the necessary
    technical and experience capabilities.
        You need an experienced workforce so that we can again
    provide safe and highly technical advice and approvals at FAA.
    What would you tell me to make me feel comfort? In large part,
    I am asking you how you will implement the FAA reauthorization
    bill?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, thank you, Senator, and I really
    appreciate what Congress has done with FAA reauthorization and
    the support for the aviation system--the safety of the system
    but also the technical upgrades that are needed and that is a
    major focus--a major focus, I know, for the Secretary.
        We are looking at it in terms of air traffic control but as
    you suggest it implicates all aspects of aviation industry and
    it is critical for FAA and Department of Transportation as a
    whole to stay up to pace with developments in technology and I
    think that is a new sort of attitude and approach that is being
    brought to bear right now by the President and the Secretary
    across the board.
        We need the latest tools. We need the latest data and data
    analytics and computer capabilities. I think that is what the
    Secretary is bringing to bear and looking at the systems and
    ensuring that they are up to speed, improved, et cetera, and we
    need the people, the people at FAA and in the Department who
    can--who are capable and knowledgeable about that.
        So, I mean, it is a big emphasis. Thank you.
        Senator Moran. I appreciate that. I mean the promulgations
    of rules, the policy, and guidance has to be timely and
    accurate, appropriate, and that requires a highly educated,
    trained workforce as well as a mindset and leadership that
    recognizes its importance.
        This is the question that I think you have been asked
    before because this is a very rural committee but Essential Air
    Service is a hugely significant component. Kansas has five
    airports that utilize Essential Air Service.
        We are one of the most prolific Essential Air Service
    states in the country, and I know that you have written about
    this but I think you have indicated in your testimony that you
    will be supportive of Essential Air Service and I want to ask
    that question.
        Do you support Essential Air Service program and if
    confirmed will you support it in your role as the Deputy
    Secretary?
        Mr. Bradbury. I will, Senator. The President and Secretary
    have made very clear firm support for Essential Air Service. It
    is clear that the Congress as a whole and this committee
    strongly support it and I do not know that I have personally
    written on Essential Air Service.
        I know some of the theoretical arguments for and against
    and the fact that it was originally intended to be temporary.
    It is, obviously, important and as Congress has made the
    judgment that it is here and we need to support it. So I am
    definitely on board with that.
        Senator Moran. I appreciate that answer and I am sorry that
    I suggested you wrote about something that you may not have
    written about.
        Again, I do not know whether this has been asked this
    morning but we are still in recovery in Kansas and across the
    country with the disaster--the tragic accident that occurred at
    Reagan several weeks ago now.
        I have an agreement with the FAA, the Secretary, that the
    operations in regard to the Army helicopters at Reagan will
    remain paused during the NTSB investigation and that we would
    be notified if there was a change--a plan to change that
    feature.
        Does that comport with what you know? I should feel
    comfortable in believing that is still to be the case today?
        Mr. Bradbury. I am not up to speed on that. I mean, I do
    not know, but I am sure the Secretary will follow through on
    his commitment to you and I certainly would support that.
        It seemed to me that was a horrible accident that was
    entirely avoidable and just a terrible tragedy.
        Senator Moran. And I think I have got 19 seconds but I will
    yield back to the Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Moreno [presiding]. Senator Kim.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

        Senator Kim. Thank you. Thank you for coming before us.
        I guess I just wanted to start by talking about, you know,
    a massive priority in New Jersey. I mean, one of the largest
    construction infrastructure projects in the Nation is occurring
    right now between New Jersey and New York called the Gateway
    Project.
        And I know that, you know, the Federal Government cannot
    get involved in every single infrastructure project, every
    single transportation project in the nation, but you know, I
    believe that there needs to be some process of triaging and
    prioritizing.
        So I guess I would just want to ask you do you believe that
    the Gateway Project is a critical infrastructure project that
    has both regional and national implications?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes. As I mentioned to you yesterday, I
    definitely view that as a national--a project of national
    importance and we need to ensure that it is done efficiently
    and that the dollars are well spent.
        That is true for every major infrastructure project we fund
    but that one, that connection up and down the Northeast
    Corridor from New Jersey to New York and the role that the New
    York metropolitan area plays certainly of national importance.
        Senator Kim. Yes. No, I do not discount the need to be able
    to make sure we are being good stewards of the resources of
    this Nation and, you know, this project so far is on time and
    under budget. So, you know, we are excited about that.
        I guess I wanted to ask you, you know, can we count on your
    support to be able to keep this project going, keep the funding
    going. It is already underway and, obviously, as you know,
    putting the brakes on any construction project, let alone one
    of this magnitude, can just be really debilitated and,
    honestly, raise costs even more.
        So I just wanted to hear from you if we can count on your
    support for this?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I will support the Secretary in the
    Department's commitment to projects such as the Gateway project
    and so I will not be making that decision--any of those
    decisions myself.
        But I understand the importance of the project. I have
    worked on it the first time around. I think we had a good
    discussion about the tunnels and what could be done with the
    existing tunnels and the new tunnels that are in the planning,
    and I would hope to be involved in a very supportive way in
    helping the Secretary follow through on these projects.
        Senator Kim. As we are investing in this, you know, a big
    reason why we are doing so is to be able to make transit,
    especially for passengers, commuters, more reliable. Amtrak--I
    told you about the challenges we face with NJ Transit as well.
        A lot of questions about funding for Amtrak, a lot of
    proposals in the past here in this building about slashing
    Amtrak funding.
        Do you think Amtrak is funded to the level that it needs to
    be? Do you believe that there is room or your perspective for
    cuts or greater investment?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I think that it is always incumbent on
    us to take a hard look at how the money is being spent and
    whether it is achieving the goals, whether the system is being
    operated efficiently.
        Senator Kim. Well, I guess I will ask you do you think that
    the funding for Amtrak is achieving its goals? From your
    experience before at the Department of Transportation what did
    you feel?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, as I mentioned earlier, you know, we
    were very hopeful back at the end of 2019. We were looking at
    coming into a new year where for the first time Amtrak was
    projecting it would be in the black across its network and, of
    course, then the bottom fell out with COVID.
        I look forward to taking a hard look, Senator, to be frank,
    because there is a lot of money in the system.
        Senator Kim. Yes.
        Mr. Bradbury. We just need to ensure that it is appropriate
    and it is being well spent.
        Senator Kim. I do not discount that. It is just, you know,
    I hope I can hit home to you just how critical this is for
    reliability and for ability for people to get to and from work.
        I want to just build on something. One of my colleagues
    asked you about your role on--well, your perspective on
    privatization of air traffic controllers. You said that you
    were not going to necessarily be the one that pushes that
    proposal forward.
        But I guess I just wanted to ask you do you believe that
    privatizing air traffic controllers is a good idea?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, you know, Canada has done this with
    transferring air traffic control to a nonprofit corporation.
    There were--it was seen as a very efficient solution, and as I
    think you know, Senator, President Trump did put forward the
    idea and support the idea.
        In 2017, Congress in its judgment deliberated over it and
    did not accept it. And, again, we see in the recent FAA
    reauthorization, as I understand it, there were further debates
    and, again, it was not something that was made part of FAA
    reauthorization.
        And so my comment is that I do not anticipate that I will
    be spending time promoting or pushing this, the Secretary of
    Transportation to recommend to the President this because it
    just is not something that has been embraced by Congress as a
    whole.
        There are good arguments for it. It may be a good solution
    down the road. But that will be for Congress to judge and
    decide.
        Thank you.
        Senator Kim. OK. Thank you. I yield back.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE MORENO,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

        Senator Moreno. Thank you for being here, Mr. Bradbury, and
    I recognize myself right now to speak.
        Let me ask you a question. You are being asked to be
    confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of Transportation for United
    States of America. So first question I would ask you is, what
    is the most common form of transportation that Americans use on
    a day to day basis?
        Mr. Bradbury. The automobile. Americans love their cars and
    we have billions of trips by auto every year in the United
    States.
        Senator Moreno. So let us talk about the car business,
    something near and dear to my heart. What is the impact of
    regulation after regulation after regulation on the auto
    industry in terms of the cost of automobiles?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, regulations have costs and those costs
    are passed by the manufacturers down the line to the American
    families--the Americans who buy those automobiles or want to
    try to buy those automobiles.
        So the effect is on affordability of new automobiles and
    that is a critical issue. We want new automobiles to be
    affordable.
        We want Americans to buy more new automobiles, and it is
    not just to support the auto industry as an important part of
    our industrial base but it is because new cars and trucks are
    safer--significantly safer than old used vehicles and the
    statistics show that.
        So affordability is not just an economic issue. It is a
    safety issue, too.
        Senator Moreno. Well, thank you for that.
        And if you look at the constitutional role of the Federal
    Government, would you agree that it is uniquely the role of the
    Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes. The Constitution gives that to Congress.
        Senator Moreno. So meaning--I think what the Founders had
    in mind is not give any individual state the ability to do
    something different that would impede interstate commerce or
    the idea that, hey, we are a united country and we should have
    standards that when they cross state lines that you have one
    Federal standard.
        Is that fair to say? Is that what you think they had in
    mind?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes, and I think that is what they have in
    mind for the CAFE program, for example--the fuel economy
    standards. One of the things we emphasized in the first Trump
    administration was the goal of having one Federal standard for
    fuel economy in the United States.
        I believe that is what Congress decided on and it is
    important that we have that consistency. You cannot really
    build different fleets of vehicles for different states in the
    United States. That is not an efficient way for an auto
    manufacturer to function.
        Senator Moreno. Because, again, it adds cost to the car and
    it adds cost to the government because the government has to
    look at these waivers.
        So in your mind, when you have California that has had a
    carve out for 51 years the ability to set a different set of
    emission standards has that made the auto industry healthier or
    less healthy?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I do think, as you indicated, it has
    imposed costs that are passed along to car buyers all over the
    country in every region of the country.
        Now, when Congress first conceived of this exception for
    California it was because of the terrible smog experienced in
    the L.A. basin primarily, and auto--new vehicles have gotten
    much cleaner in terms of those smog-causing pollutants.
        So I think there is a real question whether it still makes
    sense. But when you start talking about the climate
    regulations, the greenhouse gas restrictions and carbon dioxide
    restrictions that California has put on automobiles, inevitably
    that affects the fleet across the country and it affects the
    affordability and costs that American families are forced to
    pay for new motor vehicles in every region of the country.
        Senator Moreno. So it is fair to say that the people I
    represent in the state of Ohio are paying more money for the
    automobiles that they buy because of rules by out-of-control
    bureaucrats in California?
        Mr. Bradbury. That is fair to say, yes.
        Senator Moreno. And interestingly, because I think what--we
    will go back to the Constitution--I think what the Constitution
    had in mind is they did not want to have crazy state people
    making decisions for the rest of the country, and when you have
    California, which is saying, hey, by 2030 you cannot basically
    have--two-thirds of the cars have to be electric and by 2035
    all of them have to be electric, actually move that forward it
    seems like those are guidelines that Greta Thunberg think is a
    good idea but I do not think automotive engineers would think
    it is a good idea.
        I will ask you this, Mr. Bradbury, straight up. You know, I
    think Senators think they are pretty powerful people. I think
    politicians think they are pretty powerful people. Do you think
    politicians can bend the laws of physics?
        Mr. Bradbury. No, I do not, nor the laws of economics.
        Senator Moreno. I do not know that they know that because I
    think when you look at it and say, well, let us do more on CAFE
    standards, reduce this, and look, we are all for that.
        I do not think there is anything special about California
    that--or Californians that they should have better air than
    Ohioans.
        I just think that we have to be realistic about what is
    technologically possible and I think it is well past due after
    51 years that we go back to our constitutional principles of
    one Federal standard that is actually achievable and attainable
    based on what we understand technology to be.
        And I also think--and I want to ask your response to this--
    do you think that giving the industry certainty, saying, hey,
    here is the rules of the road for the next 10 years so that
    they do not have to worry about some lunatic in California
    coming up with a rule that is completely unattainable, do you
    think that that would be healthy for our auto industry to
    compete worldwide?
        Mr. Bradbury. Oh, absolutely, and I think that is what
    Congress intended.
        Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen dramatic swings
    in the regulatory landscape, and you hear from automakers all
    the time that that is the last thing they want to see is those
    swings and--but as you say, regulations cannot achieve an
    aspirational result that is not really consistent with
    economics or, as you point out, the laws of physics.
        So I think we need one reasonable Federal standard and I
    really believe that is what Congress intended, particularly for
    the fuel economy program.
        Senator Moreno. Thank you for your testimony. I look
    forward to working with you once you are confirmed.
        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you, Senator Moreno.
        Senator Moreno. I now recognize Senator Lujan.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bradbury, thank you for being with us today. I am going
    to start with some yes or no questions and I would appreciate
    it if you could just keep them to simple yes or noes, if at all
    possible.
        Will you follow the law?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Lujan. Yes or no, Mr. Bradbury--is improving safety
    on our roadways a priority for you?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes.
        Senator Lujan. Yes or no, do you believe that technology
    plays a role in making cars safer?
        Mr. Bradbury. Absolutely, yes.
        Senator Lujan. Yes or no, do you support the utilization of
    technology in cars to reduce collisions like radar and LIDAR?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes, and I see a lot of positive innovation,
    a lot of investment in these new technologies which really have
    a great potential to save lives.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that.
        Yes or no, do you support the utilization of advanced
    driver assistance systems to reduce roadway fatalities?
        Mr. Bradbury. Again, yes. We see the automakers investing
    in this. We see car buyers interested in the technology and it
    has great potential to help save lives.
        This is a different question from whether technology should
    be mandated by the Federal Government to be a required
    component of every new vehicle. That is a calculus--a cost
    benefit calculus--because, again, we can go 100 percent on
    everything as a mandated requirement of the Federal Government
    but it is going to affect the bottom line. It is going to
    affect the affordability of vehicles and that always has to be
    kept in mind.
        One thing that is critically important is to preserve the
    incentives that the industry has to invest in this new
    technology and continue the improvements, not necessarily
    dictated by the government to do it but to do it because it
    makes their products better, more attractive, more valuable to
    customers, and safer, and safety has got to be the objective.
    But affordability is an unavoidable component of that.
        Senator Lujan. Which is more important?
        Mr. Bradbury. It is--safety is always, of course, more
    important but if----
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate it. You answered the question.
        Mr. Bradbury. But if people are not buying----
        Senator Lujan. So if I may--I am almost out of time, Mr.
    Bradbury. I appreciate you saying that because safety matters.
    People die on the roads.
        Mr. Bradbury. Too many people die.
        Senator Lujan. In the early 1990s I was hit head on by a
    drunk driver. Thank God I am here, but there is 10,000 people a
    year who are not.
        Mr. Bradbury. That is right.
        Senator Lujan. You know them. We know them. My colleagues
    know them.
        Mr. Bradbury. And 40,000 to 41,000 fatalities on America's
    highways every year that number is persistent and we need to
    drive it down.
        Senator Lujan. Sadly, it is. I appreciate you saying that.
        Do you support autonomous vehicles?
        Mr. Bradbury. Oh, I am very excited about autonomous
    vehicles.
        Senator Lujan. Would you mandate this technology in
    autonomous vehicles?
        Mr. Bradbury. Mandate what technology?
        Senator Lujan. Everything I just went over--radar, LIDAR,
    all of these safety features.
        Mr. Bradbury. I would be--well, we need a consistent
    national framework for the development of autonomous vehicles--
    automated vehicle technology, autonomous vehicles----
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Would you mandate
    technology in autonomous vehicles or if someone creates an
    autonomous vehicle they can just do whatever they want based on
    making it more affordable?
        Mr. Bradbury. Those are not the two choices, Senator.
        I would be reluctant to mandate a menu of technologies and
    tell the industry how the vehicle needs to operate.
        I think we want to preserve incentives to innovate and
    offer new products and then we need to ensure safety through a
    process of certification or a process of testing.
        And that is really what we need is a framework that is
    reliable, repeatable for testing autonomous vehicle systems to
    ensure safety, and then this is the way our system has worked
    for auto safety in this country.
        Other countries may do it differently. They may dictate
    upfront what the requirements are and require sort of
    preapproval certification.
        We recognize that we want to preserve incentives for
    investment and improvements in industry subject to testing and
    then, of course----
        Senator Lujan. Let me ask this question, Mr. Bradbury.
        Do you support the use of driver-monitoring technology both
    inside and outside the car?
        Mr. Bradbury. I think that is a question that will depend
    on the accuracy and reliability of the technology and the cost
    impact of the technology. And as I indicated, I look forward
    to--and I know this is a subject of great importance to you in
    particular and to many members--I look forward to working with
    you and members to understand better the capabilities of the
    technology and I look forward to talking with the folks at
    NHTSA as they have collected comments and input in connection
    with their--there was an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Bradbury, you on your own submitted some
    comments to the record in this case and you said that, quote,
    ``If NHTSA were to mandate installation of technologies that
    could at any point take over control of a vehicle on the road
    all Americans' freedom to use their cars and trucks would be
    conditioned on the operation of that technology and could be
    snatched away.''
        All this technology is required in autonomous vehicles. I
    have not even gotten to what I am trying to get to, but you are
    absolutely correct. I care about saving people's lives in a
    bipartisan way.
        Working with one of the most conservative senators here,
    Rick Scott, out of Florida we were able to earn votes of our
    Democratic colleagues 3 years ago. Under the Biden
    administration under Pete Buttigieg they dropped the ball. They
    did not finish the rulemaking. I asked Senator--Secretary Duffy
    about this. I did not know this. He shared that his wife
    survived a head-on collision as well.
        Mr. Bradbury. That is right.
        Senator Lujan. He knows what is going on here. The reason I
    am trying to get to the bottom of this when we talk about
    autonomous vehicles and this innovation in America, America
    should be the driver here and it is going to be expensive.
        It is going to be expensive. But we need to keep people
    safe so that when they choose to buy that vehicle they are not
    going to die and they are not going to get killed on the road.
    So I certainly hope that we can get to this place and just get
    something done.
        My last question about following the law, Mr. Bradbury, is
    do you commit to follow the law concerning finalizing the
    impaired driving rulemaking?
        Mr. Bradbury. I will--we will follow the law as directed by
    Congress with regard to that and we will proceed forward, and
    as I indicated I look forward to seeing the information that
    has come in and talking to industry, talking to those who know
    more than I do about what that technology can achieve.
        I believe that is what Congress wanted NHTSA to do, and I
    recognize that some forms of that technology may be closer than
    others.
        So, for example, the technology in a starter button that
    can sense through the skin blood alcohol content and might
    prevent a car from being started--that is a kind of technology
    that may be closer on the horizon in terms of accuracy and
    reliability.
        Senator Lujan. And Mr. Bradbury, please send some
    additional response to the record. I know I am over time here.
        But it might surprise you if you are not aware that I think
    Volvo, Subaru, their cars already have this technology. They
    are driving on the roads in other countries. They are not here
    yet but, nonetheless, the technology has been improved.
        And if you go to the auto shows like I like to do you can
    get in them and check it out. I mean, it is pretty incredible
    what they have done.
        Mr. Bradbury. I look forward to.
        Senator Lujan. And this legislation did what it was
    supposed to. It got the market to respond. Major auto
    manufacturers are filing the patents to do this stuff.
        It is quite incredible when you can touch those conditions
    and then you let the innovation just get out there and solve
    these problems. We can save people's lives.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you.
        Senator Moreno. Just a real, very fast question back to
    you. Let us say that we do that, mandate everything. Look, as a
    former car dealer let us load up the car with every option
    possible. The price of cars has gone from $40,000 to over
    $50,000. People will buy less cars, not because they do not
    want the technology--they cannot afford it.
        What is better, a newer fleet of cars where people buy more
    new vehicles or these insanely expensive really cool cars with
    all kinds of crazy technology that nobody affords so they keep
    their old car? What makes the entire fleet safer?
        Mr. Bradbury. I think as you put your finger on it, you
    know, the average age of the automobile in the U.S. fleet is
    approaching 13 years. This is a serious national problem.
        We have older and older--we have cars that are 25 and 30
    years old on the road that have gone through four, five, six
    different owners. These are far less safe in a highway crash
    than newer vehicles.
        So affordability is a critical component of safety. It also
    is a critical component of economic happiness and quality of
    life for Americans. We should want Americans to buy more new
    vehicles and that really should be a goal.
        So that is why I say it has to be a balance.
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for the cars
    to fly. I just do not want people to die. That is all that I am
    saying.
        Senator Moreno. You are asking----
        Senator Lujan. I think we can find common ground here.
        Senator Moreno. We are asking them to be insanely expensive
    and unaffordable, and people will keep their cars.
        I recognize Senator Peters.

