[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]