Commerce Sec. Lutnick testifies at Senate hearing

[9:13] budget request for the Department of Commerce, and I welcome you back. I look [9:17] forward to hearing about your priorities and how your plans to achieve them [9:20] under this president's budget request. That request is outlined in brief [9:24] documents transmitted to Congress earlier this month, and further [9:27] clarified in materials published this week, proposes a mix of increases and [9:32] cuts across several bureaus. The request proposes a 12.2 percent reduction in [9:37] budget authority for the department and its bureaus, including a 1.6 billion [9:40] dollar reduction in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It also [9:44] proposes eliminating Hollings Manufacturing Extension partnerships at the National [9:49] Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as the phased elimination of [9:52] Economic Development Administration. The proposed elimination of the Hollings [9:56] Manufacturing Extension Partnership is concerning. This is a program that's [10:00] popular and well used, that has received bipartisan support, and serves many small [10:05] and medium-sized manufacturers in my home state of Kansas and across the country. [10:08] For many of these manufacturers, MEP is often the only on-the-ground support [10:13] available to them to modernize, compete, and keep jobs in their communities. We need [10:18] clear answers on how the department intends to support these manufacturers [10:21] if this program is eliminated. Last week I visited communities in Miami and [10:25] Franklin County on the eastern part of Kansas. That was my visit followed to [10:30] severe tornadoes. I look forward to hearing more about the steps the department [10:34] through the National Weather Service is making to ensure full 24-7 staffing at [10:38] local weather forecast offices. We will also discuss increases across the [10:43] department including the U.S. Census Bureau as it prepares for its 2030 decennial and [10:47] at the International Trade Administration and Bureau of Industry and [10:50] Security to support trade enforcement and export controls that protect our [10:53] national and economic security. Additionally, I look forward to an update. Mr. [10:58] Secretary, I think we should have had an update prior to now based upon your [11:02] commitment the last time we were together in February, but I look forward to an [11:06] update today on the remaining $21 billion in non-deployment, non-deployed [11:11] BED funding, including what progress has been made since the February hearing and [11:16] how the department plans to move forward with these resources. Secretary Lutnick, [11:22] thank you for your testimony today. I look forward to working with you [11:24] throughout the appropriations process to ensure the Department of Commerce and its [11:28] bureaus have the right level of federal resources to carry out its mission. I look [11:32] forward to working with this subcommittee and the full committee to make sure we [11:34] accomplish that goal. And Senator Van Hollen, you are now recognized for your [11:38] opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I feel compelled to start [11:44] today where we left off last time you were here in February because you failed to [11:49] respond to inquiries that we've made since that time. At that time it had just [11:55] come to light that you had totally misled the American people about certain [11:58] aspects of your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I asked you then whether you [12:03] would provide the committee with all records of your interactions with [12:07] Jeffrey Epstein. You said you would consider it and that you had, quote, [12:11] nothing to hide. Senator Merkley and I subsequently sent you a letter on February [12:16] 27th asking if you would provide those documents and presenting certain [12:22] questions. We've not heard a thing since then. I think the American people [12:26] deserve transparency. You also failed to respond to a letter that I sent you on [12:35] February 25th along with Senators Wyden and Warren regarding the agreement [12:41] brokered by the Department of Commerce in which the U.S. government provided [12:45] funding for and acquired an ownership stake in USA rare earth metals, minerals. The [12:52] deal was announced in conjunction with a $1.5 billion private fundraising effort [12:57] for that company brokered by your former firm, Cantor Fitzgerald. We presented a number [13:02] of questions to you in that letter, have not gotten a response. You've also failed [13:08] to answer questions for the record that we submitted after the hearing the [13:13] chairman mentioned on February 20th including basic questions regarding the [13:18] bead program and export controls. And the committee has yet to receive the FY 26 NOAA [13:25] spending plan which was due over a month ago. There's obviously a pattern here, failure to [13:34] respond to basic inquiries and that means rather than only look forward we will [13:38] have to revisit some of the issues that could have been addressed earlier. With [13:43] regard to the fiscal year 27 budget planned before us today, it is like the [13:48] rerun of a bad movie. Last year you proposed eliminating the Economic [13:53] Development Administration, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the [13:57] Manufacturing Extension Partnership. You also proposed last year slashing funding for [14:03] the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NIST, and the National Oceanic [14:08] and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the International Trade Administration. [14:13] Congress rejected those proposals then on a bipartisan basis because they would have [14:19] undermined the very economic competitiveness and innovation this [14:22] administration claims to champion. So what does the fiscal year 27 budget [14:28] proposal do? The same thing you proposed last year. EDA proposed to be eliminated. MBDA [14:37] eliminated. Maryland the Manufacturing Extension Program eliminated. NIST cut by 54%. NOAA cut by 27%. [14:46] ITA cut by 25% even as the trade enforcement caseload is skyrocketing. These proposed cuts to [14:55] important economic development programs come as consumer sentiment has fallen to 47.6%, the lowest reading [15:03] in the 74-year history of the University of Michigan survey. Lower than the worst of the Great Recession, [15:10] lower than the worst of the post-COVID inflation crisis. These proposed cuts arrive as inflation just hit [15:18] 3.3%, the highest level in two years, and gas prices are way up. GDP growth in the fourth quarter of last year came in at just [15:26] a half a percent. And on trade, the illegal tariffs cost the American people $166 billion, estimated to mean [15:37] $1,700 on average per American family, and they haven't gotten their money back. So Mr. Secretary, you would [15:46] think that we would see a budget that supports trade and economic growth, not one that would make things [15:52] worse, not one that this committee rejected on a bipartisan basis. So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the [15:59] committee is once again able to work on a bipartisan basis here and put together a budget that meets the [16:04] needs of the American people. I do look forward to your testimony, Mr. Secretary, and the questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [16:12] Mr. Van Hollen, thank you. We will in that regard. Secretary Lutnik, you are now recognized for your testimony. Welcome. [16:20] Thank you. Chairman Moran, ranking member Van Hollen, and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to join you here today. [16:29] Over the past 15 months, President Trump has proven that the American economy is the strongest and most resilient in the world. [16:36] When businesses look for places to expand manufacturing, drive innovation, and hire more workers, they decisively are choosing the United States. [16:46] Micron, $200 billion investment in memory semiconductor manufacturing in Idaho, upstate New York, and Virginia. [16:56] TSMC's $165 billion advanced manufacturing investment in America's semiconductor logic sector. [17:04] And Texas Instruments, $60 billion investment for seven U.S. semiconductor fabs across three manufacturing mega sites in Texas and Utah, are just a few examples of the Trump [17:16] administration's commitment to driving semiconductor investment and bringing jobs back to the United States. [17:23] I could spend our entire time together listing the record-setting commitments company after company and industry after industry have made to build in America. [17:32] Trillions of dollars of capital investment are pouring into America, led by President Trump and the United States Department of Commerce. [17:40] I am proud of the leadership role the Department of Commerce has played in providing the support and encouragement these businesses need to revive American manufacturing, and we have only just begun. [17:51] Over the past few months alone, the Department of Commerce has announced multiple, multiple $15 billion-plus record-setting critical energy investments across the country, from Pennsylvania and Georgia to Texas and Tennessee, that will accelerate economic growth, ensure U.S. energy dominance, bolster critical supply chains, and strengthen U.S. national and economic security. [18:18] In addition to the massive historic trade agreements with Korea and Taiwan, the impressive $550 billion trade deal with Japan has announced six projects in the last six months. [18:30] Up to $40 billion for small modular nuclear reactors in both Tennessee and Alabama, $33 billion for a 9.2-gigawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Ohio, $17 billion for a natural gas-fired power generation hub in southwest Pennsylvania, and $16 billion for another natural gas-fired power generation hub in east Texas. [18:55] In addition, $2 billion for $2 billion for a deep water crude oil export terminal in the Gulf of America, and $600 million for the critical high-pressure, high-temperature synthetic diamond grit facility, which we need in Georgia. [19:10] Just last month, Secretary Wright and I were in southern Ohio to break ground on that 9.2-gigawatt natural gas facility. [19:16] This project will develop the largest natural gas facility in history. [19:21] It will lower electricity costs across the region, create thousands of American jobs, and strengthen national security and help the U.S. meet the energy needs of the future. [19:32] Beyond these historic investments, the Department of Commerce continues around the clock to implement President Trump's America First trade policy. [19:41] Under Section 232, the Commerce Department is taking action on steel, aluminum, copper, pharmaceuticals, autos, and semiconductors, and we are investigating other sectors to make sure we protect, reshore, and revitalize manufacturing capacity across our critical industries. [20:00] These actions have led to multi-billion-dollar commitments to reshore steel and aluminum manufacturing and reshore American excellence in critical industries. [20:09] In the first year of his second term, President Trump has dramatically reduced the trade deficit, lowered imports, and increased exports to over $3.4 trillion, a 6% increase from 2024. [20:24] In October 2025, the trade deficit was the lowest we've had in 16 years. [20:29] I am tremendously proud of the lead role I have played in negotiating our most important trade deals, including the largest deal ever negotiated with the European Union. [20:38] BIS works hand-in-hand with the Department of Health and Homeland Services, arranged historic agreements to lower our cost of drugs and our most favored nation deals, and I'm happy to report the pharmaceutical industry has committed $400 billion to America. [20:57] ITA has helped Boeing and Wabtec and led $244 billion of contracts for America as compared to the Biden industry's $17 billion. [21:07] So, for far too long, our nation was mired in the status quo, leaving American consumers and producers alike with unfair, poorly implemented trade agreements, outstored jobs, and paltry investments. [21:20] And President Trump is committed to ushering in a golden age of domestic commerce, bringing jobs back to the United States, and that's exactly what he's done in the first 15 months of this administration. [21:31] I look forward to working with you as the Department continues to spur economic growth and secure unprecedented prosperity for the American people. [21:43] Let me begin with where we left off in