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

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bradbury, good to see you. Congratulations again on
    your nomination and thank you for spending some time in my
    office going in depth on a variety of questions.
        Mr. Bradbury, one of the key responsibilities of the
    Department of Transportation through the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration, as you well know, is to
    thoroughly and transparently investigate and hold accountable
    auto companies when their vehicles are operating in an unsafe
    manner on our roads.
        This is especially true for autonomous vehicle technology
    when that is in play, and as you know I strongly believe that
    autonomous vehicles will play a huge part in improving roadway
    safety.
        But that can only be achieved if there is public trust,
    which we talked about in my office, in these technologies and
    that only comes with full transparency and accountability so
    the public truly trust this technology and its capabilities of
    either--or if they do not have abilities to have--understand
    exactly what they are dealing with.
        Tesla, unfortunately, has been probably the worst actor in
    this space. There is currently an open investigation into
    Tesla's, quote/unquote, ``full self-drive'' which it is not.
        They market it as full self-drive technology and, indeed,
    there is a history of Tesla misleading consumers regarding what
    that technology is actually capable of doing and unfortunately
    that has led to deaths as a result of that.
        So my question for you, sir, is given Elon Musk's close
    relationship with the President and his significant role
    digging into the operations of every agency through his so-
    called DOGE, are you fully committed and will you fully commit
    today to ensuring that the Department of Transportation holds
    Tesla accountable if you are confirmed?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes, and I believe the Secretary was very
    firm in saying he would not treat any particular company
    favorably vis-a-vis other companies.
        In other words, we would have a fair and objective approach
    and with particular regard to NHTSA's recall investigations on
    these important issues. And so I can make that commitment, yes.
        Senator Peters. OK, good. In our meeting you and I
    discussed the role of Congress in making the law versus the
    role of the Executive Branch in enforcing the law and
    faithfully executing the law.
        You told me that if the President disagrees with certain
    programs he should ask--he should ask Congress to act to change
    them. You confirmed that that is how the system--and I do not
    want to misquote you but you said that is the way it should act
    is my understanding.
        However, this administration does not seem to respect the
    separation of powers and appears to be pursuing an agenda to
    pick and choose which laws to enforce and pick and choose which
    grant funding to follow through on as well.
        Many of these grant programs, from Great Lakes port
    infrastructure development to new bridge funding to passenger
    rail projects are certainly absolutely essential to Michigan
    and states across the country.
        Legally awarded funding for these projects should not be
    ripped away because the President may have a political issue
    with it.
        So my question for you, sir, is if confirmed will you
    oppose any attempt to withdraw infrastructure funds that have
    already been announced for infrastructure projects through the
    Department of Transportation?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, Senator, I think, first of all, as we
    know, a huge amount of additional spending and money has been
    announced and has been awarded in recent weeks and months, and
    I believe it is entirely fair for the President and the
    Secretary to want to take a hard look at how that money is
    being spent.
        And in lots of these programs, as I indicated earlier,
    there are points in the process where there is discretion for
    the Secretary and decisions can be made, and I think we need to
    audit all of those and take a hard look. And I do--I believe
    that is what is really happening and I think that is a fair
    process.
        I think the American people expect that. We want to ensure
    that we are prudently and responsibly using the taxpayer
    dollars. That is not the same thing as the Executive Branch
    overriding the role of Congress in its appropriation function
    and its lawmaking function.
        I absolutely agree that the constitutional structure is
    Congress makes the laws. Congress appropriates the money. The
    Executive Branch executes and implements those programs.
        But in all--lots of these programs there is some discretion
    assigned to the Executive Branch and exercised and we just need
    to ensure that that is being exercised responsibly and we are
    not inserting unnecessary requirements that detract from the
    effective use of the money, for example.
        And then, as I mentioned, there may be cases where the
    President believes a program is simply not--is wasteful or not
    achieving a useful purpose and needs to be reconsidered, and I
    think it is fair for the President to put that forward to
    Congress.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Moreno. I recognize Senator Markey.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Thank you so much.
        And, Mr. Bradbury, I have been in Congress long enough to
    remember when the auto industry used to say it is not cost
    effective to put airbags in vehicles. Raises the cost of the
    automobile and did not want to do it, fought it. But hundreds
    of thousands of lives have been saved because of airbags.
        What price do you put on that, all those lives that are
    saved? So I just raise that as a rhetorical question.
        Mr. Bradbury, thank you for being here. Over the last few
    weeks Elon Musk and the DOGE team have wreaked havoc on the
    Federal workforce through buyouts and mass layoffs, despite
    assurances from Secretary Duffy that public safety workers
    would be spared and critical categories of workers such as FAA
    technicians and engineers that inspect aircraft were fired.
        Musk and his group of unqualified cost cutters say they are
    doing this in the name of rooting out waste and excess in
    Federal programs.
        Mr. Bradbury, you worked at the Department of
    Transportation during the first Trump administration. Did you
    witness significant waste and excess during your tenure during
    the Trump years at the Department of Transportation?
        Mr. Bradbury. The Department of Transportation has an
    important, practical role and I think the career staff at DOT
    carries out that role with dedication and professionalism. I
    admire them greatly.
        It was not my experience that there was a lot of excess
    staffing. I do know that staffing has increased considerably
    since then. The funding has increased considerably. There are a
    lot of new people who have----
        Senator Markey. Well, no, that is not accurate. When you
    left there were 57,000 employees at the Department of
    Transportation and today as we sit here there are 57,000
    employees at the Department of Transportation, and as you just
    observed you did not witness excess when you were there with
    those 57,000 workers and today the workforce is the same.
        So, obviously, I am a little confused where--you know,
    where the excess might have been created if it is the same
    number of workers.
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, if I may--if I may, we can always get
    more efficient. Industry does that and there is always a need
    to take a look at where we can do more with less, where we can
    improve outcomes with greater----
        Senator Markey. No, that is a different question. OK. That
    is a different question. OK. You could have made it a lot more
    efficient, if that is what you are saying during your time
    during the Trump administration, and I wish that you had.
        But to then impose that on the Department of Transportation
    with the same number of employees I think is unfair.
        So this is without question, you know, going to be a
    difficult subject area but the burden of proof to prove that
    there is excess is clearly on the administration, not just an
    assertion of it, given the fact that there was plenty of
    opportunity for four years for it to be rooted out in the
    previous administration.
        And for the sake of argument, let us say DOT has suddenly
    become bloated over the last few years. If an administration
    were intent on rooting out that excess do you agree that
    identifying the positions to cut without risking public safety
    would take a little time?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, it is an important goal. It is
    critical, and I think the Secretary is committed to that and it
    needs to be managed and I would look forward to being involved
    in helping him manage that process.
        Senator Markey. So it is fair to say it would take some
    time then, given the fact that there were four years during the
    first Trump administration to root it out it would take a
    little time right now to identify that excess?
        In other words----
        Mr. Bradbury. It is----
        Senator Markey.--just to contrast that approach with what
    these DOGE boys are doing inside of agencies right now they are
    doing just the opposite.
        They are going in and slashing without having done the
    evaluation that professionals like yourself had an opportunity
    to do and they have no professional background in doing it.
        Mr. Bradbury. My impression is what is involved is very
    smart people with new analytical tools that have not been
    available, perhaps, or have not been used in government
    previously can very efficiently identify areas of obsolescence,
    areas of waste, areas of inefficiency, and we can address
    those.
        Senator Markey. And, again, I am not disagreeing that there
    could be a study but I do not think four weeks really is enough
    time to have analytical tools applied to an area of expertise
    where there has been no access to it up until just January 21
    of this year.
        So that is where the problem sets in because brilliant
    people like yourself were not able to do it, and with all due
    respect to the DOGE boys I do not think that they have a
    superior knowledge of the internal workings of the Department--
    --
        Mr. Bradbury. I am not a software engineer. I am not a
    brilliant tech person. But it does seem sensible to bring in
    some of those brilliant----
        Senator Markey. And, again, I do not have any problem with
    bringing in new approaches but software is only the information
    you put into it. It is who writes the analytics.
        OK. It has nothing to do with the zeros and ones. It all
    has to do with what was the assessment of the actual factual
    information put into it and four weeks is not enough time to
    figure that out no matter how smart you are. You can write an
    algorithm but only with the information that is given to you.
        So there is just no way that the administration is
    conducting a careful review of the cuts and its impact on
    public safety, and there is no reason that DOGE, who is
    targeting probationary employees first, it is not because they
    are the most expendable or the worst performers.
        It is because they are the easiest to fire and, really,
    that is what it is all about. But it can directly endanger
    American lives if it is not done correctly, and that is why
    today, this morning, I sent a letter with 12 of my Senate
    colleagues in a letter to Secretary Duffy urging him to cease
    these dangerous workforce cuts and demanding answers about
    where the layoffs, the buyouts, the firings were happening
    within the Department so there is transparency so we can
    understand where the cuts are, so we can see where the safety
    risk may be. So otherwise it is just reckless endangerment that
    will be occurring.
        So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working
    with you, Mr. Bradbury.
        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Moreno. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bradbury, I wanted to go back, maybe a teeny bit of an
    expansion of what my colleague was just asking. Do you think
    there is a possibility that Elon Musk has conflicts of interest
    as it relates to the FAA?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, certainly, he has business interests
    through SpaceX that FAA is involved in regulating and licensing
    and so I think it is important to be--to ensure and be diligent
    that conflicts are not involved in this process.
        Senator Cantwell. What would you think those conflicts look
    like? Tell me----
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I do not know the--what the specifics
    would be.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, you know what the law says, right?
    You know what the law says?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes, and I think the President has made it
    clear that----
        Senator Cantwell. The President exempted him illegally, I
    am sure, from the conflict of interest and now he has real
    conflict of interest, and so I am just getting--trying to
    understand from you as the general counsel and a nominee where
    you think that would cross the line.
        Because we already know that he basically has launch
    interests and we already know that he got mad because he got
    fined for launching at a time when the FAA told him not to
    launch and then said that guy should be fired.
        So there is all sorts of issues right there. But now I am
    asking what do you think would be the bright lines that you
    would be concerned about?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I think that the individuals involved
    in these activities, as I understand it, are coming in as
    employees of the department, maybe on a temporary basis. But
    employees go through----
        Senator Cantwell. Do you think he should be an employee of
    that department if he has business before that department? I am
    pretty sure that does not exist anywhere.
        Mr. Bradbury. I am pretty sure that Elon Musk is not an
    employee of the Department, OK, but the people involved in
    actually the activities under the supervision of the Secretary
    are employees of the Department and go through all the
    conflicts checks and requirements that are necessary for
    those--to onboard those temporary employees and in terms of
    what they are engaged in.
        So I believe there is a conflicts check process that goes
    through----
        Senator Cantwell. Do you think he should sign a conflict of
    interest agreement making sure that he avoids conflict of
    interest?
        Mr. Bradbury. I do not----
        Senator Cantwell. Why would that not be good prudent
    business? Why would not that just be good prudent business?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well----
        Senator Cantwell. Given this issue of we just had this
    crazy, unfortunate, tragic situation where DOD and FAA were not
    talking to each other and clearly no one was in charge and
    responsible for, like, why, in God's name are we allowing these
    two paths to intersect so closely.
        And now we have this increase--this committee has dealt
    with this a lot--this increase in demand for spectrum and FAA
    launch and everybody has lots of different issues of when they
    want to do various things.
        So it is already a challenged environment. So why would
    we--why would we not be concerned that somebody who has already
    taken a swing at the agency because they have commercial
    interests that they would not be influencing this whole safety
    regime which has been the center of our discussion this
    morning?
        Mr. Bradbury. Well, I view the whole DOGE effort as a way
    to take a hard audit look at systems, personnel, staffing,
    funding, and regulations to identify potential areas of
    inefficiency, things where it is not----
        Senator Cantwell. OK. I think--here is what I--I heard that
    answer and I appreciate that to my colleagues. So I am not
    focusing on DOGE as much as I am focusing on where a true
    conflict of interest.
        So why do you not take that for the record and decide where
    you think a conflict of interest is and where you think that
    line would be crossed, and that would be very helpful to know
    from you.
        Mr. Bradbury. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Bradbury.
        My final question is required of all nominees.
        If confirmed do you pledge to work collaboratively with
    this committee to provide thorough and timely responses to the
    Committee's requests and to appear before the Committee when
    requested?
        Mr. Bradbury. Yes.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I have 23 letters of support from
    various organizations for Mr. Bradbury's nomination to be
    Deputy Secretary of Transportation. I ask unanimous consent
    that they be inserted in the hearing record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Senators will have until the close of
    business on Friday, February 21, to submit questions for the
    record. The nominee will have until the close of business on
    Monday, February 24, to respond to those questions.
        That concludes today's hearing. The Committee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
                                Steven Bradbury
                              Autonomous Vehicles
        Mr. Bradbury, I've been a proponent of autonomous vehicles and
    expanding opportunities for testing and deployment. The United States
    has been the global leader on AVs, but I am concerned that China is
    catching up and our country will soon be surpassed if we don't put in
    place pro-AV policies.

