[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 11, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1646-S1647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Steven Bradbury

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to 
speak in opposition to the nomination of Steven Bradbury. He is 
nominated to be the Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
  When it comes to transportation safety, we don't measure success in 
dollars saved. We measure success in lives protected and tragedies 
prevented.
  Last week, I met with the parents of Sam Lilley, the first officer of 
the American Airlines plane that fatally collided with a U.S. Army 
Black Hawk helicopter at DCA Airport. Sam's father happens to be a 
commercial pilot now, and before that, he flew Black Hawk helicopters 
in the military. He expressed his concern about reports that the Black 
Hawks are regularly being operated in this busy airspace without the 
Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, commonly known as ADS-B, 
turned on.
  We know that the Black Hawk in the January 29 collision wasn't 
transmitting. We hope that we will find out later today in the NTSB 
report what we need to do to fix this problem.
  We know that during Mr. Bradbury's first tenure at DOT, he let the 
FAA create exemptions to permit military aircraft to operate without 
this key safety technology transmitting. And guess what? The military 
knew that they had been granted a loophole, but they said it would not 
be used all the time--only to find out later that the military said 
they were using the exemption 100 percent of the time.
  My heart goes out to the Lilley family and to all the families of the 
victims of this tragic accident. It didn't need to happen. That is why, 
last week, I wrote Secretary Hegseth to ask about the Army's letter 
from 2023 stating that 100 percent of its helicopters fly in the DC 
area with this ADS-B technology not activated.
  We can't afford another light-touch approach at the Department of 
Transportation when it comes to safety. We cannot. It simply does not 
matter if you are saving dollars if you are not saving lives. 
Unfortunately, I believe the President's nominee to be Deputy Secretary 
of the Department of Transportation, Steven Bradbury, has shown more 
interest in a light-touch approach that benefits industry, than being a 
champion for safety.
  During his nomination hearing, I questioned Mr. Bradbury about his 
record as previous general counsel for the Department of Transportation 
during the first Trump administration. In this capacity, Mr. Bradbury 
played a key role in orchestrating the rollback of multiple, multiple 
safety requirements under the guise of advancing a reform agenda.
  For example, under his watch, he prevented requirements for truck 
drivers. There was a fatigue prevention requirement for truck drivers, 
which he loosened. Vehicle safety recall investigations reached an 
alltime low, and meanwhile, road fatalities increased.
  Under his watch, there were a number of rail safety requirements that 
were also waived. The Department of Transportation withdrew its two-
person crew rule. This was a rule that people had recommended after 
derailments in the United States and in Canada, including a runaway oil 
train in Quebec in 2013 that derailed and killed 47 people. And during 
this same time period, the main line derailment rate increased, all 
during Mr. Bradbury's tenure.
  Perhaps, though, the most troubling of all, is Mr. Bradbury's watch 
during the rulemaking on what is called a safety management system for 
aviation manufacturers like Boeing. Just 9 days after the first 737 MAX 
crash in 2018, which resulted in 189 deaths, there was a rule that 
said--being proposed--that the safety management system should be a 
mandatory requirement--not voluntary. Don't tell an industry that has 
to manufacture planes, ``It's okay, you can voluntarily comply with 
some of these rules.'' No, no, we need requirements that manufacturers 
must meet.
  As my colleagues on the Commerce Committee know, a safety management 
system rule for aviation manufacturers would have instituted a 
comprehensive process for analyzing, predicting, and ultimately 
mitigating risk. The safety management system is considered the gold 
standard now around the world. If you want to have safety, you have a 
safety management system. It is a more robust process.
  And I question how Mr. Bradbury, at DOT, after the Indonesian 737 MAX 
crash, didn't see or understand the need for critical information and 
analysis that a safety management system would have put in place, 
particularly because the FAA continued to let the MAX plane fly, and 
part of the process in question is whether they considered the critical 
analysis that Boeing had done to allow the plane to fly and what the 
FAA's role was.