February. [21:46] I was expecting something concrete from the Department. [21:49] At that February 10 hearing, you committed to using the remaining $21 billion in BED non-deployment, non-deployed funds, and to conduct listening sessions with stakeholders to determine the best use. [22:03] So, my impression from that hearing was that those funds will be utilized to make certain that there is connectivity, broadband availability to all Americans, and that you would conduct listening sessions to help determine how the best way to accomplish that goal is. [22:24] During those listening sessions, staff indicated that guidance would be issued by March the 11th, following those stakeholder engagements, and however, that guidance has not yet been released. [22:39] Additionally, Senator Collins and Senator Fisher and I submitted a letter to you on March the 5th regarding BED funding and talking about an available round of broadband deployment, and we've yet to receive a response. [22:55] Could you provide us with an update, and perhaps something more than soon, in your response? [23:06] Sure. I'm glad to talk about the high-class problems that we have. [23:09] So, the Department of Commerce rebid the BED program. [23:15] We have 54 states and territories done. [23:19] 40, I think 46 have literally signed the documents and are drawing money, and the rest have the documents. [23:27] They're just finishing up the documents. [23:28] So, these are states and territories drawing down on the execution of the plan for the first $21 billion, right? [23:36] Then, on the redeployment money, we have $21 billion remaining. [23:40] We held listening sessions. [23:42] Over 1,000 people attended. [23:44] 280 comments. [23:45] We're sorting through those comments and trying to determine the plan, which we're going to go over with the administration. [23:52] And, unfortunately, I am going to answer is it's going to come shortly. [23:56] But that is the plan. [23:57] Thank you for not using the word soon. [23:59] Thank you for not using the word soon. [24:02] Please, next time, don't tell me the answer is soon or shortly. [24:05] Okay. [24:05] Mr. Secretary, so, what do you expect without, I mean, perhaps you're still going through the details or analyzing those comments, which is what we would expect you to do. [24:17] But what do you think the plan is going to be? [24:20] Is that, are these dollars going to be spent for purposes of deploying broadband in the United States to customers that would not otherwise be served? [24:29] It's our objective to make sure that the funds are used state by state, broadly across our great nation, to help Americans with respect to broadband and within the statute to which you've written. [24:46] So, we will adhere to the statute that's been written, and the monies will be deployed across our great nation. [24:54] Well, Mr. Secretary, I worry, I worried in the last hearing, and I worry in your answer today, that you will follow the laws of the statute. [25:02] That doesn't sound like something I should be worried about, but there is a catch-all provision in a list of things that are permissible, and the very last one would suggest you have significant discretion in this regard. [25:15] And I will state to you, and for the record, I'm worried that you should, I would hope that you do not use that last catch-all phrase to do something other than broadband deployment. [25:27] And so, when you tell me that you're going to follow the statute, I can't complain about you following the statute, but I would certainly suggest, hope, encourage, insist that this money be used. [25:38] Because I'm absolutely certain that even though we've deployed significant billions of dollars in broadband development support, there are plenty of Kansans and Americans who will be unserved or underserved with a significant challenge in connecting with the rest of the world if this last $21 is diverted someplace else. [25:59] I am in complete agreement with you that our objective is to cover Americans' broadband needs, and we set out to do exactly that, working with the states, and your state did an excellent job trying to cover everything. [26:16] If there are still places that need to be covered, I'm happy to work with your staff to try to come up with the right way to cover them. [26:23] But we have a high-class problem. [26:25] We've done a great job in executing this plan, and we have the ability to both cover everyone in broadband and do other things that will be exceptional for America. [26:35] I will take you up on your offer for my team, our staff, and your staff to sit down, and we'll try to give you the examples of where, not only the examples, but the places in which we think broadband could be improved and deployed in our state. [26:48] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [26:49] Senator Van Hollen. [26:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [26:53] I'm informed, Mr. Secretary, that last night we did get the Fiscal Year 26 NOAA spend plan. [27:01] So that makes you one out of four in terms of responses. [27:07] And so I am going to go back to requests and letters that were not responded to, because you did say at the last hearing, with respect to the Epstein affair, that you had, quote, nothing to hide. [27:20] I assume that is still your testimony today. [27:23] Is that right, Mr. Secretary? [27:26] That is right. [27:26] So why have you not responded to the letter that Senator Merkley and I sent following up on the last hearing, asking for documents just to be transparent about the situation and answering the questions that we presented in that letter? [27:47] The last time we were together, I agreed and answered every question on that topic with this committee, and I answered each and every topic. [28:02] I have voluntarily agreed in less than two weeks to sit and answer questions on this topic, fully whatever questions are asked of me, voluntarily, in less than two weeks with your House colleagues. [28:14] I would ask you if there are any questions that you want me to answer, please give them to the House colleagues, and I am going to answer them all. [28:23] But I am here today to testify about the budget, and I look forward to discussing the President's budget with you today. [28:30] But I am volunteering within two weeks to answer any and all questions on this topic. [28:36] Well, Mr. Secretary, I am aware of that. [28:40] We presented you with questions and requests from this committee that have not been responded to. [28:50] So we are going to have to continue to pursue that. [28:53] We will follow closely what happens in that proceeding. [28:57] I hope you will provide them with the materials that we hope to secure here as well. [29:05] And, again, the reason I am asking this question at this hearing is because we did not get a response to the letter. [29:13] No response at all to that earlier letter. [29:17] The other letter we have not gotten a response to relates to the issue, as I mentioned, of the U.S. decision, [29:28] the Commerce Department decision to take a stake, a U.S. government stake, in U.S. rare earth. [29:35] $1.6 billion in federal support. [29:40] And according to reports, the rare earth's own CEO publicly said that this deal originated in a November 2025 conversation [29:49] between yourself and herself with no formal application, no public solicitation, and no competitive process. [29:56] Is that accurate? [29:57] I met the executives of USA Rare Earth introduced to me by a gentleman named Ken Mollis, who is a famous banker who has a firm by his own name. [30:14] And so he brought the deal to us because it is well known that China has weaponized rare earths and critical minerals against the country. [30:25] And it is very important for the United States to unleash our ability to do rare earths, critical minerals, and magnets. [30:35] And USA Rare Earth has a mine-to-magnet integrated model. [30:41] And that was interesting. [30:42] It was presented to me by Ken Mollis, and then I introduced them to the CHIPS team to pursue the transaction. [30:51] So, Mr. Secretary, I have no complaint with the decision to take some U.S. ownership stake in exchange for the investment, [30:59] something that some of us encouraged the Biden administration to do in strategic sectors, like this one, certain others. [31:07] It's more the complete lack of transparency and process under which this deal took place, [31:13] because, you know, before that transaction, I understand that this company's total federal contracting history was worth less than $100,000. [31:24] It also, as you well know, coincided with the fact that your previous firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, [31:34] helped arrange the transaction on the other side of the deal, on the private investment side, [31:40] which raises considerable conflict of interest concerns. [31:44] So can you respond to the letter? [31:48] Would you respond to the letter by the end of this month that we sent that lays out some of these questions? [31:52] I will take another look at the letter and see if we can work together to resolve your issues. [31:59] I would appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, because it would, you know, again, I want to look at this year's budget, too. [32:08] And the challenge we've got here is when we present you questions. [32:13] Chairman mentioned some of the things he's asked about, and we get no answers. [32:18] That's a real problem. [32:19] And it will, it means that we are going to spend more time focusing on the things that you didn't respond to when we want to focus on the future. [32:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [32:34] Thank you, Senator. [32:35] Senator Capito. [32:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. [32:40] I won't ask another bead question, but I will. [32:44] I think every time you've come, I've asked you that question, but I do want to say that I heartily agree with what the chairman is saying. [32:52] I'm going to be talking with my Broadband Council folks tomorrow, and I wish I could give them something more specific on the non-deployment funds. [33:01] So as soon as that comes, and I hope it will adhere to, there are going to be places that are still left uncovered, and there's going to be infrastructure that still needs to be built and to support the new structures of the future to keep everybody connected into the future. [33:19] So I hope those non-deployment funds can stay within our respective states. [33:24] So I'm anxious to hear how you do that. [33:26] So I appreciate that. [33:27] I wanted to ask about NOAA. [33:31] You mentioned in your written statement, you said $135 million increase above an active level for NOAA's shipbuilding and unmanned systems. [33:41] So we know they have an aging fleet. [33:43] They have rising repair needs. [33:45] They're also new and low-cost, rapidly deployable technologies, unmanned systems that are currently available. [33:52] How do you – we asked you to explicitly, in the 2026 bill, directed NOAA to integrate these autonomous platforms. [34:01] So I'm glad to see you're accelerating that. [34:03] What kind of execution plan do you have here, and what capabilities are you prioritizing? [34:08] I mean, we are very excited about the prospects that we've been discussing on unmanned. [34:17] The idea of having a Hurricane Hunter plane fly into hurricanes with people on them that are older planes just didn't make sense. [34:27] So we explored what are – what is the Department of War and what are the other agencies of the government using. [34:35] And what we've done is we've found aircraft that they've already ordered that they're using that we can fill with our sensors and both get better data at wildly less money and have wildly less risk because we don't have to have a person in there. [34:52] So we are incredibly excited because these vehicles can live inside the hurricane and sort of stay there with much less risk and give us much better data. [35:02] And we are really excited about the way technology is going to improve our safety of the American people going forward. [35:09] And I'm going to make sure that that is what – when I leave this office at the end of my term, I'm going to make sure the American people are much, much safer and they're using technology the best they possibly can. [35:20] Good, good. [35:21] I think that we'll have great results and I appreciate that. [35:25] The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which is used by small and medium-sized businesses and manufacturers, certainly in our state, helps us