        Question 1. What are your thoughts on AVs and what opportunities do
    you see at the Department of Transportation for AV policy?
        Answer. Automated driving technologies, including autonomous
    vehicle systems, hold great promise to reduce highway deaths and
    injuries dramatically. I believe the Department of Transportation (DOT)
    should work to advance regulatory frameworks for the Nation that will
    help facilitate and accommodate the development, testing, and safe
    deployment of such innovative technologies and systems. If confirmed, I
    would plan to assist the Secretary in working toward this goal. If
    legislation is needed or deemed appropriate, I would expect to support
    the Secretary in working with Congress to advance Federal policy in
    this important area.
                    Truck Driver Shortage and DRIVE-Safe Act
        Mr. Bradbury, the last surface reauthorization bill included a
    pilot version of my bipartisan DRIVE-Safe Act, to establish an
    apprenticeship program to allow for the legal operation of commercial
    motor vehicles in interstate commerce by commercial driver's license
    holders under the age of 21. However, the previous administration added
    burdensome requirements outside of Congress' intent--further inhibiting
    our ability to alleviate the truck driver shortage.

        Question 2. Will you commit to reviewing the Biden Administration's
    missteps in implementation and exploring ways to correct them?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 3. If an administrative fix isn't feasible, will you
    support my efforts to pass legislation that properly reforms the
    program?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    working with Congress on any such legislation that is deemed necessary,
    subject to the approval of the President.
               The Intersection of Technology and Transportation
        Mr. Bradbury, leveraging tech and transportation holds promise of
    many economic and societal benefits as a result of improved safety and
    overall efficiency. Whether it be connected vehicles, autonomous
    vehicles, or next generation aviation--there are endless opportunities
    that should be prioritized.

        Question 4. How are you thinking about the intersection of
    technology and transportation?
        Answer. Technological innovation holds great promise for enhancing
    safety across all modes of transportation. I believe that DOT, wherever
    possible consistent with the law, should employ its authorities,
    including its regulatory powers, in a manner that promotes safety by
    preserving incentives for private investment in innovative new
    transportation technologies.

        Question 5. Do you have any priorities when it comes to tech and
    transportation?
        Answer. Yes, I do. If confirmed, my priorities would include
    assisting the Secretary in (1) working with the Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA) (and Congress, if necessary) to upgrade the
    systems and technology needed to manage air traffic safely and
    efficiently and to ensure the safety of the National Airspace System
    (NAS); (2) advancing the regulatory frameworks for automated driving
    technologies, as discussed in response to Q.1 above; (3) working with
    the FAA to advance the regulatory framework for commercial drone usage
    and the approvals needed for the development of safe new advanced air
    mobility systems; (4) working with the FAA to make further improvements
    to streamline the process for licensing commercial space launches and
    reentries, consistent with safety; (5) working with the FAA to develop
    workable means for safely and efficiently integrating unmanned aircraft
    systems and advanced air mobility systems into the NAS; (6) working
    with the FAA to accommodate the advancement of new supersonic aircraft
    technologies; and (7) generally exercising DOT's regulatory and funding
    authorities in ways that accommodate the advancement of safety-
    enhancing technologies across all transportation sectors.
                       Highway Reauthorization Priorities
        Mr. Bradbury, as you know, Congress will need to reauthorize the
    Federal highway bill by the end of FY 2026. I have long heard from
    stakeholders in Indiana about their preference and support for
    increasing the percentage of formula grant funding to allow for more
    equitable distribution of funds across the country.

        Question 6. I know that EPW has jurisdiction over this in a surface
    bill, but would you be open to this sort of change?
        Answer. Yes.
                                Grade Crossings
        Mr. Bradbury, over 95 percent of rail-related deaths in the United
    States involve drivers going through a grade crossing or a person
    walking on or along the tracks. Beyond the safety concerns, grade
    crossings can cause delays and impact many Americans' daily commutes.

        Question 7. If confirmed, would you commit to advocating for robust
    funding and needed programmatic flexibilities for grade crossing
    projects in order to meet the demand for these vital safety and highway
    mobility improvement projects?
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary
    in supporting efforts to improve the safety of grade crossings. I agree
    that we must make it a national priority to reduce grade-crossing
    accidents significantly, including through appropriate funding and
    flexibility for innovative local solutions.
                                     ______

          Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Budd to
                                Steven Bradbury
        Question 1. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes several
    provisions to address the problem that not all aircraft in the airspace
    can detect other aircraft in the vicinity. This detection capability is
    also known as electronic conspicuity. While three provisions (sections
    319, 808, and 810) direct the FAA to act, section 906 requires the
    Comptroller General study to feasibility and cost of various means of
    electronic conspicuity and report to this Committee within one year--
    that is in five months from today. Safety experts believe the best way
    to ensure the safety of the airspace in which various types of aircraft
    operate is to require all aircraft to be electronically conspicuous to
    all other aircraft.
        Will you prioritize the studies mandated by Congress, inquire as to
    the status of the GAO's work, and report to this Committee following
    your confirmation?
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will support the Secretary in
    responding to this request.

        Question 2. President-elect Trump has commented that ``just as
    America led the automobile revolution in the last century, I want to
    ensure that America, not China, leads the revolution in air mobility.''
    What steps will you take as Deputy Secretary of Transportation to
    follow through on this goal?
        Answer. I agree with the President that it is critical for the U.S.
    to lead the world in the development and manufacture of advanced air
    mobility systems and that the U.S. must not be dependent on systems or
    components from China in this or other areas of transportation
    technology. To follow through on this imperative, I believe the FAA
    should have in place a clear, consistent, and streamlined framework for
    the efficient review and approval of safe new air mobility solutions
    and should apply its regulatory authorities in a manner that
    appropriately preserves incentives for American investment in these
    exciting systems and technologies, consistent with safety. If confirmed
    as Deputy Secretary, I would expect to work closely with the Secretary
    and the FAA to realize this goal.

        What do you see as the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) role
    in ensuring U.S. leadership in the Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)
    industry?
        Answer. Please see my response to the preceding question.

        How will you work to reestablish the U.S. as the gold-standard in
    aviation and work with other civil aviation authorities to harmonize
    and create a global marketplace for U.S. AAM manufacturers?
        Answer. The FAA must reestablish itself as the recognized world
    leader and standard setter in the safety certification of new aircraft
    systems. Among other things, FAA leadership enables America to maintain
    and grow its vital domestic manufacturing base in aviation, an
    important component of our national economy. If confirmed, I will
    assist the Secretary in working to ensure that the FAA continues to
    engage with major foreign certification authorities and other
    cooperative aviation partners around the world toward the goal of
    achieving consistent state-of-the-art standards and practices for the
    development and manufacture of advanced air mobility systems.

        Question 3. Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) and Advanced Driver
    Assistance Systems (ADAS) can play a critical role to keep the roads
    safe. In 2022, there were around 40,000 traffic deaths on the roads.
    While I strongly support accelerated and scaled deployment of AVs, I am
    deeply concerned that the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) does not have the most efficient and modernized
    test infrastructure to ensure the safety of these systems, such as
    through modeling and simulation.
        How will you work with the NHTSA Administrator to modernize its
    test infrastructure to ensure these systems are being scaled in a safe
    way?
        Answer. Automated driving technologies, including autonomous
    vehicle systems, hold great promise to reduce highway deaths and
    injuries dramatically. I believe all components of DOT, including
    NHTSA, should work to advance regulatory frameworks for the Nation that
    will help facilitate and accommodate the development, testing, and safe
    deployment of such innovative technologies and systems. If confirmed, I
    would plan to assist the Secretary in working toward this goal. If
    legislation is needed or deemed appropriate, I would expect to support
    the Secretary in working with Congress to advance Federal policy in
    this important area.

        Question 4. It is well known that there has been a shortage in the
    air traffic controllers needed to meet the needs of our Nation's
    airspace. Congress responded by providing increased resources to the
    FAA and last year, passed the FAA reauthorization which increased
    authorized funding levels and directed maximum controller hiring.
        Will you commit to maximum air traffic controller hiring?
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will support the Secretary in working
    with the FAA to ensure we hire the best and brightest air traffic
    controller candidates and that we expand the pipeline and training
    capacity for new air traffic controllers, consistent with the resources
    provided by Congress.

        Will you commit to keeping this committee apprised of any resource
    needs to support our traffic system?
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will support the Secretary in keeping
    this Committee apprised when additional resources may be needed to
    support and improve the safe operation of our vital air traffic control
    systems.

        Question 5. With drone delivery operations, the FAA has taken a
    piecemeal approach to NEPA reviews, conducting environmental reviews on
    a market by market basis, with only one instance of a statewide review.
    The process can take anywhere from 6 to 12, even up to 18 months. From
    talking to industry experts, it's clear to me that the environmental
    review process for drone operations moves too slowly and is hindering
    industry's ability to scale.
        Congress addressed this issue in Section 909 of the FAA
    Reauthorization Act of 2024, which directs the FAA to develop guidance
    and implementation procedures focused on adoption of a higher-level,
    programmatic approach to environmental reviews for UAS operations,
    including consideration of a nationwide approach. Section 909 also
    directs the FAA to leverage prior environmental reviews to develop a
    categorical exclusion for certain specified commercial drone
    operations.

        Do you agree that a streamlined, more nationwide or programmatic
    approach makes sense for these drone operations?
        Answer. Yes.

        As a follow up, given the delays caused by these environmental
    reviews in holding American companies back from providing benefits to
    communities across the country, can you commit today that, if
    confirmed, you will prioritize implementing Section 909 of the FAA
    Reauthorization Act of 2024 and streamline the environmental review
    process for this promising technology?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 6. Two Federal agencies (NHTSA and the Environmental
    Protection Agency) currently regulate vehicle emissions, which means
    vehicle manufacturers have compliance obligations to two different
    Federal agencies for essentially the same thing. How would you ensure
    that there is alignment between these regulations and that automakers
    meeting one emissions regulation would also be complying with the
    other?
        Answer. Congress granted the Secretary of Transportation the
    exclusive authority to set fuel economy standards for new motor
    vehicles sold in the United States--an authority exercised through a
    delegation to NHTSA. In recent years, The Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) has established and enforced carbon dioxide emissions
    limits for new motor vehicles which inevitably carry the potential to
    supersede or interfere with the fuel economy standards set by NHTSA.
    Unfortunately, with the approval of EPA, the California Air Resources
    Board (CARB) has also issued regulations that impose separate fuel
    economy requirements. I believe it is important to return NHTSA to the
    lead role in setting national fuel economy standards for new motor
    vehicles. If confirmed, I would intend to assist the Secretary in
    ensuring that NHTSA fulfills this role in coordination with EPA to
    avoid any potential for unnecessary overlap or interference with EPA or
    CARB restrictions.

        Question 7. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed
    NHTSA and FMCSA to issue a number of rules requiring technologies on
    new vehicles.
        Many of these rules are still yet to be issued. If confirmed, will
    you work with industry on new technological safety regulations so that
    they are practical, feasible, and promote innovation?
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I would support the Secretary in
    fulfilling this commitment.

        Question 8. China is currently engaged in a concerted effort to
    infiltrate the U.S. transportation system from surveillance balloons to
    drones to intelligent sensors. One such risk comes from Chinese Light
    Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors that can create a 3-D model of
    everything around the sensor and are deployed--often with DOT taxpayer
    funds--on street corners for ``Smart City'' applications, at the
    perimeter fences of secure transportation facilities for breach
    detection, and inside airports for human traffic flow monitoring.
        Chinese LiDAR manufacturers are targeting sales to U.S. Federal,
    State and local governments for the installation of LiDAR sensors near
    critical infrastructure. In fact, the largest Chinese LiDAR
    manufacturer, Hesai, was recently named by the Department of Defense as
    a Chinese military company operating directly in the United States.
        If confirmed, will you immediately ensure that taxpayer funds at
    the Department of Transportation are not being spent on Chinese LiDAR
    sensors that create a homeland and national security risk and work with
    Congress to help pass legislation to ensure that such protections are
    added to U.S. law?
        Answer. The threat to our national security from Chinese Communist
    Party-controlled technology is acute, especially when the technology is
    incorporated into assets used by governmental entities or near critical
    infrastructure. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary in reviewing
    all DOT funding programs to ensure that taxpayer funds are not being
    used to undermine national security. If it is determined that
    legislation is needed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    working with Congress to achieve this goal.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                Steven Bradbury
        Confidentiality Commitments to Project 2025. Mr. Bradbury, you are
    listed as a ``contributor'' to Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership:
    The Conservative Promise publication (``Mandate for Leadership''). You
    acknowledged in a February 18, 2025, addendum filed with the Committee
    that you ``provided substantive input'' into the Chapter on the
    Transportation Department (Chapter 19). However, the full extent of
    your involvement and exact contributions are unclear. During your staff
    interview on February 14, 2025, you refused to discuss the substance of
    much of your work on Project 2025, citing ambiguous ``confidentiality
    commitments.''

        Question 1. On what date did you enter this purported
    confidentiality commitment?
        Answer. I made a commitment of confidentiality as a condition of my
    involvement in the project. I first agreed to contribute to particular
    aspects of the chapter on the Department of Transportation in November
    2022. I became a more active participant in the project when I joined
    The Heritage Foundation in December 2022.

        Question 2. To whom did you make this commitment?
        Answer. To the organizers of the project through The Heritage
    Foundation.

        Question 3. In what form is this commitment memorialized, if any?
    If there is a written memorialization, please provide a copy.
        Answer. I made a commitment of confidentiality as a condition of my
    involvement in the project. The commitment is binding on me.

        Question 4. Detail your basis for declining to answer questions
    from congressional staff regarding your relevant work experience with a
    private employer such as the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025,
    including any privileges being asserted.
        Answer. Because I have a binding commitment of confidentiality to
    the organizers of the project through The Heritage Foundation, I am not
    free to disclose nonpublic details about my work on the project.

        Question 5. Does it remain your position that you are not permitted
    to discuss certain elements of your work on Project 2025 with Congress
    due to a ``confidentiality commitment''?
        Answer. Yes, as explained in response to Q.4.

        Contributions to Project 2025. By its own terms, Project 2025 was
    comprised of four pillars: 1) the ``Mandate for Leadership''
    publication; 2) a personnel database; 3) a training academy, and 4)
    180-day Transition Playbooks. The American people deserve transparency
    and candor from someone seeking a position of public trust.

        Question 1. Please describe your role working on or contributing to
    each of these pillars.
        Answer. With regard to pillar 1 of the project, I reviewed the
    Department of Transportation chapter and provided substantive input on
    particular aspects of that chapter; I also reviewed other chapters and
    provided mostly nonsubstantive input (line edits, etc.). With regard to
    pillar 2, I filled out a profile in the database and urged other
    individuals to fill out their own profiles. With regard to pillar 3, I
    recorded a single training video on executive orders, which has become
    public and a link to it is included in my CST Committee Questionnaire
    responses. With regard to pillar 4, I was involved in coordinating work
    on pillar 4 and in recruiting attorneys to work on it; I was involved
    in supervising work relating to the Department of Transportation; and I
    reviewed and commented on work relating to certain other departments or
    agencies.