  So following the tragedies of both 737 MAX crashes, the Commerce 
Committee, led by then-Chairman Wicker, launched an investigation into 
the crashes to find solutions and prevent the disaster from happening 
again. But what did Mr. Bradbury do? Did he work with the committee to 
improve safety for the flying public? No. No, he did not.
  He basically thwarted Senator Wicker and the committee's efforts to 
get the information about what the FAA had done. Make this clear here 
today: Our colleagues need to hold the FAA accountable. If you don't 
hold the FAA accountable as the oversight body, fat chance the FAA is 
going to continue to do its job as aggressively as it needs to.
  So Senator Wicker's office said, ``Mr. Bradbury intentionally 
withheld relevant information requested by the committee.'' He made our 
investigation very hard. In fact, Senator Wicker later said, ``He 
deliberately attempted to keep us in the dark. And by that I mean our 
investigations, our staff, our committee, and me.''
  Now, I have great respect for my colleague Senator Wicker, but the 
Bradbury findings, in stymieing us as a committee to do our oversight 
job, gives me serious questions about his level of transparency.
  The families of the 737 MAX crashes wrote to Chairman Cruz last month 
to express their concerns about Mr. Bradbury's role in obstructing the 
committee's investigation into the crashes that took their loved ones' 
lives. They also voiced concern about Mr. Bradbury's role that led to 
the delays in holding Boeing accountable to implementing a true 
mandatory safety management system.
  Now, during his hearing, Mr. Bradbury suggested that the rule ready 
to be proposed by the previous Trump administration that made it 
mandatory for manufacturers to have a safety management system was held 
up because some small businesses didn't want to meet that requirement.
  Do we not believe that businesses are going to object to some rules? 
They do. They do all the time. But that doesn't mean scrapping the rule 
altogether, which is exactly what happened as far as the mandatory 
requirement.
  Well, lucky for the consumer, our committee, in the aftermath of 
these two crashes, got legislation passed that said, ``Yes, you have to 
have a mandatory safety management system, and you have to, FAA, put 
that rule out.''
  Now, Mr. Bradbury was still serving as general counsel and acting 
Deputy Secretary of the Department. You would have thought now that he 
has gotten a directive by Congress to put out this rule, he would have 
said, ``Hey, we have one. We have been debating it for a while, but now 
we have had two crashes. It is really clear that the safety culture 
needs to be upgraded. Everybody agrees, all experts, this is the great 
system. Let's implement it.''
  But he didn't. He didn't move forward, even after Congress mandated 
it. And after Mr. Bradbury's confirmation hearing in front of the 
Commerce Committee last month, the families of the 737 MAX crashes 
released a statement saying his testimony purporting to prioritize 
aviation safety, ``Shows a complete disregard for the 84 people who 
died in plane crashes in the United States in the last month.''
  Mr. Bradbury's troubling record doesn't stop just with 
transportation. During his time at the Department of Justice during the 
Bush administration, Mr. Bradbury authored what we know now as the 
widely known torture memos, justifying the use of waterboarding and 
other torture techniques.
  The Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility 
reviewed these memos and raised doubts about ``the objectivity and 
reasonableness'' of

[[Page S1647]]

these legal analyses. DOJ also found evidence that Mr. Bradbury's legal 
analyses ``were written with the goal of allowing the ongoing CIA 
program to continue.''
  Mr. Bradbury, then, at the Department of Justice, was writing rules 
that fit the outcome that he wanted, instead of looking objectively at 
what the American people needed. These legal opinions were contrary to 
what this Nation stands for.
  Later, the Senate refused to confirm Mr. Bradbury as Assistant 
Attorney General during the Bush administration, and Congress passed 
the McCain-Feinstein amendment to the 2016 NDAA, codifying the 
illegality of those torture methods--those very torture methods that 
Mr. Bradbury said were okay.
  We passed a law to basically change what this guy's legal opinion was 
because it was so bad. And so now, when the Senate is asked to provide 
advice and consent on Mr. Bradbury's nomination to be Deputy Secretary 
of the Transportation Department, I think you should look back at what 
happened then. Two of our Republican colleagues voted against his 
nomination because of the torture memos. They rightly concluded that he 
was not right to fit in the Department of Justice role.
  I am saying today, what do you need to know? He didn't fight for 
strong safety rules at the Department of Transportation before; he is 
not going to fight for them now. It is really clear that our aviation 
safety system needs strong leadership at the FAA, not someone who is 
going to write the rule to fit business, but write the rule to fit 
safety.
  As if these issues weren't concerning enough, there is another issue. 
During his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Bradbury, ``What about the 
conflicts of interest that appear to be mounting between Elon Musk and 
the FAA?''
  I thought, a smart lawyer could really give guidance to the Secretary 
of Transportation, give guidance to the FAA Administrator, the acting 
one, and could say, ``These are the ways in which Elon Musk should not 
pass go, would be a conflict of interest, would be a problem at the 
FAA, given that there are already issues that are really clearly in 
front of us.''