with technical specialists and allows our businesses to compete globally. [35:40] The budget, again, has suggested severe cuts to the program. [35:43] I believe it did last year, but we restored those. [35:46] What can you tell me about the department and about the Manufacturing Extension Program? [35:50] So the awards are given out quarterly and they continue basically just the same, right? [35:58] So every quarter they come up and we're distributing the money as you've appropriated correctly. [36:03] The issue with the program is the Inspector General's reports were very, very critical of the way these programs had been run in the past, right? [36:12] They said that there was – you know, it wasn't accurate what they were saying they were using the money for and its effect. [36:19] They were overpaying – you know, these hubs were overpaying the executives and there were all sorts of problems. [36:26] So we want to clean those problems up. [36:28] And remember, this program was set up in the late 80s. [36:31] Right. [36:32] And really, high-tech advanced manufacturing is much better now. [36:35] I think we need to reimagine it. [36:37] And I'd really like to sit together on talking about how to reimagine that. [36:41] I think that would be very effective. [36:42] Have you begun to do that now or is that just something into the future? [36:46] Well, if you appropriate funds, we will do exactly that. [36:51] So, yes, of course, we have thought about it because you did appropriate funds last year. [36:55] And we need to do it better. [36:57] If you appropriate funds to us, because it's advanced manufacturing and America's got 18 – as you've heard President Trump say – $18 trillion of advanced manufacturing coming. [37:08] But if you appropriate funds, we will do it effectively and efficiently and really think about it. [37:13] And I'd love to work with your team to re-examine the way to do that. [37:18] That would be great. [37:18] And I will say congratulations on the announcements of a lot of the energy development. [37:23] I just noticed one glaring problem there. [37:27] You're in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Alabama. [37:31] There's at least one state, two states, three states missing from that list. [37:36] So, we look forward to seeing you spread that around. [37:40] And as you probably know, I've been very involved in my other responsibilities over on the Environment and Public Works Committee, working with my Democrat counterparts there to try to come together for a permitting reform bipartisan bill, which I think many of the projects that you're working on and can expand to would really be – would benefit greatly from us coming together on that. [38:04] Thank you very much. [38:05] Senator Capito and others in the committee, my suggestion, based upon the Secretary's response to your question about MEP, is that we invite the Inspector General to come visit with us and learn about any challenges that the Inspector General finds in the program. [38:21] And if those – as they exist, we would fix them, because I think there's broad support for getting MEP. [38:28] If there's something wrong in the organization of the program, we want to fix it. [38:32] So, we'll get the information necessary for members of this subcommittee and the committee to have an understanding of any challenges the program faces. [38:41] Make sure it's Senator Shaheen. [38:43] It is. [38:43] Senator Shaheen. [38:44] Yes, thank you. [38:45] And great idea, Mr. Chairman. [38:47] Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. [38:49] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [39:19] Largely due to the loss of trust and goodwill because of this administration's rhetoric around Canada. [39:26] Secretary Letnick, last week you said about Canada's economic strategy, and I quote, they suck. [39:34] I believe your spokesperson then said this was about Canada's economy leeching off of the U.S. [39:40] How does insulting our closest ally and neighbor help the businesses in my state of New Hampshire and states all across this country who are hurting because of the loss of Canadian business and tourism? [39:57] Canada's economy leans on the incredible $30 trillion economy of America. [40:05] There's no doubt about that, Mr. Secretary, but insulting our closest ally and neighbor who provides a lot of business. [40:14] We have a lot of businesses in New Hampshire, small businesses who work on both sides of the border. [40:19] We have all those Canadian visitors who are not coming because of your comments and comments by the administration. [40:26] How does that help our economy? [40:29] It is outrageous that Canada will not put U.S. spirits on the shelf. [40:35] It is insulting. [40:37] It is. [40:38] And disrespectful to America that they won't even put... [40:40] Absolutely. [40:40] And my husband has an interest in a company that has American spirits, and they won't do it because of the insults from this president and comments like yours. [40:54] So I want to go on to another question. [40:57] But can I have just one small comment, which is dairy is treated so badly, and your state cares about dairy, [41:03] and we are trying desperately to get them to live to the deal that they have on USMCA and stop treating our dairy farmers so poorly, [41:13] and your state cares about that, and we are fighting for that? [41:16] We do, but we are not going to get agreement when we keep insulting people. [41:23] When we have allies and partners, we should try and work with them, not insult them. [41:28] And I find your rhetoric insulting to the people in my state who are working so hard to try and ensure that they can do business. [41:38] I want to move on to BED and the non-deployment funds because, Secretary Letnick, as I said the last time you were here, [41:46] Senator Collins and I led the negotiations around the bipartisan infrastructure law and those broadband provisions. [41:53] And when we enacted BED into law, as Chairman Moran said, we understood that any remaining funds after broadband deployment would be used for adoption. [42:07] New Hampshire was promised nearly $200 million in BED funding, yet only $18.6 million has been awarded for deployment. [42:17] That means New Hampshire has nearly $180 million left for non-deployment activities. [42:22] So when can we expect guidance from NTIA on how states can spend the estimated $21 billion in remaining non-deployment BED funds? [42:31] We finished our listening tour. [42:37] We took the comments over, 280 comments and 1,000 people who spoke to us. [42:43] We are narrowing the gap. [42:45] We will make sure that we are covering all broadband access, [42:50] and we will have a plan that we would be happy to discuss with you, as I said, within the coming months. [42:57] And do you have a deadline for when you're hoping to get that plan to us? [43:04] My objective... [43:04] Other than soon? [43:06] Well, my objective was to start by getting the money out and getting America the benefit of the bargain, which we've done, right? [43:12] 54 states and territories executed and out the door finally, right? [43:16] This is getting the money out the door, but I would expect over the next two months we will have our plan in place, [43:21] and we will be happy to discuss it with you. [43:24] Okay. [43:24] I only have a few seconds left, but in your confirmation hearing last year, [43:29] you said that the United States needed to stop China from, and I quote, [43:33] using our tools to compete with us. [43:36] And you specifically called out U.S. companies for advancing Beijing's AI ambitions. [43:41] Since then, the administration has allowed powerful chips to be exported to China. [43:49] Can you assure us today that the administration is going to stop those chip sales to China [43:55] that would advance its military modernization? [43:58] We heard yesterday at the Armed Services Committee from Admiral Paparo, [44:04] who expressed concern about China being able to access those advanced chips. [44:10] There is a delicate balance in the relationship with China. [44:20] President Trump has the best relationship with President Xi, and he balances that. [44:25] I want to be crystal clear. [44:27] We are not selling our best chips to China under any circumstance. [44:31] We are not even selling that best scale of chips, meaning they're called Blackwell. [44:36] They're not even that brand. [44:38] This is multi-years ago, and there's that balance, and I understand that balance, [44:43] but the President understands it the best, and he is trying to balance in between there. [44:47] I would tell you they have not bought any as of today. [44:52] Well, I'm out of time, Mr. Secretary, but I would urge you to look at the intelligence on the chips, [44:58] because that is not what the intelligence says about what we are selling to China. [45:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [45:06] Sir Sheen, thank you. [45:07] We're pleased by the presence of the full committee chairman. [45:10] I recognize Senator Collins. [45:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [45:13] Welcome, Secretary Ludnick. [45:16] It's good to see you. [45:18] It probably won't surprise you that my first two questions for you have to do with the lobster industry, [45:25] and I want to thank you for joining with the Department of Agriculture [45:31] and putting a spotlight on American-produced seafood [45:36] and recognizing the need for more help in that area. [45:43] As you're well aware, back in fiscal year 22, [45:48] Congress included language in the appropriations legislation [45:52] that imposed a moratorium through 2028 on new NOAA regulations affecting the American lobster fishery [46:03] to provide more time for additional research and data collection on the North Atlantic right whale [46:12] and also to prevent, essentially, what would have occurred, the closure of the lobster fishery. [46:21] With the moratorium on right whale regulations set to expire in 2028, [46:28] NOAA must soon begin the rulemaking process. [46:32] I'm asking today for your commitment to ensure that the Department will work with the lobster sector. [46:40] They are the best stewards imaginable and also with me and the rest of the Maine [46:48] and New Hampshire delegation to ensure that future regulatory actions will fully incorporate [46:56] the most current population data for right whales, real-time monitoring technologies, [47:04] and region-specific risk assessments, rather than relying on outdated assumptions [47:13] that may no longer reflect the actual right whale distribution or fishing patterns. [47:21] I hope to be considered the greatest friend of the lobstermen, [47:30] who are a great asset. [47:33] And you know I think that they are a great asset to our country. [47:36] I had the pleasure when I was last over in the United Kingdom of going out and having them serve us [47:43] Maine lobster in the United Kingdom because it was important because we opened that market. [47:49] It had never been done before. [47:51] So this was opening that market for our great lobster fishermen. [47:57] We promise you that we will use the best data and the most precise data [48:02] to make sure that our decisions are right for America and they need to be right for the lobstermen of Maine. [48:09] That is, clearly, we should not be using outdated data, we should use the best data [48:15] and to make sure that we are protecting and doing the right thing for our great lobstermen. [48:21] Thank you so much for that commitment and for what you've already done. [48:25] I want to mention a specific technology that the department has been pushing. [48:32] It's called ropeless gear. [48:35] The problem is that it remains prohibitively expensive and it's also very challenging from an operational perspective, [48:46] particularly for our smaller lobster boats. [48:50] Lobster men and women have also stated to me that the technology poses safety risks to them. [48:59] What investments is NOAA making in alternative scalable risk reduction technologies, [49:08] such as weak links so that the line can break, reduced time line lengths, enhanced gear marking, [49:18] and real-time tracking systems, which could achieve the kinds of meaningful conservation [49:27] and protective benefits for the right whale without putting our small boat operators at risk [49:37] or putting them out of business because of the cost of this ropeless gear. [49:42] My point is we shouldn't just focus on one kind of technology. [49:49] The industry has all sorts of ideas, and I hope that you will commit to looking beyond just