        Question 2. Please identify the specific proposals that you support
    in Chapter 19 of the ``Man-date for Leadership'' publication?
        Answer. I personally support several of the proposals contained in
    Chapter 19 relating to regulatory matters, including regulatory reform
    policies generally, the CAFE program in particular, and the proper
    approach to aviation consumer protection rulemaking in accordance with
    the law. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I would offer my suggestions
    and advice on these and other matters, but it will be the Secretary who
    determines the particular positions DOT will implement, subject to
    policy direction from the President. As I noted in my letter of
    February 18, 2025, responding to questions raised by your staff, there
    are many policy suggestions included in Chapter 19 that I do not
    subscribe to or that I would have articulated differently had I been a
    co-author of the chapter. Some of the proposals made in the chapter I
    disagree with, such as the proposals to separate the FAA's safety
    regulatory function from DOT and to repeal the Jones Act. Others, which
    may have merit as a theoretical matter, are so unlikely to be embraced
    by Congress that I would not expect to advise the Secretary to push for
    them if I were confirmed as Deputy Secretary. Among numerous others,
    these include the proposals to privatize the Nation's air traffic
    control operations, to end the Essential Air Service program, and
    substantially to eliminate the Department's transit programs and its
    grant-making and lending functions, even for infrastructure projects of
    national importance.

        Question 3. On March 2, 2023, you sent an e-mail to an individual
    who also became a Project 2025 contributor. You told this potential
    recruit that his contributions to Project 2025 ``are likely to carry
    influence with those who make personnel decisions for any future
    administration that embraces our policy proposals.'' Please describe
    the basis on which you relied in making this representation.
        Answer. It was based on personal speculation on my part.

        Question 4. How many individuals are you aware of that were
    recruited to contribute to Project 2025 and are now working in the
    Trump Administration?
        Answer. Many individuals were recruited to help, but only a subset
    of those recruited ended up making significant contributions to the
    project. I am not aware of all of the individuals who had significant
    involvement across the project, and so I cannot estimate how many of
    them may be serving in the administration.

        Question 5. You conducted a training course for Project 2025 that
    taught participants how to draft executive orders. Were you involved in
    drafting or advising on any of the executive orders issued during the
    current Trump Administration? If so, please identify each such
    executive order and describe the nature of your involvement.
        Answer. I am not free to discuss what specific drafts I may have
    worked on.

        Project 2025 180-day Transition Playbooks. The fourth pillar of
    Project 2025 is 180-day Transition Playbooks that contain ``a
    comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each agency.'' Curiously,
    Project 2025 does not appear to have made these playbooks public--
    despite their own website claiming, ``Project 2025 is not partisan, nor
    is it secret.''

        Question 1. Did you work on Project 2025's 180-day Transition
    Playbook for the Transportation Department?
        Answer. Please see my answer to Q.1 under ``Contributions to
    Project 2025'' above.

        Question 2. Is the Trump Administration implementing the action
    items called for in this Play-book?
        Answer. President Trump sets the policy directions for his
    administration. The Senate-confirmed heads of the various executive
    departments and agencies decide what actions to approve for the new
    administration in accordance with their own statutory authorities and
    under the policy direction of the President. I am not free to discuss
    whether any particular actions approved by the administration are
    similar to draft proposals considered in the project.

        Question 3. Why has Project 2025 not made these Playbooks public?
        Answer. That was a decision made by the organizers of the project.

        Question 4. Will you provide a copy of this 180-day Playbook to the
    Committee?
        Answer. I am not free to do so.

        Project 2025's Impact on Aviation Safety. The Project 2025 agenda
    is both dangerous and the last thing we need at the Transportation
    Department in this moment, particularly when there has been an aviation
    accident every week under the Trump Administration. I am particularly
    alarmed by Project 2025's call for weakening the safety requirement for
    commercial pilots to accrue at least 1,500 flight hours before they are
    certified. Americans deserve assurances that the pilots flying their
    planes are appropriately trained.

        Question 1. Given the mounting aviation accidents we've witnessed
    in the past month, do you believe we should be weakening training
    requirements for commercial pilots?
        Answer. No.

        Question 2. Did you contribute to this Project 2025 proposal
    calling for rolling back this key aviation safety requirement?
        Answer. No.

        Transition Team Confidentiality Commitment. During your February
    14, 2025, staff interview, you also evaded answering questions
    regarding your work on the Trump-Vance Transition team, claiming you
    made a ``binding commitment of confidentiality.'' When you were asked
    whom the Committee would need to contact to seek a waiver of this
    commitment, you told us to ``contact Susie Wiles,'' the White House
    Chief of Staff.

        Question 1. On what date did you enter this ``binding commitment of
    confidentiality''?
        Answer. When I became involved in the Trump-Vance Transition in
    December 2024.

        Question 2. Did you enter this commitment with Ms. Wiles
    personally? If not, please identify to whom you made this commitment.
        Answer. No. I entered into the commitment with the Trump-Vance
    Transition Inc. I mentioned the Chief of Staff in my meeting with your
    staff only because I don't know who else would currently represent the
    Trump-Vance Transition, now that the transition is over and the
    administration is in office.

        Question 3. In what form is this commitment memorialized, if any?
    If there is a written memorialization, please provide a copy.
        Answer. I am not free to disclose this information.

        Question 4. What is your basis for asserting this commitment is
    ``binding'' on your ability to answer relevant questions posed by
    congressional staff?
        Answer. I am under a binding obligation not to disclose nonpublic
    information about the transition to anyone who hasn't been authorized
    by the Trump-Vance Transition to receive such information.

        Question 5. Why did you direct my staff to contact the White House
    Chief of Staff regarding this purported confidentiality commitment?
        Answer. Please see my answer to Q.2 above.

        Question 6. Following your February 14, 2025, staff interview, did
    you discuss this confidentiality commitment with anyone at the White
    House? If so, please identify all such individuals.
        Answer. No.

        Question 7. Does it remain your position that you are not permitted
    to discuss your work on the Trump-Vance Transition with Congress due to
    a ``binding commitment of confidentiality''?
        Answer. Yes.

        Work on the Transition Team. According to the responses in your
    Committee Questionnaire, you worked on the Trump-Vance Transition from
    December 2024 into January 2025.

        Question 1. How did you get involved with the transition and who
    brought you on?
        Answer. I am not free to disclose this information.

        Question 2. What was your portfolio on the Trump-Vance Transition?
        Answer. I am not free to disclose this information.

        Question 3. Other individuals involved in the transition have
    shared their portfolios publicly. To the extent you are not providing a
    complete response to the above question, please explain why you believe
    you are restricted in your ability to respond fully.
        Answer. I am under a binding obligation not to disclose nonpublic
    information about the transition to anyone who hasn't been authorized
    by the Trump-Vance Transition to receive such information.

        Questionnaire Discrepancies. In both your responses to the
    Committee Questionnaire and your original OGE Form 278e submitted to
    the Committee, you incorrectly stated your gross employment income in
    2023, 2024, and 2025. In your 5-day letter, you included a ``Correction
    to Part 2 of OGE Form 278e'' and a ``Corrected Response to Question
    E.2'' of the Committee Questionnaire. In so doing, you acknowledged
    that you underreported your Heritage Foundation salary, citing an
    ``inadvertent mistake.'' These discrepancies are not insignificant.

        Question 1. Please explain how these errors occurred.
        Answer. In preparing the original version of my OGE Form 278e, I
    mistakenly reported taxable or net employment income--for example, net
    of contributions to my Heritage retirement accounts. I failed to
    understand that the form was calling for the reporting of gross
    employment income. I made the same mistake in initially providing the
    income information requested in Question E.2 of the CST Committee
    Questionnaire. These mistakes were inadvertent. I discovered the
    mistakes in the course of preparing my five-day letter on February 17,
    and I provided the corrected employment income information to the
    Committee the very next day, in my letter of February 18, 2025.

        Question 2. Are you aware of any other item in your corrected OGE
    Form 278e that is inaccurate?
        Answer. No.

        Question 3. In addition, the resume you submitted to the Committee
    has no employment listed from January 2021 through December 2022.
    Please describe in detail both this gap in employment and what you did
    during this time.
        Answer. I was semi-retired, focusing on spending time with my wife
    and devoting attention to writing pieces for publication online on my
    personal Substack and Medium sites, as listed in my responses to the
    CST Committee Questionnaire. During that period, I also considered
    potential opportunities to serve as in-house counsel with a number of
    corporations and nonprofit or public entities.

        Following the law. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary
    Committee in 2006, you stated that the ``President is always right.''
    You have since tried to walk back that testimony, stating it was made
    in jest. However, presidential overreach is no laughing matter,
    especially when we have a President who is bent on pushing the limits
    of Executive authority.

        Question 1. Do you believe the Executive Branch must comply with
    lawful court orders?
        Answer. Yes. Concerning the statement made to the Senate Judiciary
    Committee on July 11, 2006, I clarified the very next day in a hearing
    before the House Armed Services Committee and in a follow-up letter to
    the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 14, 2006, that the statement
    ``was intended only to be humorous'' and was an ``ill-considered
    attempt at humor,'' that ``Nobody is always right, and I certainly
    didn't mean to say that, other than as in humor,'' and that ``I well
    understand that an actual belief that the President can never be wrong
    would be wholly inconsistent with my responsibilities as a legal
    adviser to the Executive Branch.'' I am attaching a copy of that July
    14, 2006, letter to these responses.

        Question 2. If the president ordered you to do something illegal,
    would you refuse?
        Answer. Yes.

        Public Trust. Mr. Bradbury, you have an extensive background in the
    law. And you have written about the importance of public officials not
    ``betray[ing] the trust of the American people.'' Promoting public
    trust starts with our leaders being unafraid to speak the truth.

        Question 1. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 presidential election?
        Answer. Joe Biden won the election for President in 2020 by
    receiving a majority of the certified electoral count in accordance
    with the Constitution.

        ADS-B Exemption. In 2010, the DOT under the Obama Administration
    issued a final rule to re-quire all aircraft equipped with Automatic
    Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (``ADS-B'') Out to operate in
    ``transmit mode'' at all times.
        But in 2019 during your tenure, the DOT modified the rule to create
    an exemption from the ADS-B Out requirement for ``sensitive operations
    conducted by Federal, State and local government entities in matters of
    national defense, homeland security, intelligence and law
    enforcement.''
        We now know that, pursuant to this exemption, the Army Aviation
    Brigade at Fort Belvoir and Marine Helicopter Squadron One executed 100
    percent of their missions with the ADS-B Out deactivated. And we also
    now know that the Black Hawk helicopter involved in the January 29,
    2025 collision was operating without ADS-B Out activated even though it
    was a routine check ride.

        Question 1. You were, in your own words, ``responsible for
    overseeing the Department's regulatory actions'' during your prior
    tenure at DOT. As General Counsel, what oversight did you direct DOT to
    conduct of the exemptions granted to ensure that ``non-transmission of
    ADS-B out [was] not . . . routinely used by agencies that have been
    granted this relief,'' as the 2019 interim final rule states?
        Answer. I believe the potential exemption for sensitive military
    and other operations was included in the 2019 final rule in response to
    requests from non-DOT components of the Executive Branch, and, as
    stated in the final rule, I believe the exemption was not intended to
    be routinely used. I do not recall what specific directions I may have
    given to ensure that the exemption was properly applied in accordance
    with the final rule, but I would have relied on the FAA in the first
    instance to monitor or communicate with DoD concerning use of the
    exemption and to bring to the attention of DOT leadership any concerns
    about the potential overuse of the exemption authority. I do not know
    when Army units began making routine use of the exemption in 100
    percent of their operations.

        Question 2. Does the deactivation of ADS-B Out for routine military
    helicopter flights without a sensitive mission component enhance
    aviation safety?
        Answer. As indicated in the 2019 final rule, I would say it does
    not. As I indicated in my nomination hearing, I agree with the strong
    and clear statement on this point made by Chairman Cruz at the hearing.

        Question 3. If confirmed, do you commit to swiftly reassessing the
    interim final rule that DOT promulgated in 2019 under your leadership?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary in working with
    the FAA to review the rule and any potential need to amend it.

        Safety Management Systems & MAX Families. A February 19, 2021
    letter to Chairman Cruz signed by Javier de Luis on behalf of other
    Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 families asks you to ``commit to rapid
    formalization and adopt of Boeing's SMS plan without any further
    delays.''

        Question 1. If confirmed, do you commit to doing so?
        Answer. I am a strong proponent of safety management systems and
    plans for Boeing and for operators in aviation and in other
    transportation sectors, and I believe DOT needs to ensure greater
    effectiveness and accountability through SMS oversight. If confirmed, I
    will commit to supporting that goal, certainly including with respect
    to Boeing.

        Question 2. If confirmed, do you commit to meeting to the Ethiopian
    Airlines flight 302 families as a group prior to meeting in your
    official capacity with any registered lobbyists or attorneys
    representing clients with interests before the Department?
        Answer. As I told the family representatives who attended my
    nomination hearing, I am deeply sorry for the loss of their loved ones
    and for the unbelievable anguish they have suffered. I have great
    respect and appreciation for their continuing commitment and dedication
    to ensuring that no other families experience the horrible loss they
    have suffered. As I also assured them at the hearing, if I am
    confirmed, I will meet with the families as a group early in my tenure
    and will listen with care, respect, and an open mind to their
    perspectives and to the information they have to present, and I will
    commit to follow up on their input with the FAA and with Boeing. I will
    remain available and accessible to these families as we further address
    aviation safety.

        10-for-1. During the first Trump Administration, you were in charge
    of effectuating the 2-for-1 Executive Order, meaning that for every one
    new rule or regulatory requirement, two had to go away. Now the Trump
    Administration has implemented a 10-for-1 Executive Order that you will
    help effectuate at DOT.

        Question 1. Can you commit that the implementation of 10-for-1 at
    DOT won't cause the Department to miss any of the deadlines set by
    Congress in the FAA Reauthorization for aviation safety rules? For
    instance, the Reauthorization Law requires FAA to finalize a rule for
    25-hour cockpit voice recorders by May 2027.
        Answer. I am confident the President's regulatory reform agenda can
    be implemented without compromising the Department's safety mission. If
    confirmed, I will assist the Secretary in working with the FAA to
    ensure that all laws are faithfully executed and that statutory
    mandates are complied with.

        FAA Work Force Reduction. With any proposed workforce reduction in
    aviation safety, it's recommended to conduct a safety risk management
    analysis and consult with the workforce itself to determine any
    potential impacts on the ability to carry out safe operations. However,
    we know many of the affected workgroups at FAA were not consulted
    before approximately 400 FAA employees were fired beginning on February
    14, 2025.

        Question 1. Mr. Bradbury, how is the FAA supposed to conduct its
    safety mission effectively if this Administration will not consult
    FAA's own workforce before making any significant changes?
        Answer. I believe the Secretary is committed to managing the
    staffing review and reduction efforts, as well as the ongoing audits of
    technical systems and funding, to ensure that all components of DOT,
    including the FAA, remain able to carry out their critical safety
    functions and, indeed, that their safety outcomes are improved through
    greater systems efficiencies and enhanced capabilities. I believe that
    that is what the President's directives contemplate, and it is what the
    American people demand. If confirmed, I would look forward to assisting
    and supporting the Secretary in these efforts and, if new legislation
    or appropriations are deemed necessary, in working with Congress.

        FAA and Conflicts of Interest. When I asked you at the hearing if
    you thought there was a possibility that Elon Musk has conflicts of
    interest related to the FAA, I did not receive a direct answer. Even
    more concerning, you did not clearly affirm that Mr. Musk should sign a
    conflict-of-interest agreement that ensures he avoids such any such
    conflicts.