  So I said, ``Tell us. Tell us. Where do you think those conflicts of 
interest exist?'' Of course, at the hearing, he kind of demurred, and I 
said, ``You know what, Mr. Bradbury, you can give me for the record 
where exactly do you think there's a conflict of interest.''
  But he didn't just evade my questions; he basically said that he 
thought that it was an excellent idea to have Elon Musk and SpaceX 
making changes to the FAA air traffic control system. In fact, he said 
that he didn't ``see the potential for a conflict'' with the SpaceX 
employees having access to the FAA.
  Of course, we know now that three SpaceX engineers were recently 
hired as special government employees at the FAA and were immediately 
granted conflict of interest waivers by the Trump administration so 
they could work on matters at the FAA. Why? Because they had ``direct 
and predictable effects upon the financial interests of SpaceX.''
  So in other words, the Trump administration conceded that conflicts 
of interest do exist, and they are going to let them happen anyway, and 
they went to get a waiver. The conflicts of interest for Mr. Musk and 
SpaceX at the FAA is obvious.
  Let me just say, though, first, you can have all sorts of broadband 
solutions, including satellite solutions. But when you are talking 
about the air traffic controller system, that kind of system is 
inferior to fiber. Why? Because of speed, capacity, cost, weather, all 
sorts of issues. And when there is chaos, we need certainty and 
predictability.
  So we are seeing a conflict play out right before our eyes. According 
to a Bloomberg report, one of SpaceX's engineers who was granted a 
conflict of interest waiver recently told the FAA that SpaceX planned 
to send 4,000 Starlink terminals to the Agency. For what? We are still 
trying to find out.
  The FAA already entered into a $2 billion contract with Verizon in 
2023 to upgrade its telecommunications network. But Mr. Musk's own 
tweet suggests he wants to cancel the FAA's contract with Verizon. He 
is saying that they are failing. He wants them to use his product 
instead.
  And yet, Mr. Bradbury apparently doesn't even see the potential--he 
doesn't even see the potential for the conflict of interest.
  It doesn't stop with Starlink as a broadband supplier. Just last 
week, SpaceX's Starship heavy lift rocket malfunctioned and broke apart 
over the Caribbean before it reached orbit. Dangerous debris fell from 
the sky. The FAA smartly halted flights in the area to ensure safety, 
and thankfully, no one was injured. The FAA initiated an immediate 
investigation into SpaceX to determine what happened. The investigation 
presents another clear conflict of interest.
  As we know, Mr. Musk doesn't think FAA safety rules should apply to 
him. Last September, the FAA fined Mr. Musk and SpaceX for failing to 
comply with specific requirements in its launch license. Afterwards, 
after getting fined, Mr. Musk made a spectacle, calling for the firing 
of the FAA Administrator.
  That is right, the FAA fined him, and then he called for the FAA 
Administrator--oh, wait, wait 1 second, the FAA Administrator that 
passed this body 98-0, because everybody here thought he was going to 
do a great job.
  But Mr. Bradbury doesn't think Elon Musk has a conflict of interest, 
but Elon Musk can basically say to the President of the United States, 
``Fire the FAA Administrator that we all said we thought would do a 
good job.''
  Now, we all know Mr. Whitaker wasn't going to stick around without 
being backed up for the safety work that he was doing. And now, we 
don't have a Senate-confirmed head of the FAA. Why? Because Mr. 
Whitaker didn't want to stay around if everybody was going to let 
Donald Trump do whatever the heck he wanted when it came to the FAA. 
All this because Musk got fined for violating safety rules.
  So I really don't understand what Mr. Bradbury doesn't understand 
that he can't write down on a piece of paper where real conflict of 
interest exists.
  We need new leadership in the Department of Transportation so that we 
can continue to stand up to safety issues. I do not believe Mr. 
Bradbury is that person.
  Mr. Bradbury sees bureaucratic hurdles when other people see safety 
safeguards. He sees redtape where we see lifesaving protections. He 
sees the objective of having a light-touch FAA, and we see the 
objective of having safety be the primary purpose--because you can't 
win at aviation if you don't win at aviation safety first.
  Ask the people of the Pacific Northwest. The catastrophes of the MAX 
crashes not only lost lives; they cost billions of dollars. So not 
adhering to safety is hardly a winning economic solution.
  So Mr. Bradbury hasn't shown us the leadership on safety. He has not 
shown the fidelity of upholding the law, of even respecting Congress. 
He has not shown us the courage that it takes to stand up and make sure 
that safety is implemented. And the consequences of putting the wrong 
person in place are measured in human lives, not dollars--human lives.
  The Boeing 737 MAX families know this--yesterday was the sixth 
anniversary of the Ethiopian Airlines crash that claimed 157 lives--
family members like Javier de Luis and Nadia Milleron, who have now 
oriented their lives around making aviation safer. I so appreciate 
their advocacy, but the people at the FAA should be doing the same.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Steven 
Bradbury.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my 
remarks prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.