ropeless gear. [50:00] That is an easy commitment for us. [50:04] We will never pick just one winner. [50:07] That makes no sense for America. [50:09] The key to America is great innovation. [50:13] Someone who comes up with an interesting idea that's very expensive, I understand, [50:18] and for maybe for some big lobster boats that would be great, but you need to cover all of America. [50:24] And I am happy to engage with you to make sure we are examining all ways that we can be better, [50:31] and there needs to be economically reasonable ways to be better. [50:35] Everything can't just be, well, that's a good idea, but it's darn expensive. [50:38] That's just not the American way, and it's not the Department of Commerce's way, and it's not NOAA's way. [50:44] Thank you so much for those words and that commitment. [50:49] And finally, the budget, the proposed budget would eliminate the Economic Development Administration. [50:59] EDA has been such an important source of investment in Maine. [51:05] It's supported our working waterfronts. [51:08] It's helped our small businesses. [51:11] It's been an economic engine in a lot of our smaller communities, particularly in rural Maine. [51:20] These investments are really critical to sustaining small businesses and port infrastructure, [51:29] and thus to support job growth and economic development. [51:34] With the proposed elimination of the EDA, which I hope this committee will reject, [51:41] but if it is to be eliminated, how would the department plan to ensure continued federal support for rural projects in states like Maine? [51:59] I think engaging with you and your staff to help us design, if you appropriate it, [52:05] to design the model the best we can to make sure we are covering the areas, both rural, suburban, [52:12] and, you know, make sure we're doing the best job we can. [52:16] So I'd like to engage with you and your staff to make sure the monies that is appropriated is reconsidered, [52:23] reimagined, and done the best that it possibly can do. [52:26] Thank you very much. [52:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [52:28] Thank you, Chairman Collins. [52:30] Senator Schatz. [52:31] Thank you, Chair Moran. [52:32] Secretary, thank you for being here. [52:34] I have a narrow question about Bede. [52:36] I'm not going to ask the question about timing again. [52:40] Hawaii is different. [52:41] A friend of mine who is a political operative came to Hawaii for the first time and said, [52:45] you know, every place says they're different, and that's only true in Hawaii and Louisiana. [52:51] And Maine. [52:52] And Maine, yeah. [52:53] Well, see, then you get Alaska and Alabama. [52:55] I understand. [52:56] But I want to be precise here. [53:00] For us, middle mile entails from island to island. [53:05] And I just wanted you to acknowledge the geographic and sort of topographic difference so that we're not stuck trying to do that middle mile for the non-deployment funds. [53:17] And we have technicians who are thinking about the continental United States who do not acknowledge that the physical realities of Hawaii are different. [53:24] Can I have your commitment to bird dog that particular narrow issue? [53:28] I think that is a fair issue for us to deeply consider. [53:31] I appreciate you pointing it out. [53:33] And I'll make sure my team is on it and we have a full discussion on that topic. [53:37] That makes sense to me. [53:38] Thank you. [53:39] In January of this year, the Inouye Regional Center suffered significant water damage from a burst pipe. [53:46] You've already been helpful to repair the damage. [53:51] There may be mold and mildew. [53:52] We don't know yet. [53:53] But do I have your commitment to kind of watch this issue and give NOAA and the Inouye Regional Center whatever they need? [54:01] I will be happy to examine it together with you and make sure we understand the problems and the best way to address it. [54:08] Thank you. [54:08] I want to ask you about the executive order tasking the Commerce Department to evaluate whether state AI laws are onerous and burdensome. [54:21] And I think the question that I have in mind, first of all, I don't like preemption generally. [54:26] I think if we're going to do preemption, we should at least legislate in the space of AI rather than just tell the states that they may not take any action. [54:34] But I'm worried about the onerous and burdensome standard because it gives a fair amount of not just flexibility, but a lack of clarity to a state legislature. [54:45] Like, is the judiciary chairman from the Missouri State House supposed to call the OLA at the Commerce Department and say, is this onerous and burdensome? [54:54] Is this not? [54:55] If we do an AI disclosure requirement here, if we try to protect kids over here, if we're doing AI education over there, like, how do we determine? [55:04] How does anybody in a state legislature or in a state Department of Commerce equivalent determine what is onerous and burdensome? [55:12] Do they have to kind of mother, may I, the Commerce Department? [55:15] Do they take a swing at it and then find out after the fact? [55:18] How are we going to do this? [55:19] I think the challenge is that if each state comes up with its own set of rules, it becomes a patchwork of impossible outcomes. [55:30] Totally understand the point of view. [55:32] I'm just asking, how does one figure out whether they're in compliance with the EO? [55:36] If you're a state policymaker, is the standard basically don't legislate or do any policymaking in the AI space, lest it be considered onerous and burdensome? [55:46] Or do you have a rubric for those considerations? [55:49] Like, how does a sincere lawmaker try to be in compliance with this EO if they're a state legislator? [55:57] I think we should come up with best practices and work together to come up with best practices so we don't have a patchwork that makes AI execution impossible across America. [56:11] And we should work together to do that. [56:13] Okay, you had a March 11th deadline outlined by the EO directing the department to come up with essentially a framework here. [56:26] And I'm just kind of wondering how anyone is supposed to comply with this. [56:30] I get the principle. [56:31] Everyone talks about a patchwork not working, especially in the tech space. [56:35] I sometimes agree with that, sometimes don't. [56:37] But the EO is the EO. [56:39] So I'm just telling you, Secretary, I'm not sure anyone knows how to comply with this except to not do anything. [56:45] And if that's not your intent, then we need to get some clarity here. [56:48] And finally, the census, you and I had a very constructive conversation both privately and publicly about the census. [56:56] And I believe that you want to make sure that the census counts every person in the United States, not every citizen, but every person as the Constitution provides. [57:07] We may have some sort of minor disagreements about some other things, but I want to specifically talk about the idea of using the Postal Service to help to conduct the census. [57:19] GAO came in and said, like, kind of the obvious stuff, which is letter carriers are not trained to do this. [57:26] Letter carriers have different standards for confidentiality. [57:29] And also, letter carriers get paid reasonably well compared to census workers. [57:34] And that was my intuition. [57:35] And then I read the GAO study, and it confirmed all of that. [57:38] Why do we think this is a good idea? [57:40] It seems like it's going to be very expensive. [57:42] And also, I should probably, I should have led with this. [57:45] It'll probably delay the delivery of mail. [57:48] So I don't understand why we like this idea. [57:57] Normally, the census would hire 500,000 people, pay them by the hour. [58:03] Train them with no training whatsoever. [58:07] They don't wear a uniform. [58:08] And they try to find out where Americans live, rent them cars, pay their gas, buy them handheld devices, and send them out. [58:20] And then they're going to be knocking on your door, which would cause your heart to beat a couple of times when someone's knocking on your door you don't know. [58:27] As compared to the Postal Service, which we have a test case coming in 2026, which we're going to do together, they wear uniforms. [58:36] They're already trusted. [58:38] We already own their cars. [58:40] They already know where everybody lives. [58:42] They already have the gas. [58:43] And they already have electronic devices that we can put the application on. [58:47] I think this will make the census more efficient, more accurate, pay the postman more money, and be beneficial to all of America. [58:57] And I'm excited to try it in 2026. [59:00] Chairman, can I just have 20 more seconds to just complete this? [59:02] Thank you. [59:03] Secretary, I think you have articulated the reason for exploring this. [59:08] I don't think you have articulated. [59:10] I don't think we know whether this will work. [59:12] And I think the GAO's study should weigh on you, at least. [59:16] You should be, I'll be open to the idea that this may be, in fact, the best way to conduct the census. [59:22] But you have to be prepared to conduct this pilot and go, turns out the GAO was right. [59:28] Can we both remain open-minded about this and not dig into our positions? [59:31] Because I agree, I thought, huh, Postal Service, maybe. [59:35] And then I kept thinking about training and the delay of mail and the cost, and I thought, maybe not. [59:39] So can we both remain open-minded? [59:41] I don't want you to dig in, and I promise you I won't. [59:45] I think that's why we're doing the test. [59:47] That's the whole reason to do a test. [59:48] Okay, thank you. [59:49] I'm with you. [59:55] Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. [59:57] It's great to see you. [59:58] I want to just start right in on NOAA and listing the rice whale in the Gulf of America as an endangered species. [1:00:06] That happened in 2019. [1:00:08] However, an in-depth peer review that came out and was published in December raised an important question about, you know, [1:00:15] is it an actual distinct population from the wide-ranging and abundant broad whale? [1:00:22] I can't emphasize enough the implications of misclassifying these whales as endangered. [1:00:29] The listing created a substantial national security risk, which you and the entire Endangered Species Committee recently highlighted. [1:00:39] In October of 2023, I led the Alabama delegation, the Republicans in the Alabama delegation, [1:00:46] on a letter to the former NOAA administrator highlighting these impacts and the national security's concerns. [1:00:53] So my question for you is with this in mind, are you going to reevaluate the science-based in this new study [1:01:01] and take that into consideration and consider delisting the population until there is a stronger scientific record to go on? [1:01:13] Thank you, Senator. [1:01:14] Nice to see you. [1:01:15] Very nice to see you. [1:01:16] It is important that we use the best science. [1:01:19] It is vital. [1:01:20] And the points you're raising are exactly right, right? [1:01:23] The rice's whale, is it actually a different species? [1:01:28] Right. [1:01:28] Right. [1:01:29] And the brutus whale. [1:01:30] And we need to study that. [1:01:33] And if it is not, we need to stop the nonsense of treating something as if it's endangered when, of course, it's plentiful. [1:01:41] So that's study. [1:01:43] That's research. [1:01:44] But not done with the research that was done in the past, which was biased. [1:01:47] Let's do it correctly and let's get the answers. [1:01:50] And I think we will be on the same side of that page. [1:01:53] We want to do it correctly. [1:01:54] We want to do it honestly, and we don't want something that is inappropriate in the way of our fishermen and our energy because we are the Department of Commerce. [1:02:05] We need America to thrive and succeed. [1:02:08] We need the Gulf of America to thrive and succeed. [1:02:10] We need the Alabama fishermen to thrive and succeed. [1:02:13] And we are on side, and we will make sure that we will use science honestly to make sure that's the outcome and not what has previously been seen as bias. [1:02:22] Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. [1:02:24] And just in follow-up to that, recognizing that the National Marine Fisheries Service has a significant research budget, [1:02:33] will you commit to any of that funding being used to validate the limited amount of research that