        Question 1. On February 5, Secretary Duffy announced that Mr.
    Musk's DOGE team was going to ``plug in to help upgrade our aviation
    system'' at FAA. Days later, Secretary Duffy said DOGE representatives
    would be visiting the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in
    Virginia on February 17 to ``get a firsthand look at the current
    system.'' In response, Mr. Musk indicated in a post on X that engineers
    from his SpaceX company--the very same company that the FAA fined in
    September 2024 for failing to comply with specific requirements in its
    launch license--received access to FAA systems and would ``help make
    air travel safer.''
        You are a lawyer who has advised on ethics and recusal matters. We
    know that Elon Musk's SpaceX company has a direct and substantial
    financial interest related to FAA's regulatory and enforcement
    activities. And we know that Elon Musk and his SpaceX engineers
    received access to FAA's Air Traffic Control System Command Center on
    February 17. Based on your professional obligations as a barred
    attorney, shouldn't these facts at least require Mr. Musk to submit to
    a conflicts review to ensure no law or regulation is being violated?
        Answer. From what I understand, the Secretary's decision to invite
    representatives of outside engineering organizations to visit the FAA
    Air Traffic Control System Command Center and to offer suggestions for
    potential improvements in the air traffic control system strikes me as
    an excellent idea and an example of good government in action. I do not
    see the potential for a conflict in these visits because, as I
    understand it from the public discussion of the visits, the outside
    engineering organizations would be known to the FAA, their visits would
    be subject to the FAA's procedures for public engagement, and they
    would not exercise influence over the actions of the FAA. Furthermore,
    I don't believe that this decision to invite input from outside
    engineering organizations is part of the DOGE Team effort. Rather, I
    understand from the President's directives that any DOGE Team members
    at DOT would be employees of the Department, and, as such, they would
    be subject to ethics clearance requirements and would be prohibited
    from participating in activities at DOT that raise a conflict of
    interest under the ethics laws and regulations.

        Question 2. With DOT as your former client and Secretary Duffy as
    your future boss, are you worried that these activities and actions by
    Mr. Musk and his SpaceX engineers create an appearance of impropriety
    or, at the very least, raise questions about whether DOT can be counted
    on to do what's best for the public--and not SpaceX?
        Answer. Not based on what I know, as discussed in my answer to Q.1
    above.

        Question 3. If confirmed, and you encounter a conflict of interest
    related to DOGE that is not being addressed properly, will you commit
    to promptly notifying Congress?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to address any potential for a
    conflict of interest with the Designated Agency Ethics Official of DOT
    and with the Secretary, and I would expect to assist and support the
    Secretary with any follow-up actions determined to be necessary to
    eliminate a conflict of interest, including the potential for
    notifications to Congress.

        Question 4. If Mr. Musk received access to and manipulated the
    systems or data of FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation--
    which specifically oversees SpaceX's activities--or FAA's Air Traffic
    Organization--which specifically operates the U.S. air traffic control
    system--to benefit his company, that would constitute a conflict of
    interest, correct? If your answer is not ``Yes,'' detail your rationale
    for why not.
        Answer. Please see my answers to Questions 1 through 3 above. The
    President has made clear that he will not allow Mr. Musk to engage in
    matters for his administration that would involve a prohibited conflict
    of interest. And, in accordance with my reading of the President's
    directives, any DOGE Team members operating at DOT would be employees
    of the Department and would be subject to ethics clearance requirements
    and would be prohibited from participating in activities at DOT that
    raise a conflict of interest under the ethics laws and regulations. The
    hypotheticals posed in your question are entirely speculative, and I do
    not believe they would be consistent with the President's instructions.

        Question 5. You are the former General Counsel of DOT. What actions
    or conduct taken by Mr. Musk would cross the line and constitute a
    conflict of interest with regard to FAA?
        Answer. I do not believe it would be fair or appropriate for me to
    engage in speculation about hypothetical situations.

        Question 6. Should Mr. Musk enter into and publicly release an
    ethics agreement concerning his involvement with DOT?
        Answer. The President has made clear that he will not allow Mr.
    Musk to engage in matters for his administration that would involve a
    prohibited conflict of interest. The President and his advisers will
    determine the appropriate means for avoiding such a conflict.

        Implement Open NTSB Recommendations. There are over 1,100 open
    recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
    This includes recommendations to DOT in response to the East Palestine
    derailment, airplane crashes, and autonomous vehicle incidents.

        Question 1. Will you work with NTSB Chair Homendy to address open
    recommendations directed towards the Department?
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will support the Secretary in working
    with NTSB to address open recommendations.

        Roadway Safety. In 2023, over forty thousand people died on our
    roads. The most common causes of traffic accidents are impaired and
    distracted driving, and speeding. The National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) within DOT is responsible for setting and
    enforcing vehicle safety standards. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    directed NHTSA to complete eleven roadway safety focused rulemakings,
    however the department has only finalized four. During your previous
    time at DOT, the agency did not issue a single new vehicle safety
    requirement.

        Question 1. Will you continue to advance the bipartisan lifesaving
    safety measures required by the law?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary in advancing all
    safety measures required by law.

        Question 2. Can you commit that the implementation of the
    President's 10-for-1 Executive Order at DOT won't cause the Department
    to repeal, weaken, or delay the implementation of congressionally
    mandated vehicle safety requirements?
        Answer. I am confident the President's regulatory reform agenda can
    be implemented without compromising the Department's safety mission. If
    confirmed, I will exercise my leadership in support of the Secretary to
    ensure that all laws are faithfully executed and statutory mandates
    complied with.

        Question 3. Do you believe that the United States should set a goal
    of having zero roadway fatalities? If not, what do you believe is an
    acceptable number of lives lost on our roadways each year?
        Answer. The number of annual fatalities on America's highways is
    persistently high and unacceptable, and we must drive that number down
    toward zero. Automated driving technologies, including autonomous
    vehicle systems, hold great promise for realizing that objective.

        Autonomous Vehicles. As new automated vehicle technologies are
    being deployed on roads across the country, transparency is essential
    to maintaining public trust both in new technologies and the
    Department's commitment to holding safety as a top priority.

        Question 1. Will you continue the Department's policy requiring
    manufacturers and operators of automated driving systems and SAE Level
    2 advanced driver assistance systems equipped vehicles to report
    crashes to the agency, including the specific location of those
    crashes?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to support the Secretary in
    working with NHTSA to review this requirement and other proposals for
    assessing the safety of automated driving technologies, including
    autonomous vehicle systems. I believe DOT should work to advance
    regulatory frameworks for the Nation that will help facilitate and
    accommodate the development, testing, and safe deployment of such
    innovative technologies and systems. If confirmed, I would plan to
    assist the Secretary in working toward this goal. If legislation is
    needed or deemed appropriate, I would expect to support the Secretary
    in working with Congress to advance Federal policy in this important
    area.

        Pipeline Safety. There are currently five open rulemakings sitting
    with PHMSA's Office of Pipeline Safety that were Congressionally
    mandated by this committee anywhere from 2011 to 2020. Many are well
    past Congress's statutory deadlines.
        Question 1. Will you commit to rapidly finalizing the Leak
    Detection and Repair rule that received unanimous support for the Gas
    Pipeline Advisory Committee?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    working with PHMSA to review this rulemaking.

        Question 2. Will you advance safety standards for new types of
    infrastructure such as carbon dioxide pipelines?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    advancing safety standards for new types of infrastructure, including
    new types of pipelines.

        Question 3. Will you commit that the implementation of the
    President's 10-for-1 Executive Order at DOT won't cause the Department
    to repeal or weaken pipeline safety requirements or delay the
    implementation of new congressionally mandated pipeline safety
    requirements?
        Answer. I am confident the President's regulatory reform agenda can
    be implemented without compromising the Department's safety mission,
    including with regard to pipelines. If confirmed, I will exercise my
    leadership in support of the Secretary to ensure that all laws are
    faithfully executed and statutory mandates complied with.

        Regulatory Waivers. Nearly every agency in the Department of
    Transportation has the statutory authority to provide waivers to safety
    requirements.

        Question 1. What is your philosophy on providing waivers to safety
    requirements? When is it appropriate and when should it be avoided?
        Answer. I do not approach this question with a preconceived or
    doctrinaire position. However, during my time as General Counsel of
    DOT, I saw the important role that waivers can play in achieving
    positive outcomes. Waivers can be useful in proving the efficacy of
    safety-enhancing technological innovations, such as automated rail and
    pipeline inspection systems. Waivers can also enable the controlled
    implementation of new use cases with the potential to support important
    new industries and economic growth, as seen with waivers granted for
    commercial drone use. And in the course of the Department's response to
    the COVID-19 public health emergency during the first Trump
    administration, we used waivers very effectively to keep the Nation's
    transportation systems working for the great benefit of the American
    people and our economy. I believe the proper and careful use of waivers
    can help promote safety, efficiency, and economic growth, consistent
    with the Department's authorities and with the interests of the Nation.

        Amtrak Long-Distance. Thirteen communities in the State of
    Washington are served by Amtrak's Empire Builder and the Coast
    Starlight.

        Question 1. Do you support all of Amtrak's long distances services?
    If not which ones?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    supporting Amtrak's operations. I would be prepared to help the
    Secretary review Amtrak's performance and the economics of its long-
    distance services and consider whether to propose changes to improve
    the efficiency of its operations. I would not come to this question
    with any predetermined outcome in mind for any particular long-distance
    service or for Amtrak's network operations as a whole.

        Question 2. Do you think the long-distance service needs reforms?
    If so, how?
        Answer. Please see my answer to the preceding question.

        Railway Safety Act. As you know, Vice President-Elect Vance was a
    lead author of the Railway Safety Act, and it was supported by
    President Trump, Russ Vought, rail workers, chemical shippers,
    governors, and local governments.

        Question 1. Do you support S.576 the Railway Safety Act? If you
    cannot answer ``yes,'' why not?
        Answer. As the Secretary noted in his nomination hearing, the
    answer to this question is likely to be determined by the President for
    the Executive Branch. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the
    Secretary in supporting the President's position.

        Question 2. Do you support requiring railroads to install hotbox
    detectors or other advanced safety technologies that can identify
    failed ball bearings like the one that caused the East Palestine
    derailment?
        Answer. Please see my answer to the preceding question. Speaking
    for myself personally, I would support requiring Class I railroads to
    have rigorous safety management systems in place throughout their
    networks to ensure they are able to detect and prevent the types of
    failures that can lead to disasters like the horrible derailment in
    East Palestine, and I would favor ensuring that such safety management
    systems are backed up with tough accountability for failures.

        Question 3. Do you support increased information sharing, funding,
    and training to better prepare our first responders to respond to
    hazardous materials incidents?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to support the Secretary in
    working with FRA and PHMSA to review DOT's authorities in this area and
    to determine whether DOT has appropriate provisions in place to ensure
    safe operation of trains carrying flammable and other hazardous
    materials. To the extent the changes described in this question would
    require enactment of legislation like the proposed Railway Safety Act,
    please see my answer to Question 1 above.

        Question 4. Do you support increasing inspections of railcars and
    locomotives by qualified mechanics to ensure trains are properly
    maintained?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to support the Secretary in
    working with FRA to ensure that FRA's requirements for train
    inspections are appropriate and adequate to ensure safety.

        Question 5. Do you support the NTSB's recommendation that the DOT-
    111 tank car, which failed to hold combustible liquids in the East
    Palestine crash, be phased out of combustible liquid service be
    transported in stronger rail cars like the DOT-117 that crude oil is
    currently transported in?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 6. Do you support increasing the maximum civil penalty
    that DOT can impose on a railroad for violations of Federal rail safety
    law?
        Answer. Please see my answer to Question 1 above. If Congress were
    to enact legislation to increase the maximum penalty, I would support
    the Secretary in vigorously enforcing the new penalty levels.

        CRISI Grants. Freight rail is critical to the movement of goods in
    the United States, shortline railroads are critical first and last mile
    connectors. Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, shortline
    freight railroads have received $2 billion for over 128 projects across
    the country through the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
    Improvements (CRISI) Program. These improvements help goods get where
    they need to go more quickly and efficiently lowering costs to
    consumers.

        Question 1. Should the next surface transportation reauthorization
    bill reauthorize and provide funding to rail programs like the CRISI
    grant program?
        Answer. I recognize that the CRISI grants can be important sources
    of funding for needed rail improvements. If confirmed, I would expect
    to assist the Secretary in reviewing the CRISI program and considering
    the potential for continuing CRISI as part of a proposed surface
    transportation reauthorization package.

        Highway Trust Fund. To cover shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund
    (HTF), Congress has enacted legislation that, since 2008, has
    transferred over $275 billion to the HTF, mostly from the Treasury's
    general fund.

        Question 1. How should Congress address this shortfall?
        Answer. It will be up to Congress to answer this question for the
    Nation, and it will be up to the President to decide whether to propose
    a legislative solution to Congress on behalf of the Executive Branch.
    If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in developing
    potential recommendations for the President's consideration and in
    supporting the President's position.

        Question 2. Do you support reducing funding so that HTF revenues
    and spending are the same?
        Answer. Please see my answer to the preceding question.

        Question 3. Do you support raising revenues to address the
    shortfall?
        Answer. Please see my answer to Question 1 above.

        Question 4. If the HTF receives general fund revenues to fill its
    long-term shortfalls, do you think other modes of transportation should
    receive long term general fund revenues?
        Answer. Please see my answer to Question 1 above.

        Question 5. Do you support reauthorizing transit programs that
    currently receive transit funding from the HTF in the next surface
    transportation reauthorization?
        Answer. Please see my answer to Question 1 above.

        Question 6. Will you protect programs funded by the HTF from
    impoundment?
        Answer. I am not aware of any factual basis for the suggestion of
    impoundment, and I am not in a position to speculate about hypothetical
    situations.

        Grant Awards. Projects all over the Nation have been languishing
    and at times waiting for decades to begin construction because they
    haven't had access to needed funding. Congress provided the Department
    of Transportation with five years of advanced appropriations so that
    projects could be notified of awards in advance and begin preparing to
    implement their projects.
        Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, projects across the
    Nation now have been notified of the Fiscal Year 2026 funding they need
    to start construction. This includes large and complex projects that
    received funding over multiple years. Thanks to these awards, even
    communities without signed grant agreements are prioritizing staff and
    resources to projects in preparation to begin construction.

        Question 1. When DOT announces a Notice of Funding Opportunity, and
    a project applies and receives an award after thorough vetting by DOT
    staff--a commitment has been made between the parties to advance a
    project. While there may be times an awardee violates their grant
    agreement requiring the Department to undertake adverse action, those
    instances are rare. With that exception in mind, will you honor the
    award commitments and work to quickly execute grant agreements for all
    projects that have received awards?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    managing DOT's discretionary grant decisions, consistent with the law,
    so as to ensure that taxpayer dollars are prudently obligated to
    achieve the intended results and the exercise of discretion in these
    programs is appropriate and consistent with the best interests of the
    American people.

        Ferries. Washington State Ferries (WSF) is the largest operating
    public ferry system in the United States, and one of the largest ferry
    systems in the world. Nearly 20 million people used the Washington
    State Ferries in 2024. In my home state our ferry system is so integral
    to our overall transportation system ferry routes are designated as
    part of the state highway system.
        States and rural communities rely on U.S. Department of
    Transportation funding, through Federal-aid highway funds, Federal
    Transit Administration funds, and other sources that help build and
    improve these ferry operations. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    included funding increases to flagship ferry grant programs, such as
    the Passenger Ferry Program, Ferry Boat Program Grant, and created two
    new discretionary ferry programs including the Ferry Service for Rural
    Communities Program, and the Electric or Low-Emitting Ferry Pilot
    Program. This funding is instrumental in improving and modernizing
    Washington state's ferry system. Federal ferry funding is not only a
    lifeline in Washington state, but also states including Alaska, North
    Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and
    California.

        Question 1. If confirmed, will you commit to protect these programs
    from impoundment?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    supporting discretionary funding for ferries, in accordance with the
    authorizations and appropriations passed by Congress, so as to ensure
    that taxpayer dollars are prudently obligated to achieve the intended
    results of these programs and the exercise of discretion is appropriate
    and consistent with the best interests of the American people. I'm not
    aware of any factual basis for the suggestion of impoundment, and I'm
    not in a position to speculate about hypothetical situations.

        Question 2. Do you think these programs should be reauthorized in
    the next surface transportation reauthorization?
        Answer. It will be up to Congress to decide this question for the
    Nation, and it will be up to the President to decide whether to propose
    such funding legislation to Congress on behalf of the Executive Branch.
    If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in developing
    potential recommendations for the President's consideration and in
    supporting the President's position. I would not come to the job with a
    predetermined position on this question; however, I know from personal
    experience how important ferries are in Washington State, and I
    appreciate the need to maintain economical ferry service.