formed the basis for designating this? [1:02:41] And will you make sure that we use the funds available to do exactly what you just said in your previous answer? [1:02:48] Sounds right to me. [1:02:49] Okay. [1:02:51] Thank you. [1:02:52] I'm going to shift for a moment. [1:02:53] I'd like to address the Department's critical role in the collection and dissemination of life-saving information during severe weather events. [1:03:01] In recent years, we have just witnessed unthinkable devastation. [1:03:07] I'm thinking specifically about July 4th of last year in Texas. [1:03:13] You and I probably use a weather app to know what the weather is, [1:03:17] and we know that there is really very limited information with regards to showing us how significant particularly flooding can be. [1:03:26] Senator Peter Welch and I have a bill, the Water Research Optimization Act, that I hope that this body will really take a look at. [1:03:32] But in addition to that, the University of Alabama and the National Water Center work hand in glove, obviously with NOAA, [1:03:38] to make sure that we can have better data and inform people better in the future. [1:03:44] And I think they are really on the cutting edge there. [1:03:47] I know delivering that information is a challenge, but I think it is critical that it not be buried in government bureaucracy, [1:03:55] but that we actually utilize it to inform people better and make people's lives better and safer. [1:04:01] So are there any efforts underway to partner with private weather industry to bring flood inundation mapping directly to the public? [1:04:10] I think that's an area that we are beginning to explore, try to figure out how we can do better. [1:04:19] Obviously, the key part of the National Weather Service is safety for Americans, [1:04:24] and we need to use all resources that are possible to do the best job we can. [1:04:29] I think the people at the National Weather Service are really, these are extraordinary Americans. [1:04:34] Yeah, they are. [1:04:35] And they work their tails off to protect us, and I am honored to lead them. [1:04:40] And they really, this hurricane season was the most accurate and earliest warning ever. [1:04:46] And I'm really proud of what they've accomplished. [1:04:49] And by the end of our term, we will automate, we will work hard together with your water center in your state, [1:04:56] and we will work hard to do the best we possibly can. [1:04:58] Thank you. [1:04:59] And in closing, I appreciate the additional commitment when it comes to severe weather. [1:05:04] We have pockets of Alabama that do not have the proper radar. [1:05:07] We are working diligently to close that gap and certainly hope that you'll help us do that. [1:05:13] Thank you. [1:05:14] Senator Britt, thank you. [1:05:15] Senator Coons. [1:05:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary. [1:05:17] Four quick questions about the MEP and NIST, the Patent and Trademark Office, and AI Chips. [1:05:23] On MEP, my understanding, I wasn't here for it, another hearing. [1:05:26] But Chairman Moran, Senator Capito expressed concerns about the future of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. [1:05:32] As you know, I come out of a manufacturing family and experience. [1:05:36] I saw how it helps small manufacturing companies in Delaware work more efficiently and compete more effectively. [1:05:43] We appropriated $175 million for it last year, yet your budget zeroes it out. [1:05:49] My expectation is any bipartisan bill will restore robust funding. [1:05:53] Will you commit to following the signed law for FY26 and continue implementing the MEP program? [1:06:00] It's a simple question. [1:06:02] Yes, we are. [1:06:03] I'm sorry you missed it earlier. [1:06:04] Thanks for the point. [1:06:06] But these awards are given quarterly. [1:06:10] They are on pace. [1:06:12] And, yes, of course, we will follow the appropriation as you sent to us. [1:06:13] I look forward to working with you to ensure MEP survives and thrives. [1:06:18] NIST is our nation's leading entity for promoting American innovation and competitiveness. [1:06:23] And I think it's a tremendous agency. [1:06:25] I've worked closely with it over the more than decade I've been on this subcommittee. [1:06:29] But you propose a $350 million cut to NIST's operating budget and, in particular, $120 million cut to their scientific, tactical, and research programs. [1:06:40] I'm concerned this threatens American leadership and will allow our adversaries to take advantage of that opening. [1:06:46] Could you just explain briefly why that DIPA cut to NIST and, if we, in fact, reverse it on a bipartisan basis, will you continue to advocate for what I think is one of our real treasures for innovation? [1:07:03] Thank you. [1:07:05] Metrology is most important in NIST. [1:07:08] Analytics, most important in NIST. [1:07:10] And we are not cutting those things. [1:07:13] We are cutting things that are not on those points. [1:07:18] So what happens to these organizations is they drift and they start adding things that are not key to the outcome. [1:07:26] Well, if I might, because I'm going to try and keep to my time since Senator Fisher suffered through me going over in the other hearing, and I will do my best, Senator. [1:07:33] One of the things they drifted into is the manufacturing of biopharmaceuticals, where their national hub for that is in Delaware. [1:07:41] And I believe they've made a dramatic difference. [1:07:44] I'll just continue to advocate for NIST. [1:07:46] I look forward to hearing from you about how you think they might have drifted. [1:07:50] But let me move on. [1:07:51] Patent and Trademark Office, I was very encouraged in our last exchange that you were no longer considering values-based patent fees. [1:07:59] But we are about to see the expiration of the capability of the Patent and Trademark Office to set their own fees, something that was extended in 2018 when President Trump signed the Success Act. [1:08:10] I'm ready to help you with this, but I've had no outreach from PTO. [1:08:14] As you know, I support the pro-innovation, pro-patent work of John Squires. [1:08:18] I'm just inviting outreach if there is something we can do before that authority expires to retain what is critical to PTO's success, their ability to set their own fees rather than having it done in some other way. [1:08:31] I'll move to my last point with my last minute and a half. [1:08:34] Admiral Paparo testified to Armed Services yesterday, he's the commanding officer of Indo-PACOM, that giving the PLA access to more advanced AI will improve their warfighting capability at the expense of our service members. [1:08:49] And despite that, the administration approved the export of H-200 chips in January, chips that are six times more powerful than the previously approved H-20s and significantly more powerful than anything the Chinese are making. [1:09:01] Can you tell us how many H-200s have been licensed for export, how many more you intend to license, and what makes you confident that any chip sold to a company like Alibaba will stay out of the hands of the PLA? [1:09:18] The process is those chips, H-200 chips, which are not Blackwell, meaning they're not in the top category. [1:09:25] We're not giving them the absolute best, the most cutting edge, but we're giving them incredibly powerful chips that they don't otherwise have access to. [1:09:32] We're not talking about a commercial interest. [1:09:35] We're talking about the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army, which is our number one military adversary on Earth. [1:09:43] You may continue. [1:09:45] Their cloud companies, my understanding is their cloud companies want to buy these chips. [1:09:50] Of course they do. [1:09:51] And central government has not let them, Chinese central government has not let them as of yet buy the chips because they're trying to keep their investment focused on their own domestic industry. [1:10:03] So that's my understanding of what's happening. [1:10:05] So we have not sold them chips as of yet. [1:10:09] So no H-200s have been sold to PRC-affiliated companies or companies that we, frankly, given their rules and how they operate, can expect will then be handed on to the PLA? [1:10:20] That's my understanding as I sit here with you today. [1:10:22] That's encouraging because, bluntly, the dual-use policy in China means that anything that goes to a commercial entity is accessible to the military. [1:10:30] I hope that we will reverse the decision and not license any H-200 sales. [1:10:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:10:36] Senator Coons, I won't cut into Senator Fisher's time, but in your absence of one of the answers from the Secretary and MEP on MEP was an IG report showing problems. [1:10:48] And my suggestion or what I'm going to plan to do is to ask IG to come visit with members of this subcommittee. [1:10:54] If there are problems, we can modify maybe some of the concerns of the department and the administration so that we can move forward in our usual bipartisan support of this program. [1:11:03] Senator Fisher. [1:11:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:11:06] Senator Coons, to be honest with you, I followed your example in our previous hearing. [1:11:12] Mr. Secretary, welcome. [1:11:18] Nebraska saw one of the most dramatic reductions in the BEAT allocation of $405 million to its NTIA-approved final proposal, which only spends $45 million. [1:11:32] After administrative costs, around $340 million remain. [1:11:36] And Nebraskans need guidance on how they may use those dollars to further the goals of the BEAT program in my state. [1:11:45] More than a month after NTIA delayed releasing guidance for how states may use these dollars, the guidance has not yet been released. [1:11:53] So, Mr. Secretary, what steps has the Department of Commerce and NTIA taken to effectuate the goals of the BEAT program as it relates to the use of those non-deployment funds? [1:12:09] Nice to see you, Senator. [1:12:10] Good to see you, sir. [1:12:11] So, we set out to have a listening tour. [1:12:16] We had over 1,000 people participate, over 280 comments. [1:12:20] We are focused on those comments to make sure. [1:12:24] We are both going to make sure that we cover all broadband access requirements so that each state has made sure they covered everyone. [1:12:33] And then we will have a new program coming out, and I've testified here before, over the next two months, we will come out with our plan. [1:12:43] And then I'm happy to sit and talk with you about how best to serve your state. [1:12:48] That would be great. [1:12:50] I worked really hard on that infrastructure bill to make sure we could get funding to deploy broadband across my state. [1:13:00] So, it's disappointing to see the funding that hasn't been deployed yet. [1:13:08] I've worked closely with NTIA. [1:13:11] I want to make sure that the guidance that they're developing is driven by the needs of the states, and it aligns with the law. [1:13:20] that authorize the program. [1:13:22] Connectivity supported precision agriculture operations is the prime example, I think, of potential eligible use for those non-deployment dollars. [1:13:31] That falls squarely within the bounds of the law, which emphasizes connectivity that enables, quote, economic development and modern digital applications. [1:13:43] And last December, I led my colleagues in the Nebraska delegation in sending a letter to Assistant Secretary Roth, urging the administration to allow states to retain that unspent BED money, [1:13:57] encouraging NTIA to clarify that precision agriculture connectivity constitutes an eligible use of the remaining BED funds. [1:14:07] Would you agree, sir, that connectivity enabling precision agriculture is consistent with the goals of the BED program? [1:14:17] That's an important topic, and we are researching it and looking at it as you've suggested. [1:14:24] And I think it's really interesting, and it is very much a part of our topic of conversation. [1:14:29] Hope to continue to visit with you about that. [1:14:33] I know NTIA has received a lot of volume of feedback on that. [1:14:38] As NTIA continues to implement the BED program, one of my foremost priorities is to ensure that every dollar spent on broadband deployment is going to be maximized. [1:14:52] And to that end, I secured a provision in the law that authorized the BED program that would require the FCC to create and continually refresh a mapping tool, [1:15:05] the broadband funding map to maximize responsible use of those federal dollars. [1:15:12] And since I authored report language and appropriations bills also that directs them to do that, [1:15:19] how are the Department of Commerce and the NTIA working together with the FCC to ensure that broadband deployment efforts, [1:15:28] particularly under BED, are harmonized across all the federal agencies? [1:15:33] Your leadership on that topic is very important, and we are working hard to make sure that we are integrating our information and our data with those maps [1:15:46] so they can be the best they can be. [1:15:48] Have you had, I guess, a positive experience in reaching out to the other federal agencies [1:15:56] and trying to make sure that it is harmonized, though? [1:16:00] I think that's true. [1:16:02] I think we feel good about it. [1:16:04] I will weigh back in again, and we can have a conversation about it. [1:16:08] But what's come up to me has been positive so far. [1:16:11] I haven't heard anything otherwise. [1:16:13] Okay. [1:16:14] Thank you very much. [1:16:15] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:16:16] Mr. Fisher, thank you. [1:16:19] Senator Van Hollen? [1:16:21] Thank you. [1:16:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:16:23] Mr. Secretary, I want to turn to some of the efforts of the Bureau of Industry and Security. [1:16:32] And the request in the budget is to double the BIS appropriation, and it's something that I support. [1:16:41] I want to, though, bring up a conversation we had a while ago regarding what's known as the affiliates rule, right? [1:16:48] The affiliates rule was put in place by the administration to prevent China from or Chinese companies from evading American export controls on chips and AI by creating subsidiaries or other entities. [1:17:05] It was essentially designed to close loopholes, and it was something that I thought was a good idea. [1:17:13] Unfortunately, it was then traded away or terminated by the Trump administration, at least for a year. [1:17:22] It was suspended. [1:17:23] I think it was suspended last November for one year. [1:17:28] So my question is, if we're going to provide these additional funds to BIS to undertake this kind of work, can you commit that we will reinstate the affiliates rule to try to prevent the export of high-end U.S. technology to China, including for potential use by the Chinese military? [1:17:52] Thank you. [1:17:52] Our trade relationship with China is very complex. [1:17:59] It's led by President Trump and his relationship with President Xi. [1:18:03] But there is a trade team led by Secretary Besant and Ambassador Greer who are focused on that, and I focus on the rest of the world. [1:18:13] So, you know, the idea that there is balance to figure that out. [1:18:18] I agree that the affiliates rule is a smart thing for the United States of America to consider. [1:18:25] But it is part of the balance of that full trade agreement, which those other, you know, leaders in our administration are driving, and I am part of that team. [1:18:37] Well, Mr. Secretary, it's interesting because I think I mentioned before that when I ask other members of the administration, they say to ask the other guy. [1:18:48] And so we get in this circle and no answers because everybody I talk to agrees that we should apply the affiliates rule. [1:18:58] But we have not yet reinstated it. [1:19:02] Let me turn to an issue on which I expect Hope will agree, which is increasing recreational fishing off the Maryland coast, a local matter. [1:19:10] Earlier this month, NOAA informed the Mid-Atlantic States and Relevant Fisheries Council and Commission that the agency would not be ready to implement new measures to increase the recreational catch of prized black sea bass and summer flounder. [1:19:25] Now, the states have been working on these changes for more than eight months to increase the catch by 20 percent, which would be a good deal for recreational fishermen. [1:19:35] And all of the other stakeholders, including the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, have signed off. [1:19:42] And they've sent letters to you on this matter saying that we can increase the recreational catch without doing any harm to this resource. [1:19:55] Can you, you know, last time around, NOAA was able to clear this in 24 days. [1:20:03] I don't know if it's because of staff cutbacks or whatever, but could you commit to getting this done? [1:20:10] I mean, we're really now on the cusp of the season, and this would be a huge loss to our recreational fishermen and women if we're not successful. [1:20:23] Your comments sound like something that I support. [1:20:27] So, therefore, I will leave here. [1:20:29] I will talk to my people and to see what I can do to make sure we do not have any unnecessary delay, [1:20:37] that we're doing the work necessary, and if there are any issues to come back to you. [1:20:43] But I would hope that we would be able to do that. [1:20:45] That sounds like something that we agree. [1:20:48] I hope so, Mr. Secretary. [1:20:50] Just finally, and this relates to questions I'm going to submit for the record on concerns that have been raised regarding [1:20:57] another conflict of interest issue regarding Newmark Group and their business dealings with Blue Owl Capital, [1:21:08] with AI data centers, and that interaction with the U.S. government, [1:21:14] and the fact that you, as Secretary of Commerce, will have a lot of control over how funds that Japan will be investing in the United States are used. [1:21:25] So, I'm going to submit some questions for the record, and, Mr. Secretary, I hope this time we'll get answers to those questions. [1:21:35] And if we don't, then I don't know when we'll next see you, but I can assure you that we will be asking questions, [1:21:42] which I hope that we can answer through the questions to the record. [1:21:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:21:49] You're welcome. [1:21:49] I don't intend to have a second round of questions other than for the ranking member and myself, [1:21:54] but I will call next on Senator Reid. [1:21:58] Thank you very much. [1:21:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us today. [1:22:03] Critical minerals are a critical asset for the United States, I repeat myself. [1:22:10] As the ranking on Armed Service Committee, they're absolutely essential to our production. [1:22:17] And I know that Commerce, Department of Defense, Export-Import Bank are all working with respect to this issue, [1:22:25] and we're preparing to invest a critical amount of money. [1:22:29] Which agency or individual is coordinating these investments, or is there no coordination? [1:22:38] Critical minerals have been weaponized by China, who has a dominant position, and we need to break that chokehold, [1:22:49] and we are working together with the Department of Commerce. [1:22:51] And we are working together with the Department of War and the administration and the White House working together. [1:22:57] Within the Department of Commerce, the CHIPS team, which is an exceptional team of deeply capable people, [1:23:07] because these minerals go into semiconductor manufacturing. [1:23:10] So it's logical that they would be there, and they are the team that coordinates that within the Department of Commerce. [1:23:18] And what about the coordination between the departments? [1:23:22] Is there a common effort, or focus, or sort of delegation of specific targets? [1:23:32] Yes, the White House has convened a critical minerals team that brings everybody together, [1:23:38] and we meet quite often collectively, meaning DOW's there, we're there, energy's there, interior's there. [1:23:46] We're all there with our teams focused on how best we can use our collective resources to solve this. [1:23:55] And there's a gentleman who leads that for the White House, who is the convening effort to make sure we're all working together. [1:24:02] But it's gone swiftly, and we're working together. [1:24:07] Another area that has become obvious, not only on this committee, but also on the armed service committee, is quantum investments. [1:24:14] The potential of quantum is huge. [1:24:24] I'm trying to find a word. [1:24:26] Huge is okay. [1:24:28] In fact, there is some speculation that if quantum is fully developed, quantum computing on satellites could detect submarines at depth, [1:24:38] which would be a significant blow to our strategic position. [1:24:44] So Department of Commerce is working on it. [1:24:48] The Department of Defense is working on this. [1:24:49] But in the Department of Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISC, is playing a critical role. [1:24:58] They're developing the technical standards. [1:25:00] They are trying to coordinate or at least rationalize the efforts in many other departments. [1:25:06] And I look at the budget, and you're proposing to cut the quantum budget and NISC by 32%. [1:25:13] And what's the rationale, Mr. Secretary? [1:25:16] Because, again, this is one of those threshold revolutions in technology that our friends, the Chinese, are doing quite a bit of this. [1:25:25] You now have great companies investing enormously in quantum. [1:25:35] So when NISC was doing it, it was a relatively new model. [1:25:40] Now you have great companies investing huge amounts of money. [1:25:43] I think what you'll see is the CHIPS office in R&D will do a broad-based investment in American quantum companies in order to help those companies achieve American dominance in quantum. [1:25:57] So I think it's just moving from where we were exploring it inside of government to now commercial businesses are leading the charge. [1:26:07] And we're going to help them do that and coordinate with them for the benefit of America. [1:26:12] Well, going forward, I think, I hope you'll pay attention to NISC, to quantum. [1:26:20] I know you are. [1:26:21] But we've got to get this right. [1:26:24] And I hope you can. [1:26:25] I completely agree. [1:26:26] Completely. [1:26:27] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [1:26:28] Thank you very much. [1:26:30] Senator Murkowski. [1:26:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:26:33] Secretary, good to see you. [1:26:35] And I told you last year I was not going to disappoint you. [1:26:39] Every time you see me, I'm going to ask you fish questions. [1:26:42] So we're back to the fisheries aspect of your portfolio here. [1:26:49] We're worried. [1:26:50] We're just always worried that the fisheries in and around the state of Alaska, many of them, we're just seeing impacts due to climate change, due to additional predation, other factors that are out there. [1:27:06] And we worry about the sustainability of our fisheries. [1:27:09] But we know what has guided us throughout all of this, all the ups and downs, is when we have adequate stock assessment, adequate surveys, support for our regional fishery management council. [1:27:22] And we're worried that NOAA's ability to provide the information is increasingly limited by staffing and funding shortages. [1:27:32] So looking at the FY27 funding levels, can you give me the assurance that I need to be able to tell folks back home that the adequate resources are going to be there for the survey and stock assessments that really underpin our fisheries management system? [1:27:51] Yes, thanks for the question, and yes, we will make sure we have appropriate resources necessary to make sure we have the best assessments so that your fishermen can be successful. [1:28:06] We don't want to constrain them. [1:28:08] We are going to use better technology, unmanned, you know, just you can use enormous technology to do a better job, work with your fishermen themselves to have them be participants in that survey to make it better, more accurate, [1:28:22] and make sure that we can unleash American fishermen and the great fishermen of Alaska, which obviously dominate the business of seafood in America, so that we can be supportive, which we intend to be. [1:28:33] And we do see that with advances in technology, this does help us. [1:28:39] But again, it's the consistency of the data that allows us to make wise management decisions that have allowed us to be the most sustainably managed fishery in the country here. [1:28:50] But having said all that, we also have, we see disasters within the fisheries. [1:28:58] We have disaster requests out there for Bering Sea snow crab. [1:29:05] We have numerous fishery disaster determinations, allocations, pending plans. [1:29:09] So we need to know, again, the steps that you're taking within the department to ensure fishery disaster