        2026 World Cup. Seattle will be host to six FIFA World Cup matches
    in 2026. Event organizers estimate 750,000 people will visit Seattle
    from all over the world for the six games it is hosting. As the World
    Cup brings travelers, tourists, and fans to the city, security risks
    and the threat of targeted terrorist attacks will increase for the
    event's affiliated facilities, eventgoers, and staff.
        Consequently, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has
    determined that Seattle will have over 70 Special Event Assessment
    Rating (SEAR) events. To help address this challenge, Sen. Moran and I
    introduced the Transportation Assistance for Olympic and World Cup
    Cities Act.

        Question 1. Will you work with Sen. Moran and me on our
    legislation?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to support
    the Secretary in working with you, Sen. Moran, and others in Congress
    and across the Executive Branch to ensure that all safety and security
    considerations are addressed and planned for in connection with the
    2026 FIFA World Cup.

        Commercial Space Transportation Regulations. Mr. Bradbury, you have
    some familiarity with the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
    and the commercial space launch and reentry licensing process, given
    that you played a role in approving an update to the regulations
    drafted in the previous Trump Administration. Industry stakeholders
    have expressed concern regarding the complexity of the new 14 CFR Part
    450 rules, the lack of clarity in guidance on the implementation of the
    regulation, and chronic staffing and resource shortages within the
    Office of Commercial Space Transportation. This has resulted in delays
    in processing applications and approving licenses in a timely manner.
        The previous Administration recognized the need to review part 450
    and established an Aerospace Rulemaking Committee (SpARC) last November
    to review the new rule and recommend improvements.

        Question 1. Given the critical need to both maintain rigorous
    safety standards and support the Nation's leadership in commercial
    space activities, will you support the continuation of the Part 450
    SpARC chartered to identify and recommend any necessary amendments to
    14 CFR Part 450 and related regulations?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to learn more about the SpARC
    and become familiar with its work and recommendations. In my
    experience, the technical and rulemaking advisory committees of the FAA
    often provide valuable input into the decision-making process for new
    regulations and regulatory changes. If confirmed, I would support the
    Secretary in working with the FAA to review the need for further
    streamlining and updating of the commercial space rules. In general, I
    would welcome the opportunity to help develop and implement
    improvements in commercial space licensing without compromising the
    safety of the national airspace. I'm proud of the reforms made in this
    area during the first Trump administration, and I understand there is a
    pressing need for further reforms.

        Question 2. Will you also commit to ensuring that the workforce of
    the Office of Commercial Space Transportation is not cut by DOGE and
    remains sufficiently staffed to be responsive to the needs of the
    public and the commercial space launch industry?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would assist the Secretary in working with
    the FAA to achieve greater efficiencies and productivity in the FAA's
    licensing of commercial space launches and reentries without
    compromising the safety of the national airspace.

        Jones Act. The Jones Act requires that waterborne cargo carried
    between domestic ports must be carried on U.S. flag ships, U.S. built,
    and U.S. crewed ships. According to the American Maritime Partnership,
    the Jones Act supports 650,000 American family wage jobs and
    contributes more than $150 billion to the national economy annually.
    The Jones Act also helps ensure the U.S. maintains the critical skills
    required to build and crew ships needed for national security purposes.
    The DOT, through MARAD, is formally consulted in the decision-making
    process to waive the Jones Act for non-Department of Defense requests.
    Further, a number of DOT programs support maritime infrastructure,
    grants, training, and financing necessary to support a Jones Act fleet
    for commercial and government (defense and food aid) cargo. Project
    2025, which you helped author, calls for QUOTE: ``repealing or
    substantially reforming the Jones Act.''

        Question 1. Do you support the Jones Act and believe it should be
    maintained?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 2. Do you support reforming the Jones Act? If so, how
    would you reform the Jones Act? How would those reforms impact the
    shipbuilding industry in the United States?
        Answer. It would be up to Congress to enact any amendments to the
    Jones Act, and it would be up to the President to decide whether to
    propose any legislative change on behalf of the Executive Branch. If I
    am confirmed as Deputy Secretary, I would not come to the job with any
    predetermined proposal for reforming the Jones Act. I would look
    forward to supporting the Secretary in reviewing the application of the
    Jones Act and evaluating any purported need for reform that might
    require consideration.

        U.S. Maritime Administration. The U.S. Maritime Administration
    (``MARAD'') was established to develop and support the United States
    merchant marine and domestic shipbuilding, shipping, and related
    industries. While previously housed within the Department of Commerce,
    MARAD has been a part of the Department of Transportation since 1981.
    Project 2025 calls for moving MARAD from the Department of
    Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security or to the
    Department of Defense to find ``operational efficiencies.''

        Question 1. Do you support maintaining MARAD as an agency within
    the Department of Transportation? If not, why not, and where would you
    propose addressing DOT and MARAD maritime authorities and activities
    directed under Title 49 and elsewhere?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the continuation of MARAD's
    mission within DOT. Any decision to move MARAD to another department
    would require legislation and would be up to Congress, and any decision
    to propose legislation to effect such a move on behalf of the Executive
    Branch would be made by the President. If such a decision were made, I
    would expect to assist the Secretary in supporting the decision, but I
    do not anticipate independently pushing for such legislation.

        Question 2. Given that you helped write Project 2025, what specific
    MARAD efficiencies do you intend to find?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    evaluating the potential need for improved efficiencies and greater
    productivity in all components of DOT, including MARAD, without
    compromising the critical safety mission of DOT, consistent with the
    statutory authorities of the Secretary and subject to the policy
    directions of the President.

        Question 3. Do you support MARAD's ongoing work to build a U.S.
    flagged fleet, crewed by U.S. merchant mariners, that is available to
    help carry U.S. cargo and equipment--especially when needed for support
    of potential Department of Defense contingencies?
        Answer. Yes.

        Maritime Workforce. According to the Department of Defense, the
    Department of Transportation, the Maritime Administration, the Coast
    Guard, and the maritime industry, there is a significant shortage of
    professional U.S. mariners--and this is a major economic and national
    security concern. We do not have enough mariners to crew our current
    fleet of commercial ships, nor a large enough commercial fleet to keep
    costs to consumers down, nor a large enough commercial fleet to support
    the Department of Defense during potential contingencies. This is a
    competitiveness issue, and it impacts the entire American supply chain.
    Additionally, this is a national security issue--mariners are needed
    both to help carry goods onboard U.S. vessels, and to ensure we have
    the logistical capacity needed to support the Department of Defense
    during an emergency or contingency.

        Question 1. Do you consider the shortage of U.S. merchant mariners
    a national and economic security risk?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 2. How do you intend to leverage Department of
    Transportation resources, including the United States Merchant Marine
    Academy, State Maritime Academies, and Military to Mariner Programs, to
    grow and develop the maritime workforce, including a sufficient
    quantity of U.S. mariners?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to partnering with the
    Secretary to advance these important goals in the most efficient and
    economical way practicable, as the American taxpayer would expect,
    consistent with the Secretary's statutory authorities and subject to
    the policy directions of the President.

        The MARAD Federal Ship Financing Program. The MARAD Federal Ship
    Financing Program (known as ``Title XI'') provides long term, low
    interest loans to certain maritime entities to promote growth and
    modernization of the U.S. Merchant Marine and U.S. shipyards. This
    program is vital to helping the modernization of U.S. shipyards and the
    construction of new U.S. built, U.S. flagged vessels.

        Question 1. Would you support increased funding for Title XI for
    the purposes of construction of new U.S. built, U.S. flagged vessels
    economic and national security? Why or why not?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    conducting a rigorous review of discretionary financial assistance
    programs like Title XI to evaluate the performance and results of the
    programs and to assess the potential need for improvements. I fully
    embrace the need for more domestic shipbuilding capacity and projects,
    and I recognize the important role Title XI can play in advancing that
    goal.

        Question 2. Commercial fishing vessels are currently not considered
    a vessel of national interest, even though investing in the domestic
    seafood supply chain is of great economic importance, particularly with
    respect to keeping costs down for consumers, protecting family wage
    fishing and seafood processing jobs, and improving competitiveness with
    China in the seafood sector.
        Would you support expanding Title XI to cover loans to include
    fishing vessels as a vessel of national interest for the purposes of
    the Title XI Program? Would you support further expanding the program
    to include construction of seafood supply chain shoreside
    infrastructure modernization?
        Answer. I don't yet know enough to answer these questions, and I
    don't have a predetermined inclination one way or the other. If
    confirmed, I would look forward to working with you and others in
    Congress to learn more about how Title XI might be used to serve this
    purpose and to assist the Secretary in addressing these questions.
                                     ______

                                  ATTACHMENT:
        Letter of Steven G. Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
    Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, to Chairman Arlen
    Specter and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, Senate Judiciary Committee
    (July 14, 2006)
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                                Steven Bradbury
    Question Topic: Infrastructure Funding
        The Administration has recently taken actions that have impeded the
    implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law--including delaying
    grants that have already been awarded but not disbursed--adding costs
    to projects across the country, including more than 60 projects in
    Minnesota alone.

       If confirmed, will you commit to supporting infrastructure
            funding through programs authorized by the Bipartisan
            Infrastructure Law?

       Will you prevent delays to grants that have already been
            awarded so that these projects can get started?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    managing DOT's discretionary grant decisions, consistent with the law,
    so as to ensure that taxpayer dollars are prudently obligated to
    achieve the intended results and the exercise of discretion in these
    programs is appropriate and consistent with the best interests of the
    American people.
    Question Topic: NOTAM
        Following the NOTAM system outage in 2023, I worked with Senators
    Moran and Capito to pass a bill directing the implementation of a
    modernized NOTAM system and backup system by September 2024. Earlier
    this month, the primary NOTAM system experienced an outage for several
    hours. While the backup system was successfully activated, I'm still
    concerned about the past due upgrade to the primary system.

       During the hearing, you said you would work to upgrade
            technical systems for the FAA and Air Traffic Control. Will you
            commit to ensuring a modernized NOTAM system is implemented in
            a timely fashion? How else will you work to upgrade technical
            systems?
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary
    in working with the FAA to ensure that the NOTAM system is modernized
    and made more reliable. I would also expect to support the Secretary's
    efforts to evaluate all of the FAA's air traffic control systems and
    practices to identify areas for improvement and to explore new
    solutions for upgrading ATC operations more quickly and efficiently, in
    order to enhance the safety of our national airspace.
    Question Topic: Air Traffic Control Infrastructure
        You testified that you would assist Secretary Duffy in upgrading
    our Nation's air traffic control operations. I've been working across
    the aisle with Rep. Stauber to replace the air traffic control tower at
    the Duluth Airport--one of the oldest in the country.

       If confirmed, will you support funding to upgrade our air
            traffic control towers, particularly through the Federal
            Aviation Administration's Airport Terminal grant program?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would look forward to assisting Secretary
    Duffy as he works with the FAA to review the need for tower upgrades
    and to evaluate the funding required for such upgrades.
    Question Topic: FAA Firings
        Aviation safety assistants and maintenance mechanics that support
    aircraft safety inspectors and repair air traffic control facilities
    were among the 400 FAA workers fired last week.

       Will you work to rehire these safety roles?

       Will you commit to ensuring that safety workers will not be
            indiscriminately fired in the future?
        Answer. I am confident the Secretary is committed to ensuring that
    any personnel cuts deemed necessary, including at the FAA, will not
    involve safety-critical staff and will not degrade DOT's ability to
    carry out its primary safety mission. If confirmed, I will assist the
    Secretary in managing this process with care, consistent with the law
    and subject to the policy directions of the President.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                Steven Bradbury
    Department of Transportation Grants
        Question One. In his confirmation hearing, Secretary Duffy assured
    me that the Department of Transportation would continue to outlay all
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act obligations in accordance with
    the law. Do you commit to supporting the Secretary in executing all
    obligated DOT grants?
        Answer. I understand the Department is disbursing funds for valid
    expenditures under obligated DOT grants. If confirmed, I would expect
    to assist the Secretary in managing DOT's discretionary grant
    decisions, consistent with the law, so as to ensure that taxpayer
    dollars are prudently obligated to achieve the intended results and the
    exercise of discretion in these programs is appropriate and consistent
    with the best interests of the American people.

        Question Two. President Trump and Secretary Duffy have both stated
    that investing in large transportation infrastructure projects is among
    their priorities at DOT. This cannot be done with-out robust funding
    for DOT discretionary grants. Do you pledge to continue robust funding
    for discretionary grants?
        Answer. Please see my answer to Question One.

        Question Three. What are your priorities for infrastructure
    investment?
        Answer. DOT's mission is exceptionally important in no small part
    because the liberty and prosperity of the American people depend on the
    safe and efficient operation of the Nation's transportation systems and
    infrastructure. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Transportation, I
    would expect to prioritize Federal funding for cost-beneficial
    infrastructure projects of national importance in accordance with the
    authorizations and appropriations provided by Congress and the policy
    directions of the administration. Infrastructure investment is a major
    priority for President Trump and for Secretary Duffy, and I look
    forward to being a strong partner to the Secretary in helping to
    advance transportation projects of importance to the Nation.

        Question Four. Do you support considering birth and marriage rates
    when determining DOT awards?
        Answer. Consistent with the policy directions of the President and
    the Secretary, if confirmed, I would expect to support the
    consideration of birth and marriage rates as one among several factors
    potentially useful in identifying growing communities where the future
    need for discretionary infrastructure investment may be especially
    important.

        Question Four, Subquestion One. If so, how do you plan to ensure
    that rural places or areas with aging populations have paved roads,
    sidewalks, and reliable bus service?
        Answer. I expect that birth and marriage rates would likely not be
    the determinative factor in most discretionary grant awards and that
    DOT will direct an appropriate portion of discretionary grants to rural
    communities and areas with aging populations, where and as consistent
    with law.

        Question Four, Subquestion Two. If so, please explain your
    rationale behind why areas with higher marriage rates need more
    transportation funding compared to those with lower rates.
        Answer. Please see my answers to the preceding questions.
    Road Safety
        Question One. On average, 116 people were killed every day on roads
    in the U.S., totaling just over 42,500 fatalities in 2022. This is a 26
    percent increase in deaths in a decade. If confirmed, how would you
    address the road safety crisis facing our country?
        Answer. The numbers of fatalities and serious injuries on America's
    highways are persistently high and unacceptable, and we must drive
    those numbers down toward zero. One way to improve highway safety is to
    ensure that new cars and trucks are affordable, so that American
    families are not stuck driving older used vehicles, which are much less
    safe in a highway crash. Another is to focus on better ways to
    discourage and to punish drunk driving and drugged driving, which are a
    national scourge on our highways. In addition, automated driving
    technologies, including autonomous vehicle systems, hold great promise
    for reducing highway deaths and injuries dramatically. I believe DOT
    should work to advance regulatory frameworks for the Nation that will
    help facilitate and accommodate the development, testing, and safe
    deployment of such innovative technologies and systems. If confirmed, I
    would plan to assist the Secretary in working to keep new and safer
    vehicles affordable for the average American, in addressing the
    challenge of drunk and drugged driving, and in working toward the
    realization of a safety framework for automated driving technology and
    AVs. If legislation is needed or deemed appropriate to achieve these
    goals, I would expect to support the Secretary in working with Congress
    to advance Federal policy in this important area.

        Question Two. Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities have risen
    disproportionately in recent years. If confirmed, what specific actions
    will you take to achieve this goal?
        Answer. Here again, automated driving-assist technology can be
    effective in avoiding crashes involving bikes and pedestrians. At the
    same time, I believe we need to support the efforts of States and local
    governments in separating pedestrians and cyclists from busy traffic
    lanes. I do not believe, however, that it is the appropriate role of
    the Federal government to dictate these projects to the States. Rather,
    I would favor funding structures that empower the States and local
    communities to control these decisions at the local level and that give
    them flexibility they need to make local investments with local
    dollars, provided such projects do not interfere with the Federal goal
    of preserving or expanding the capacity and efficiency of federal-aid
    highways.

        Question Three. In your confirmation hearing, you stated that if
    confirmed you will prioritize advancing the safety of our
    transportation system. What role do vehicle safety regulations like AEB
    mandates and impaired driving technology play in improving the safety
    of our streets?
        Answer. Vehicle safety standards can, of course, play an important
    role in advancing the goal of improved safety outcomes. As Congress has
    instructed, such standards must be reasonable, practicable, and
    appropriate, which includes a balancing and assessment of cost versus
    benefit. We must advance safety with an eye toward maintaining the
    affordability of new vehicles. If many American families are unable to
    afford new vehicles that meet their needs, the safety outcome we all
    desire will not be realized. In addition, new technology must be
    acceptable to the driving public. The Federal government cannot force
    Americans to embrace new technologies through regulatory mandates.