declarations and funding allocations are processed efficiently. [1:29:22] I had asked for a list of what is out there and pending. [1:29:27] And in fairness, it is stuff from back in 2022. [1:29:33] We got one from 22, several of them from 2023, 2024. [1:29:39] So these are backlogged. [1:29:41] These are, these are, there's no dispute as to whether or not they should be declared. [1:29:46] They are, they're pending. [1:29:48] And we just haven't gotten them out there. [1:29:49] Well, think about what happens to that fisherman that thought that they were going to be able to get a little bit to, to tide them over until the next season. [1:29:57] That fisherman may or may not still own a boat. [1:30:00] So we need to know that you're going to be prioritizing this. [1:30:03] I completely understand the, the program was, just had so little transparency that no one knew what was going on and not. [1:30:14] And I am committed to changing that model, making sure it is transparent. [1:30:19] Because I understand when, if a fisherman can't fish, that is the definition of a disaster. [1:30:25] Yeah. [1:30:26] Right. [1:30:26] And, and I understand it and we are on side with it and we will work hard to make it more transparent and more efficient and faster. [1:30:34] Well, and perhaps if there's someone within your department that we can actually sit down with and go down through this list and say, [1:30:40] what can we tell these folks in terms of, of timing and, and the process going forward? [1:30:45] So if you can help us with that, I'd appreciate that. [1:30:47] Sounds reasonable. [1:30:48] I'll, I'll go take that under advisement and figure out how to do that and work with you to do it. [1:30:52] And, and the same would also go, uh, with regards to, um, uh, finalizing grants and, and contracts. [1:31:01] Uh, apparently you were asked in a previous hearing, um, about delays in finalizing some grants. [1:31:09] You said that there were, there were no grants or contracts that had been delayed, but we're still hearing from constituents that many are pending final approval before funding can be dispersed. [1:31:17] So again, if we can just, uh, touch glove with your folks to see, give you some specifics to have us work through some of these lists. [1:31:26] I think that that would be helpful if you'd be willing to do that. [1:31:30] Sure. [1:31:31] That's easy. [1:31:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:31:33] Senator Murkowski. [1:31:34] Thank you. [1:31:34] Senator Gillibrand. [1:31:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:31:36] Help us wrap up. [1:31:37] Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Secretary. [1:31:39] So three topics I want to address, quantum, uh, manufacturing, particularly MEP and the tariff refunds. [1:31:46] So I'm going to try to get them all in. [1:31:47] So on quantum, I sit on armed services and I sit on intelligence. [1:31:52] I understand there's been huge, uh, investments by lots of private sector companies, but nothing can replace American dominance with having that capability in-house. [1:32:05] Because when you're talking about a private sector participant, they can sell their technology to China, to any adversary, to anyone. [1:32:14] They don't have the national security priority embedded in their entire architecture. [1:32:19] And we will risk losing, being ahead of many issues that are important for national security. [1:32:26] So I would urge you to revisit your exuberance for the private sector because it puts us in jeopardy of not being first mover in a space that is essential for national security, for encryption, for winning the next war. [1:32:42] So I urge you to meet with national security personnel, particularly Senator Reed and I, in a classified setting, so that we can make the case that we are making a strategic error here. [1:32:54] Um, so I just want to tell you that because the cuts to NIST, to the cuts across the board, are hugely problematic. [1:33:00] And I do not think this is an area where you should feel comfort that the private sector is doing great work. [1:33:06] We need to bring some of that work in-house and keep it in-house. [1:33:09] Point one. [1:33:09] Point two. [1:33:11] Tariffs. [1:33:11] Because I've traveled all across New York, people are very anxious about the cost of everything. [1:33:18] When you look at small manufacturers, when you look at any small business, these tariffs have been like a ton of bricks on their ability to make money, to stay open, and to continue to provide. [1:33:29] I would like to know, what's your plan for getting refunds to our small businesses, refunds to our people, to the American citizens who've had to pay more? [1:33:38] Because right now, tariffs have driven up costs so significantly that it's put many businesses at risk and in peril. [1:33:45] The process of refunds is run by Customs and Border Patrol under Homeland, and they, it's their process, and they have a significant process they are undertaking, but that is not the work of the Department of Commerce. [1:34:05] What is your perspective, however, and what are you advocating for in regards to our small businesses, manufacturers, and people who have paid the price of these tariffs? [1:34:15] If you build in America, you don't have to pay the tariff, and the benefit of building in America, as you know, in New York, when we were there opening the $100 billion micron factory in the state of New York, they were driven by the tariff policy of semiconductors. [1:34:35] So, building in America is driven by that tariff policy, and importers, I understand, don't like it, but those who manufacture in America and hire Americans, they like it, and they like it far. [1:34:49] No, they don't, because the reality of manufacturing in America today is that many of their inputs come from abroad. [1:34:56] So, for example, a lot of our lumber comes from Canada. [1:35:00] A lot of other particularly manufactured pieces might come from any ally or any other place in the globe. [1:35:05] So, manufacturing is highly complex, and it was created with an idea that the world was much flatter than it is today, with an idea that supply chains were inviolate. [1:35:15] We know that's not true post-COVID, but tariffs on key allies like Canada can cripple manufacturers that are domestic manufacturers because their inputs come from an allied country. [1:35:30] Bringing in manufacturing to America. [1:35:33] We've been hollowed out. [1:35:34] Our manufacturing has been hollowed out. [1:35:37] It's been sent overseas. [1:35:39] Canada has the advantage of USMCA. [1:35:42] They have the best tariff deal in the world. [1:35:45] They just treat us unfairly at every margin they possibly can, and the president is out to try to fix that and to reimagine it. [1:35:53] But the answer is, make your products at home, and you have no tariff. [1:35:58] It's just very hard to do that quickly. [1:36:00] And so, since there is going to be a benefit when tariffs are changed, that benefit should go back to the manufacturers and the small businesses. [1:36:10] Second, if you believe that, then why are we cutting the MEP program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships? [1:36:16] Those are the job creators that allow for these manufacturers to train their next generation of workers. [1:36:24] And in New York State, we have 10 MEP centers that created nearly 33,000 jobs over the last five years and contributed $7.6 billion to the economy. [1:36:37] I just don't know why we're cutting these programs. [1:36:40] That seems extremely unwise, given the challenges we have. [1:36:46] Unfortunately, you weren't here to hear what I said before, but the inspector general has taken great exception with many of these programs. [1:36:53] The program that was started in the late 80s for advanced manufacturing, I don't take issue with figuring out how to do it right. [1:37:01] But when it's been done wrong, it needs to be cleaned up. [1:37:03] There were all sorts of reports about excess of compensation and those statistics. [1:37:08] The inspector general challenged the statistics and said they weren't right. [1:37:12] I think if we got it right, we could find a way to do these well for America. [1:37:19] Right now, we haven't got it right. [1:37:20] I would urge you to come to New York, and I will show you how we got it right. [1:37:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:37:26] Senator Jeltenbrand, in your absence, I announced we're going to ask the IG to come talk to us as members of the committee [1:37:32] to find out the challenges or difficulties that they discovered, if they did, that the secretary talked about, [1:37:38] and worked to get a MEP program that is satisfactory to all of us. [1:37:43] Senator Peters. [1:37:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:37:46] Secretary Lutnik, welcome. [1:37:47] Mr. Lutnik, you may recall that at last year's hearing, my very first question for you at that hearing was about staffing cuts [1:37:57] at the National Weather Service and how I was concerned about the direction of the agency [1:38:02] and basically its continued ability to protect public safety, which is the primary focus of what they do. [1:38:09] So I'm frustrated that today that I have to ask you once again about the very same topic. [1:38:15] As you may know, on March 6th, a severe storm devastated southwestern Michigan and acclaimed the lives of four people. [1:38:25] This fatal storm produced four separate tornadoes, one of which was the strongest tornado to hit Michigan in nearly 50 years. [1:38:35] And yet, and yet, there was not even a tornado watch issued that the conditions could lead to a tornado. [1:38:44] We expect watches come about fairly often. [1:38:48] No watch in this situation beforehand. [1:38:50] But even more damning than the fact that there was not even a watch to alert citizens to be prepared [1:38:55] and to have some situational awareness, the Weather Service failed to issue a tornado warning [1:39:01] until a full five minutes after the first tornado touched down. [1:39:07] And by the time that the warning actually happened, it had already torn through a home in Niles, Michigan. [1:39:13] And unfortunately, a 12-year-old boy was killed as a result of that tornado before the warning even went up. [1:39:21] So this was a serious failure on the part of the Weather Service. [1:39:24] But we must work together to make sure that it doesn't happen now. [1:39:29] I think that's the least that we can do in the wake of this tragedy. [1:39:33] So my first question to you is, in common, is I really want to get to the bottom of how this happened in the first place. [1:39:41] In an attempt to do that, I reached out to the Weather Service, Director Graham, on March 13th, [1:39:46] requesting in writing answers to a number of questions regarding the incident [1:39:51] and hope that we could get that answer within 30 days. [1:39:54] 30 days have come and gone. [1:39:56] So my first question to you is, given that you oversee the Weather Service, [1:40:00] will you work with me to get a written response to these questions as soon as possible? [1:40:09] When there is loss of life, it is terrible. [1:40:13] There's no other way to say it. [1:40:14] But I will not allow the National Weather Service to be politicized. [1:40:20] There was a warning. [1:40:22] Whoever told you there was not a warning has given you a bad fact. [1:40:26] And there was, of course, a warning. [1:40:29] We are at the National Weather Service 24-7. [1:40:34] We do not have staffing issues. [1:40:37] We are 24-7 across this great nation because the job of the National Weather Service is to protect the safety of America. [1:40:46] Tornadoes are very, very difficult. [1:40:49] They are horrible. [1:40:51] They don't get much warning. [1:40:52] It is very difficult, right? [1:40:54] So, I mean, the question, there was a warning. [1:40:57] I mentioned there was a warning. [1:40:58] It was five minutes after the tornado hit and then after a young man, or a boy, rather, was killed. [1:41:05] There was no watch. [1:41:06] But my question to you is, we want written answers. [1:41:08] I want to get to the bottom of this. [1:41:09] I'm about facts. [1:41:11] I think you're about facts. [1:41:12] I've always had those kinds of conversations. [1:41:14] I'm just trying to get facts here. [1:41:16] I'm not trying to politicize. [1:41:17] This is something that we need to figure out if there were problems or some oversight or whatever it may be. [1:41:23] I don't know what it is. [1:41:24] I don't want to speculate until I get facts. [1:41:26] Will