        Question Three, Subquestion One. If confirmed, do you commit to
    retaining and advancing vehicle safety regulations that are proven to
    improve safety for drivers and pedestrians?
        Answer. Automated driving-assist technologies have great potential
    to improve safety, including for pedestrians and cyclists. At the same
    time, vehicle safety rules must be reasonable, practicable, and
    appropriate, which includes a balancing and assessment of cost versus
    benefit. We must advance safety with an eye toward maintaining the
    affordability of new vehicles. If many American families are unable to
    afford new vehicles that meet their needs, the safety outcome we all
    desire will not be realized. In addition, new technology must be
    acceptable to the driving public. The Federal government cannot force
    Americans to embrace new technologies through regulatory mandates.
    Oversight
        Question One. In 2020, Senator Wicker, then Chair of the Senate
    Commerce Committee released findings concluding that your DOT General
    Counsel office failed to produce relevant documents, obstructing
    committee investigations. If confirmed, do you commit to responding to
    requests for information in a timely and complete manner, and having
    open communication with all committee and member offices?
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I intend to facilitate open and candid
    channels of communication with Congress concerning the effectiveness,
    capabilities, and resource needs of DOT. I do not believe it is fair or
    accurate to say that I as General Counsel of DOT or OGC obstructed
    Congress's investigations into the Boeing 737-MAX disasters. As General
    Counsel, my effort was to assist the Secretary and the FAA in
    facilitating the FAA's responses to those congressional investigations,
    not at all to impede the investigations.

        Question Two. What specific steps will you take to ensure the
    transparency and accountability of the department?
        Answer. I believe that a fair review and assessment of my career in
    government service will show that I have consistently prioritized
    transparency and accountability in my decision making and in explaining
    and justifying the grounds for decisions I have made. My strong
    personal inclination is to ensure that the Department as a whole will
    meet those same expectations.
        Aviation
        Question One. For the past four years, I served as Chair of the
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban
    Development. As Chair, I worked in a bipartisan fashion to annually
    increase funding to expand air traffic controller hiring. Do you agree
    that federal investment in our air traffic controller workforce is
    critical to maintaining the safety of our nation's airspace?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question Two. If confirmed, how do you plan to address the air
    traffic controller shortage?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary's efforts to
    evaluate all of the FAA's air traffic control systems and other safety-
    critical systems and practices to identify areas for improvement in
    efficiency and productivity and to explore new solutions for upgrading
    operations more quickly and economically, in order to enhance the
    safety of our national airspace. I will also support the Secretary in
    working with the FAA to ensure we hire the best and brightest air
    traffic controller candidates and that we expand the pipeline and
    training capacity for new air traffic controllers, consistent with the
    resources provided by Congress.

        Question Three. As General Counsel of the Department under the
    previous Trump Administration, you oversaw activities in the Department
    of Transportation Office of Aviation Consumer Protection. As such, you
    should understand how vital this office is to ensuring that the
    regulations intended to protect American air travelers are enforced.
    What is your view of this office's role in protecting air travelers?
        Answer. Congress has authorized the Secretary to prohibit ``unfair
    and deceptive practices'' in the airline industry after holding
    hearings to gather evidence to support any such prohibition. I support
    renewal of the Trump administration's rule setting forth a clear
    definition of these terms, in line with the parallel authority of the
    Federal Trade Commission, and providing for appropriate procedures and
    evidence-based analysis to support rulemaking in this area.
    Furthermore, if confirmed, I would favor focusing the Department's
    aviation consumer protection authority on making air travel more
    affordable and accessible to Americans, increasing safety, preserving
    competition in airline service to benefit the public, and incentivizing
    private investment to facilitate the deployment of emerging aviation
    technologies that can enhance safety, stimulate stronger competition,
    and lead to greater economic growth and prosperity for the Nation.
    Project 2025
        Question One. You are identified as a key contributor to the
    transportation chapter of Project 2025. What was your role in authoring
    the proposal?
        Answer. I reviewed the chapter and provided substantive input on
    some of the regulatory aspects of the chapter.

        Question Two. Project 2025 endorses many policies that would be
    harmful to Hawaii residents and others across the country, as well as
    our national security, including repealing or substantially modifying
    the Jones Act, ending the Essential Air Service Program, and abolishing
    DOT discretionary grants. Do you support these proposals?
        Answer. As I noted in my letter of February 18, 2025, to the
    Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee responding to questions
    raised by the Ranking Member's staff, there are many policy suggestions
    included in the Department of Transportation chapter of the Project
    2025 policy book that I do not subscribe to or that I would have
    articulated differently had I been a co-author of the chapter. Some of
    the proposals made in the chapter I disagree with, such as the
    proposals to separate the FAA's safety regulatory function from DOT and
    to repeal the Jones Act. Others, which may have merit as a theoretical
    matter, are so unlikely to be embraced by Congress that I would not
    expect to advise the Secretary to push for them if I were confirmed as
    Deputy Secretary. Among numerous others, these include the proposals to
    privatize the Nation's air traffic control operations, to end the
    Essential Air Service program, and substantially to eliminate the
    Department's transit programs and its grant-making and lending
    functions, even for infrastructure projects of national importance.

        Question Three. Project 2025 endorses separating the Federal
    Aviation Administration--or ``at minimum'' separating the function that
    includes air traffic control--from the Department of Transportation as
    well as ``operating FAA more like a business''. The role of DOT and FAA
    is to prioritize safety, not profit as a business would. Do you support
    this proposal as outlined in Project 2025?
        Answer. Please see my answer to the preceding question.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
                                Steven Bradbury
    Question Topic: Accessible Air Travel
        Question 1. The bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 includes
    several provisions focused on improving the air travel experience of
    passengers with disabilities. Specifically, the law requires DOT to
    promulgate several rules, including those related to boarding and
    deplaning of aircraft and inflight entertainment.

        A. If confirmed, what specific steps will you take to ensure that
    the department complies with the law in light of the administration's
    firing of hundreds of personnel and its deregulatory efforts?
        Answer. I am confident the President's directives on improving
    government efficiency and his regulatory reform agenda can be
    implemented without compromising the Department's safety mission,
    including with regard to the requirements set forth in the recent FAA
    Reauthorization Act. If confirmed, I will exercise my leadership in
    support of the Secretary to ensure that all laws are faithfully
    executed and statutory mandates complied with.

        Question 2. On December 16, 2024, the Department of Transportation
    published a final rule ensuring safe accommodations for air travel
    passengers who use wheelchairs. The safety of air travel passengers who
    use wheelchairs is not on par with the overall safety of commercial air
    travel. Numerous passengers have been physically injured, and their
    wheelchairs and other assistive devices have been damaged or destroyed.
    The promulgation of the final rule fulfilled some of the requirements
    in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 to improve training requirements
    for those who assist wheelchair users and those who handle their
    assistive devices. It also requires airlines to provide more
    information to passengers about when their devices are mishandled and
    expands their options for repair. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary:

        A. Will you work with the stakeholders, including the disability
    community, to ensure that this rule is properly implemented and
    enforced?
        Answer. I appreciate and share the national commitment to ensuring
    that disabled travelers have access to air service and that their
    wheelchairs and other assistive devices are handled with care and
    respect by the airlines. The Aviation Consumer Protection Office of DOT
    has an important role to play in ensuring that this commitment is
    upheld and enforced. I support that role. If confirmed, I would look
    forward to working with the staff of this Office on behalf of the
    Secretary to advance these mandates.

        B. What actions will you take to ensure there are enough personnel
    at the Department to monitor the implementation of the rule?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary in his efforts to
    ensure that staffing levels at DOT are adequate to carry out the
    essential functions of the Department efficiently and effectively.

        Question 3. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an
    executive order terminating diversity, equity, inclusion and
    accessibility programs, policies and activities in the Federal
    Government. However, multiple laws require prohibit discrimination on
    the basis of disability, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the
    Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
    of 1990.

        A. As Deputy Secretary, what specific actions will you take to
    ensure that Federal laws providing access for people with disabilities
    are upheld and enforced?
        Answer. I appreciate and share the national commitment to ensuring
    that disabled Americans have access to the transportation services
    necessary to conduct their lives productively and with dignity, just as
    all Americans should be able to do. The Aviation Consumer Protection
    Office of DOT has an important role to play in ensuring that this
    commitment is upheld and enforced, as does the Deputy Secretary and all
    other leadership offices of DOT. If confirmed, I would intend to uphold
    that commitment. Several of the laws referenced in the question are
    enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice, and, if confirmed, I would
    intend to work in collaboration with DOJ to ensure effective
    enforcement of all Federal laws guaranteeing the accommodation of
    persons with disabilities in our transportation systems.
    Question Topic: Accessible Train Travel
        Question 1. Amtrak serves over 28 million riders per year--however,
    the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement that intercity
    passenger rail become accessible within a 20-year time frame is not yet
    implemented across all Amtrak stations. As of July 2023, Amtrak has
    only made 30 percent of its 385 stations accessible to those with
    disabilities. In December 2024, the bipartisan Think DIFFERENTLY
    Transportation Act, which requires the rail agency to submit annual
    reports to Congress on its compliance with accessibility standards set
    by the ADA, became law.

        A. If confirmed as Deputy Secretary, what specific steps will you
    take to ensure that the Think DIFFERENTLY Transportation Act--and by
    extension the ADA--is fully implemented so that stations are made
    accessible on time?
        Answer. I appreciate and share the national commitment to ensuring
    that disabled Americans have access to the transportation services
    necessary to conduct their lives productively and with dignity, just as
    all Americans should be able to do--including on Amtrak-operated
    trains, as contemplated in the Think DIFFERENTLY Transportation Act.
    DOT does not control Amtrak, but it has an important role in
    influencing Amtrak's compliance with the directions of Congress. If
    confirmed, I would intend to exercise that influence to advance the
    goal of improved access to Amtrak for persons with disabilities. To the
    extent the requirements of the ADA are enforced with regard to Amtrak
    by the U.S. Department of Justice, I would, if confirmed, intend to
    work in collaboration with DOJ to ensure effective enforcement.
    Question Topic: Aviation Safety
        Question 1. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Aviation,
    Space & Innovation--and as a pilot--I take aviation safety very
    seriously. Our aviation system is at a crossroads. Our margin of safety
    has been diminished--both in operations and in manufacturing. We need
    to restore our safety margin, not diminish it further. A big part of
    that involves growing our aviation workforce. We lost a lot of
    experience during the pandemic, and we need to chart a course to build
    that back over the next several years. We need more air traffic
    controllers and other specialists.
        We passed a strong, bipartisan FAA Reauthorization bill last year
    to do that. But President Trump is undercutting these bipartisan
    efforts. One of his first acts back in office was to invite air traffic
    controllers to retire early. Then, he fired hundreds at FAA. That's not
    helpful for safety. Based on your prior work at the Department of
    Transportation, I am concerned that you, too, will not make safety your
    top priority. During this committee's investigation into the Boeing 737
    MAX crashes--you failed to fully cooperate. Your actions were so
    troubling, then-Chairman Wicker specifically called you out in his
    final report for failing to produce relevant documents. The House
    Transportation & Infrastructure committee voiced similar frustrations
    with DOT's level of cooperation during its 737 MAX investigation. DOT
    is going to need to cooperate with Members of this committee--so we can
    continue our oversight of Boeing certification and production issues.

        A. Will you commit to providing complete and timely responses to
    requests from me--or any of my colleagues on this committee--for
    documents and information regarding Boeing certification and production
    issues?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary in working with
    the FAA and its dedicated career staff to improve and strengthen the
    FAA's air traffic control functions and its critical role as the
    Nation's aviation safety regulator while maximizing its efficiency. And
    I intend to facilitate open and candid channels of communication with
    Congress concerning the effectiveness, capabilities, and resource needs
    of FAA and the other vital components of DOT. I do not believe it is
    fair or accurate to say that I played a role in obstructing Congress's
    investigations into the Boeing 737-MAX disasters. As General Counsel of
    DOT, my effort was to assist the Secretary and the FAA in facilitating
    the FAA's responses to those congressional investigations, not at all
    to impede the investigations.

        Question 2. Last year Boeing got caught quietly asking FAA to waive
    safety regulations to allow a new 737 MAX variant to enter commercial
    service with a known safety defect. That defect posed a potentially
    catastrophic risk. In the face of public outrage, Boeing ultimately
    withdrew its application.

        A. Will you ensure that FAA will NOT certify any new Boeing
    aircraft unless new aircraft meet all applicable safety regulations and
    Boeing has demonstrated to FAA that such aircraft is safe to carry
    commercial passengers?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary in working with
    the FAA to ensure that new Boeing aircraft are only certified for
    service when all safety requirements are met and when the FAA is
    convinced that the aircraft is safe to carry passengers in commercial
    air service.

        Question 3. Following the 737 MAX 9 door plug blowout, FAA began
    enhanced oversight of Boeing aircraft production, including a cap on
    production and a review of Boeing's Key Performance Indicators to
    enable FAA to evaluate the soundness of Boeing's production practices
    in real time.

        A. Will you commit to maintaining FAA's enhanced oversight over
    Boeing's aircraft production?
        Answer. I support tougher and more rigorous and effective oversight
    over the safety of Boeing's manufacturing processes and the airplanes
    it produces. Boeing must improve its safety record, and the FAA must
    ensure effective oversight of Boeing's processes and products.
    Question Topic: Federal Funding
        Question 1. President Trump's freeze on transportation funding has
    caused chaos and confusion across the country and is putting important
    projects at risk. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Act is law--and the
    Department of Transportation must implement it on time and without
    delay.

        A. If you are confirmed, will you commit to disbursing all
    obligated grant funding from the Department of Transportation on time,
    without delay?
        Answer. I understand the Department is disbursing funds for valid
    expenditures under obligated DOT grants. If confirmed, I would expect
    to assist the Secretary in managing DOT's discretionary grant
    decisions, consistent with the law, so as to ensure that taxpayer
    dollars are prudently obligated to achieve the intended results and the
    exercise of discretion in these programs is appropriate and consistent
    with the best interests of the American people.

        Question 2. It is not just attempts to freeze obligated funding
    that is sowing chaos. When DOT awards funding, that spurs actions and
    commitments from stakeholders. Casting doubt on funding that has
    already been awarded leaves stakeholders in the lurch and puts projects
    at risk. Some of these projects are critically important for our
    Nation's economy. For example, the Chicago Region Environmental and
    Transportation Efficiency Program, or CREATE, is a public-private
    partnership working to eliminate notorious bottlenecks in Chicago so
    that passenger and freight rail can move across the country quicker.
    Chicago is our Nation's busiest freight rail hub. The first Trump
    Administration recognized how critical this project is to our national
    supply chain and awarded $132 million to it. In October, the Department
    of Transportation awarded an additional $291 million. However, this
    latest funding has been frozen.

        A. Will you commit to disbursing all funding the Department of
    Transportation has awarded pursuant to the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Act in full and without undue delay?
        Answer. Please see my answer to the preceding question.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                                Steven Bradbury
    Question Topic: DOT Grants
        Question 1. Do you commit that the Department will follow through
    on grants that have already been promised to communities across the
    country, but have not yet been finalized?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to assist the Secretary in
    managing DOT's discretionary grant decisions, consistent with the law,
    so as to ensure that taxpayer dollars are prudently obligated to
    achieve the intended results and the exercise of discretion in these
    programs is appropriate and consistent with the best interests of the
    American people.
    Question Topic: Tribal Consultation
        Question 1. Will you commit to maintaining the Office of Tribal
    Government Affairs at DOT, formalizing Tribal Consultation requirements
    for Department officials, and holding regular Tribal Transportation
    Summits to increase awareness and technical assistance for Tribes so
    Tribes can access competitive agency funding?
        Answer. Yes, this is a personal commitment of mine.
    Question Topic: Air Traffic Control
        Question 1. As you know, there is a significant shortage of air
    traffic controllers across our aviation system. At the end of Fiscal
    Year 2024, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had 1,020 fewer
    Certified Professional Controllers (CPCs) than at the end of Fiscal
    Year 2012.
        Last year, I was proud to work with my colleagues to include
    language in the FAA Reauthorization package that mandates maximum
    hiring of air traffic controller trainees for five years, so long as
    there is adequate funding.

        Will you commit to supporting the implementation of maximum hiring
    targets, including ensuring that there is sufficient funding to meet
    those targets?
        Answer. Yes.
    Question Topic: FAA Staffing
        Question 1. Do you believe that maintenance mechanics, aeronautical
    information specialists, and aviation safety assistants at the Federal
    Aviation Administration play an important safety role?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 2. Do you believe the FAA should be investing more in
    aviation safety in light of recent safety incidents across the country?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary's efforts to
    evaluate all of the FAA's safety-critical systems and practices to
    identify areas for improvement and to explore new solutions for
    upgrading operations more quickly and efficiently, in order to enhance
    the safety of our national airspace. I will also support the Secretary
    in working with the FAA to ensure we hire the best and brightest air
    traffic controller candidates and other technical staff for the FAA and
    that we expand the pipeline and training capacity for new air traffic
    controllers, consistent with the resources provided by Congress.
    Question Topic: Rail Safety
        Question 1. Last Thursday morning, there was a train derailment
    near the Valencia/Socorro county line in New Mexico. Thankfully current
    reports show no one was injured, but New Mexico State Police say
    multiple train cars carrying both hazardous and non-hazardous materials
    derailed.
        Last April, there was a derailment on the border of Arizona and New
    Mexico in which six tank cars each hauling 30,000 gallons of liquefied
    petroleum gas derailed.
        Yes or no, do you believe safety inspectors play an important role
    in our rail system?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 2. Do you think now is a good time to fire rail safety
    inspectors?
        Answer. I am confident the Secretary is committed to ensuring that
    any personnel cuts deemed necessary, including at the FRA, will not
    involve safety-critical staff and will not degrade DOT's ability to
    carry out its primary safety mission. If confirmed, I will assist the
    Secretary in managing this process with care, consistent with the law
    and subject to the policy directions of the President.

        Question 3. Do you commit to keeping these FRA inspectors on the
    job who are responsible for protecting our rail system?
        Answer. Please see my answer to the preceding question.
    Question Topic: Truck Safety
        It is a priority for me to put an end to trucking fatalities--and
    in particular, underride crashes. In 2015, 16-year-old Riley Hein was
    killed in a collision with an 18-wheeler in Tijeras, New Mexico.
    Because the truck did not have side underride guards, Riley's car
    became wedged underneath it during the collision and was dragged for
    half a mile. Eventually, the car caught fire and Riley burned to death.
        Underride crashes are extremely dangerous, and often result in
    serious injuries or death. But they are preventable, and the technology
    to prevent them already exists.
        Question 1. Do you commit to working with industry, advocacy, and
    other safety partners to address underride crashes and stop preventable
    deaths on our roadways?
        Answer. Yes, I look forward to assisting the Secretary in examining
    these issues carefully, in consultation with the experts in NHTSA and
    all interested stakeholders.

        Question 2. In addition, underride crashes are severely
    underreported. The Fatality Analysis Re-porting System (FARS) is a
    nationwide census providing NHTSA, Congress and the American public
    yearly data regarding fatal injuries suffered in motor vehicle traffic
    crashes. However, the data is often inaccurate due to differences on
    how each state collects and reports this data. For example, many states
    do not have an Underride/Override checkbox on their electronic State
    Police Crash Report Forms, making it difficult to accurately report
    these crashes and represent them in the system. When data is
    inaccurate, the Department is unable to make informed decisions about
    how to address fatalities and mitigate and prevent specific types of
    crashes, including underride crashes.
        If confirmed, do you commit to addressing inaccuracies in the FARS
    system and working with states to standardize reporting?
        Answer. Yes.
    Question Topic: NHTSA Staffing & Funding
        Question 1. Yes or no, do you believe it is important for NHTSA to
    invest in developing new technologies to make our roads safer?
        Answer. I believe NHTSA plays a critical role in assessing and
    validating test methods for new automotive safety systems. NHTSA also
    supports some of these efforts through grant funding. If confirmed, I
    would expect to support the Secretary in working with NHTSA to review
    the need for and effectiveness of NHTSA's grant-making programs,
    consistent with the laws and appropriations enacted by Congress. I
    believe private investment is the main driver of technological
    innovation in the U.S., including for new safety-enhancing
    transportation systems. To maximize safety and save more lives, we need
    to preserve incentives for private investment in innovative new
    technologies.

        Question 2. Yes or no, do you commit to maintaining NHTSA's current
    investments in technology development, including maintaining staff who
    are essential to executing that work?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect to support the Secretary's
    efforts to maintain NHTSA's safety functions, including with adequate
    staffing, funding, resources, systems improvements, and authorities.

        Question 3. According to Politico, several categories of workers at
    DOT are ineligible for this administration's deferred resignation offer
    and ``will not be subject to a reduction-in-force or other premature
    separation'' because they fall within ``public safety.'' No NHTSA
    positions were included in the publicly reported list. Do you believe
    that NHTSA plays a public safety role within DOT by preventing needless
    deaths on our roadways?
        Answer. I agree that NHTSA has an essential role in furthering
    DOT's critical safety mission. Most travel in the U.S. is by highway,
    and the persistently high number of annual highway fatalities is
    unacceptable. We must find solutions to drive that number down to-ward
    zero, and NHTSA is at the center of that effort for DOT.
    Question Topic: Impaired Driving Prevention
        Question 1. Secretary Duffy committed to providing an update in
    writing on the current status of the impaired driving prevention
    rulemaking, including a timeline to complete it, within 6 months of his
    confirmation. Do you commit to working with him to provide an update in
    writing to my office by July 28, 2025?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary in following up
    on his commitments to you and the other Members of the Committee.

        Question 2. Do you commit to issuing a rulemaking for the impaired
    driving provision of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that protects
    drivers' privacy, ensuring that driver data is not collected, stored,
    shared, or sold?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary in working with
    NHTSA to review the information collected in response to the recent
    advance notice of proposed rulemaking and to consider carefully the
    next steps in this rulemaking proceeding.

        Question 3. When seatbelts and airbags were new technologies, both
    the auto industry and the Department of Transportation invested in
    public acceptance campaigns to ensure these technologies were widely
    adopted and could save the most lives possible. Yes or no, do you
    believe a similar strategy is necessary as we move forward with the
    impaired driving prevention rulemaking?
        Answer. Yes, it may be. Certainly, I have concerns about the
    public's willingness to accept new technologies that may be viewed as
    invasive. If confirmed, I would intend to assist the Secretary in
    working with NHTSA to explore these questions carefully.

        Question 4. Not only does this impaired driving prevention
    technology make us safer, but it also makes economic sense. According
    to NHTSA, in 2019, the economic costs of alcohol-involved and
    distracted-driving crashes alone totaled $167 billion in a single year.
    The highest estimate I've heard for hardware-based solutions to address
    impaired driving are $200 per car, with software-based solutions coming
    in at a negligible cost, since new cars are already being equipped with
    the technology that makes drunk driving detection possible. Do you
    believe this information should be carefully considered in moving
    forward with a rulemaking on impaired driving prevention technology?
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to

                                Steven Bradbury
    Question Title: Flight 5342 Response
        Question 1. After the recent devastating crash of Flight 5342 on
    approach at Reagan National Airport, there have been numerous reports
    that ATC staffing or obsolete infrastructure could have played a role
    in the crash. President Trump and Secretary Duffy have committed to
    upgrading and modernizing our ATC infrastructure as a result.

        Will you commit to moving aggressively to upgrade our Nation's ATC
    infrastructure as well as maximum ATC controller hiring?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question 2. Can you elaborate on your vision--and what tactics you
    would employ--to speed up modernization of this critical technology?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary's efforts to
    evaluate all of the FAA's air traffic control systems and other safety-
    critical systems and practices to identify areas for improvement and to
    explore new solutions for upgrading operations more quickly and
    efficiently, in order to enhance the safety of our national airspace. I
    will also support the Secretary in working with the FAA to ensure we
    hire the best and brightest air traffic controller candidates and that
    we expand the pipeline and training capacity for new air traffic
    controllers, consistent with the resources provided by Congress.

        Question 3. The recent devastating crash of Flight 5342 highlighted
    a major concern when it comes to helicopter routes in extremely close
    proximity to Reagan National Airport. While I agree with Secretary
    Duffy's move to temporarily suspend those routes, I believe more action
    must be taken to permanently suspend helicopter traffic near DCA as it
    is a high traffic area. Do you believe helicopter traffic near Reagan
    National Airport should be permanently suspended? If not, what steps
    should be taken to ensure the safety of operations near the airport?
        Answer. From what I understand based on public information, I
    believe the horrible collision of the Army Blackhawk helicopter with
    Flight 5342 and the devastating loss of life were entirely avoidable
    and should never have happened. I believe we need to ensure that the
    FAA has the systems, capabilities, expert staff, and authorities needed
    to exercise firm control and management over all aviation operations in
    and near the flight paths of DCA. Given the military presence and
    security requirements of the national capital region, I expect that it
    will continue to be necessary for military helicopters to fly up and
    down the Potomac near DCA. But I believe the Secretary of
    Transportation, the FAA, and the Secretary of Defense can effectively
    coordinate operations to ensure that all necessary helicopter traffic
    on the Potomac is routed through low-altitude corridors that avoid
    interference with DCA flight paths.
    Question Title: Economic and Workforce Development
        Question 1. As you are aware commercial aviation is vital to the
    U.S. economy, driving 5 percent of U.S. GDP--the equivalent of $1.45
    trillion in 2024--and supporting approximately 10 million jobs across
    the United States. Every day, U.S. airlines operate more than 27,000
    flights carrying 2.7 million passengers to/from nearly 80 countries and
    61,000 tons of cargo to/from more than 220 countries. Alliances between
    U.S. and foreign airlines have expanded access to global markets and
    enabled job growth here in the United States. According to recent data
    from the Department of Transportation (DOT), leading U.S. airlines
    employ more than one million people worldwide, with U.S. passenger
    airlines alone employing their largest workforce in nearly 23 years.
    The U.S. aviation sector is critical to driving U.S. growth, ensuring
    good jobs for our communities, connecting global markets, and advancing
    technological innovation.
        Please describe your vision for strengthening the United States'
    global aviation leadership. Please include your plans for exercising
    leadership at the International Civil Aviation Organization on behalf
    of the United States.
        Answer. I agree completely that America's aviation sector, both the
    U.S.-flagged commercial airlines and our domestic aviation
    manufacturing base, is critical to the strength and vitality of our
    Nation and to our leadership position in the world. The FAA must
    reestablish itself as the recognized world leader and standard setter
    in the safety certification of new aircraft systems. Among other
    things, FAA leadership enables America to maintain and grow its vital
    domestic manufacturing base in aviation, an important component of our
    national economy. If confirmed, I will assist the Secretary in working
    to ensure that the FAA continues to engage with major foreign
    certification authorities and other cooperative aviation partners
    around the world toward the goal of achieving consistent state-of-the-
    art standards and practices for the development and manufacture of
    aircraft. And we cannot ignore ICAO's important role in promoting safe
    and secure worldwide air travel. I believe America needs to remain an
    active and effective participant and partner in ICAO proceedings.

        Question 2. What steps can the Department of Transportation take to
    enhance the competitive position of U.S. airlines and their skilled
    workforce?
        Answer. I believe the Department needs to be a leader in standing
    up for U.S. airlines in international discussions. We should insist on
    firmly maintaining reciprocity in air service, in addressing and
    eliminating unfair subsidies and regulatory distortions by foreign
    nations that often advantage their government-owned or government-
    influenced carriers versus private U.S. carriers, and in vindicating
    the principles of our Open Skies policies. I would also favor pursuing
    new Open Skies agreements where they make sense for America.

        Question 3. Aviation manufacturing is a major economic driver in
    the United States, with the largest trade balance (exports minus
    imports) among all U.S. manufacturing sectors. A global network of
    manufacturers and suppliers provides the aircraft and components that
    airlines in the United States rely on to support their operations. In
    December the General Accountability Office issued a report documenting
    how U.S. airlines have had to make changes to scheduled flights and
    develop ways to safely extend the life of some parts, among other
    actions, due to the difficulty obtaining new aircraft or the parts
    needed to maintain their current fleet. As U.S. airlines respond to the
    post-pandemic rebound in air travel demand, aviation manufacturers'
    ability to provide new aircraft and parts is key to airlines' efforts
    to maintain and grow their operations.
        Supply chain resiliency remains one of my top priorities. What
    actions can the Administration take to strengthen aerospace supply
    chains to ensure future and continued growth of the U.S. airline
    industry?
        Answer. I believe we need to gear the actions of DOT and all other
    parts of our government toward incentivizing producers to invest in
    domestic U.S.-based production of critical components needed for
    aviation and other transportation systems. I fully share Congress's
    commitment to Buy America policies and the President's strong emphasis
    on growing U.S. jobs and our domestic industries, especially in
    critical sectors like aviation. Among other things, we must protect
    Americans and the U.S. economy from the dangers of dependence on
    unfriendly foreign suppliers and producers.

        Will you commit to briefing my office in 90 days with
    recommendations that both congress and Executive Branch can take to
    strengthen the supply chain?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support and assist the Secretary in
    working with you to address these needs.
    Question Title: 737 MAX
        Question 1. As Deputy Secretary of Transportation, you will once
    again play an outsized role in the government's operation of vital
    safety programs. There are numerous public reports detailing your role
    in obstructing the Boeing 737 MAX investigation conducted by this
    committee. The safety of our families should be non-partisan. Our
    aviation safety industry is suffering and overworked, and privatizing
    the FAA is not the answer.
        How will you ensure that we learn from past aviation mistakes and
    support our FAA workforce to meet the needs of tomorrow?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary in working with
    the FAA and its dedicated career staff to improve and strengthen the
    FAA's air traffic control functions and its critical role as the
    Nation's aviation safety regulator while maximizing its efficiency. And
    I intend to facilitate open and candid channels of communication with
    Congress concerning the effectiveness, capabilities, and resource needs
    of FAA and the other vital components of DOT. I do not believe it is
    fair or accurate to say that I played a role in obstructing Congress's
    investigations into the Boeing 737-MAX disasters. As General Counsel of
    DOT, my effort was to assist the Secretary and the FAA in facilitating
    the FAA's responses to those congressional investigations, not at all
    to impede the investigations.

        Question 2. I also understand that there could be more safety
    technologies deployed that could potentially save lives. What is your
    plan to find, fund, and deploy lifesaving technologies that could save
    lives?
        Answer. I believe we need to have strong performance-based safety
    management systems with clear benchmarks in place with Boeing and other
    critical manufacturers as well as operators to incentivize investments
    in safety-enhancing technologies and to ensure that the regulated
    entities know they will be held accountable for safety lapses and
    failures. Preserving and stimulating incentives for private investment
    in the latest safety-improving technologies and for deployment of these
    technologies for the benefit of the flying public and all Americans who
    rely on the safety and efficiency of our transportation systems is, in
    my view, the surest way to save lives.
    Question Title: ATC Privatization
        Question 1. Given the significant role the FAA plays in regulating
    air traffic, ensuring safety standards, and overseeing airspace
    management, privatizing the agency could have profound implications for
    public safety and accessibility. The current model ensures that
    aviation policy and airspace management are in the hands of a
    government body with the sole mission of public safety, not profit.
        With this in mind, can you provide a clear commitment to preserving
    the FAA as a public, government-run entity?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary in working to
    improve and strengthen the FAA's air traffic control functions as well
    as its critical role as the Nation's aviation safety regulator. Any
    decision to privatize air traffic control could only be made by
    Congress through legislation, and any decision to propose such
    legislation on behalf of the Executive Branch would have to be made by
    the President. I am well aware that Congress has already considered and
    rejected proposals to privatize the FAA's air traffic control
    operations, including in connection with the recent FAA Reauthorization
    Act, and I would not expect to push the Secretary to recommend such
    legislation.

        Question 2. Will you actively work to ensure that privatization
    efforts will not be pursued under your leadership at the Department of
    Transportation?
        Answer. Please see my answer to the preceding question.

                                      [all]