you get us those answers? [1:41:28] That's all I ask. [1:41:28] It's a very simple question. [1:41:30] If I could get answers to the questions we're posed. [1:41:32] If we both agree, it's non-politicized. [1:41:37] Let's just get to the bottom of it. [1:41:38] Let's do it together. [1:41:40] I'd be happy to do it with you and your staff and get together so that we can be better. [1:41:45] There's nothing we can do about the past. [1:41:47] We can be better. [1:41:48] The National Weather Service is here to protect and defend us, and they will continue to do that. [1:41:53] So does that mean you'll help me get those answers in writing as we've requested? [1:41:56] I'm happy to work with you. [1:41:57] I appreciate that. [1:41:58] I appreciate it. [1:41:59] Second, it's my understanding that the Weather Service is putting together an after-action report to analyze, obviously, what went wrong. [1:42:06] They want to do a better job, too. [1:42:07] I know the men and women in the Weather Service care deeply about their job. [1:42:11] They're professionals, and they care. [1:42:12] Will you ensure that this report comes to fruition first, and further, do you commit to sharing it with Congress so that we can actually work on those next steps in a thoughtful, fact-based way? [1:42:23] I'm happy to leave here, go back and examine where we are with respect to that report, and have a conversation with you with respect to that report. [1:42:33] Great. [1:42:33] Thank you. [1:42:34] Lastly, it's my understanding that the Warn-On forecast, the agency's most cutting-edge modeling system, was not operational on March 6th due to resource constraints, is basically what we've been told. [1:42:46] Either now or in a follow-up, would you please explain to the subcommittee what resources would be necessary to fully operationalize the Warn-On forecast system as to why there was that shortfall? [1:42:59] What we may have to do here in Congress to make sure that that doesn't happen in the future? [1:43:04] I hear you, and I'll look into that when I'm not sitting next to you. [1:43:10] I appreciate it. [1:43:11] Secretary, when you—oh, I passed on. [1:43:14] Can I have one more question without objection, Mr. Chairman? [1:43:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:43:18] When you testified in front of this committee in February, you committed to meet with me on changes in the Census Bureau that have made to the 2026 Census test, which, as you know, is a key planning step to ensure we have an accurate census in 2030. [1:43:34] Unfortunately, two months later, we still haven't sat down to discuss the test and preparations for that census. [1:43:40] So just quickly, will you commit to meeting with me in the next two weeks, if possible, or as soon as possible, to talk about the census? [1:43:48] I have a number of issues that I'm concerned about, and I would love to have that conversation with you. [1:43:53] We can work together to make sure that the 2030 Census is carried off the way it should be. [1:44:00] Sure. [1:44:00] Thank you. [1:44:04] I'm about to bring this hearing to a conclusion after I ask a few more questions. [1:44:08] Let me make sure that none of my colleagues want to ask. [1:44:13] Senator Gillibrand. [1:44:13] I have some specific questions, but if you prefer, I can submit them to the record. [1:44:18] So I ask a unanimous consent to submit some QFRs for the record. [1:44:23] Thank you. [1:44:23] Senator Gillibrand, so ordered. [1:44:25] Thank you. [1:44:26] Someone told me that just a few moments ago. [1:44:29] Senator Peters, you good? [1:44:30] Okay. [1:44:32] Try to wrap up with a handful of just quick, brief questions, things I want to highlight. [1:44:41] First of all, NTIA, when this bead broadband program was created, I was the ranking member [1:44:50] of this subcommittee. [1:44:51] Senator Shaheen was the chairwoman of this subcommittee. [1:44:54] There was a debate about where these additional broadband programs should go, who was going to [1:45:00] provide the money, what agency. [1:45:01] As I recall, and I'll speak for myself, and I think this is true of Senator Shaheen, but [1:45:06] I don't know for certain that we lobbied our colleagues that bead be housed within NTIA. [1:45:14] And one of my rationales for taking that position, because there's other agencies that are involved [1:45:21] in broadband deployment, was that we'd have the opportunity to oversee and have the capability [1:45:26] of having conversations as appropriators for the Department of Commerce and therefore [1:45:30] for NTIA. [1:45:31] Please don't disallow my theory. [1:45:34] Make sure it comes true as we reach the conclusion in regard to how these last remaining funds [1:45:40] are going to be spent. [1:45:42] I also would like the name of a person, if you would either publicly or tell me afterwards, [1:45:48] who you would like for me and my staff to visit with in regard to broadband deployment in [1:45:53] Kansas particularly, so that we can reach out to that person, as you suggested, and have [1:45:58] a conversation. [1:45:59] So, if you'd share that with me, that'd be helpful. [1:46:02] Yeah, we'll do that offline if you'd mind. [1:46:05] And I appreciate Senator Peters' attention to weather and the challenges that we face in [1:46:15] forecasting. [1:46:16] Mr. Secretary, the FY26CJ appropriation law made clear that NOAA's next generation of geostationary weather [1:46:26] satellites must stay on schedule and carry both advanced imagers and hyperspectral sounders to expand and improve [1:46:34] critical data for weather forecasts. [1:46:36] We had two tornadoes touched down in Kansas a week ago. [1:46:42] We see firsthand the importance of that weather forecasting. [1:46:46] I was in one of my weather stations on the Colorado border a couple weeks ago, making certain that they are capable of [1:46:52] performing 24-7. [1:46:54] Most of our weather comes across the Rockies and enters Kansas. [1:46:57] It's a hugely important National Weather Service station in Goodland, as are other three. [1:47:04] I want to make certain that you commit to following those directions about the satellites and make sure that you have an appreciation for the [1:47:13] importance of keeping those satellite re-baselining the GEO X program on target. [1:47:23] Can you assure me of that? [1:47:25] In our analysis of that program, which is vital, what we learned is that we can use our sensors and put them in other [1:47:36] agencies' satellites and save an enormous amount of money. [1:47:40] So basically, save money, but have better sensing and invest more money, not the other way around. [1:47:47] So if we don't have to launch just our own satellites, but we can leverage the satellites of others and put our sounders and [1:47:54] our imagers both in our own satellites and in others, and then we re-examine the NASA contract, and we've been able to save [1:48:03] billions of dollars, but take no less data. [1:48:08] In fact, we will have more data. [1:48:11] I am completely in tune with you on that time. [1:48:14] And that's taking place now? [1:48:15] Now. [1:48:16] And we're aware and know this? [1:48:19] Okay. [1:48:20] We don't know this, so we need to make sure that that's- [1:48:22] It'll be fun to do it together so you can know it because you'll be proud of the way we're working together. [1:48:27] I'd happy to be proud. [1:48:28] The Kansas State University at Salina has an aviation program, a significant one. [1:48:38] They are training UAS pilots, and they're training airplane pilots. [1:48:44] You can get certified to fly. [1:48:46] One of the relationships we've helped establish is the opportunity to train NOAA Commission officer corps pilots, hurricane hunters, [1:48:55] in the place that has tornadoes, not hurricanes, and I would hope that you would confirm with me that you'd be happy to work with us [1:49:05] to try to make certain that program expands and creates an opportunity for training pilots for NOAA. [1:49:12] Sounds smart. [1:49:13] Let's explore it together. [1:49:14] Sounds smart. [1:49:15] Thank you, sir. [1:49:17] Let me turn to BIS. [1:49:22] We provided $44 million increase for the Bureau of Industry and Security to strengthen export controls, [1:49:27] expand enforcement, and support additional personnel in the last fiscal year. [1:49:32] Can you walk me through how those resources are being spent or will be spent? [1:49:38] Hiring more law enforcement officers to protect our innovations from being stolen from us [1:49:48] and basically export it to countries we don't want it to go is vital. [1:49:55] BIS earns significantly more money than we spend, right? [1:50:00] Just last year we had $308 million of fines. [1:50:04] This year already we expect over $250 million in fines. [1:50:07] So this is more police officers, great economics, and these are intellectual police officers. [1:50:15] These aren't on the beat. [1:50:16] These are thinking about who's trying to steal our chips, right, [1:50:20] and who's trying to get our best innovations and take it for their use against America. [1:50:25] So that BIS is the front line of that. [1:50:28] It's been incredibly effective. [1:50:29] We're just going to hire more, basically, intellectual police officers. [1:50:35] Mr. Secretary, store away the fact that I'm interested in helping you accomplish those goals. [1:50:41] And as you see the needs, make sure that I'm aware of them. [1:50:47] Commerce is currently working its way through a five-year review of countervailing duties placed on phosphate fertilizers for Morocco and Russia. [1:50:58] I engaged on this topic back in the first Trump administration in 2020, [1:51:04] asking them to consider the impact these tariffs would have on U.S. agriculture. [1:51:08] We're now at a time that the president of the American Farm Bureau indicated a week ago in a public statement [1:51:14] that 70 percent of U.S. farmers are unable to afford all of the fertilizer they need this season. [1:51:21] I would ask that the Commerce Department review these duties, [1:51:26] and that they are considering the secondary effects on high-priced fertilizer inputs could have on farmers in Kansas. [1:51:34] And I would pick up only slightly where Senator Gillibrand left off. [1:51:39] I understand the importance of supporting manufacturing in the United States. [1:51:44] I would tell you that my farmers are certainly producers in the United States, and they feed the world. [1:51:53] But this is perhaps the most challenging time in my time as a public official that agricultural producers face. [1:52:02] And it's certainly true in Kansas where we've had five years of drought, [1:52:05] and so we're not financially in a position to take on difficult times now and in the future. [1:52:11] And the tariffs, to me, seem to be an opportunity for us, perhaps for once and for all, [1:52:18] to get rid of the unfair trade barriers that farmers have faced in dealing with other countries and our exports. [1:52:26] Kansans generally, in aviation and aerospace and in agriculture, in manufacturing, [1:52:31] we earn a living in Kansas by what we export around the globe. [1:52:36] And we have faced, particularly agriculture, as I say, tariff and non-tariff barriers. [1:52:43] And I was hoping that the tariffs would be utilized to negotiate away those artificial barriers [1:52:49] that keep our products out of other countries. [1:52:51] How would you describe that as happening? [1:52:54] And once that happens, do you expect the tariffs to remain in place? [1:52:58] I assume there's an agreement that, in return for something other countries are giving us to increase our exports, [1:53:05] we're reducing the tariffs on their inputs into the United States? [1:53:12] Our historic trade deals have done exactly what you've just said. [1:53:16] We're trying to smash down their barriers. [1:53:19] So our great farmers, our great producers, can export to the European Union, as an example. [1:53:28] These are congressional, they're parliamentary rules, and they are slow, and it's a process. [1:53:35] They just, for instance, in Europe, they just recently, within the last two weeks, [1:53:41] passed all the laws to implement the program of the deal we made last summer. [1:53:48] So these are processes. [1:53:49] Korea just passed their laws. [1:53:52] So these are processes. [1:53:53] We stay together with Ambassador Greer. [1:53:56] We stay hard on it to open these markets to our exporters. [1:54:01] That is a key part. [1:54:02] You know, we were up 6% this year, but I expect our exports to dramatically increase going forward [1:54:08] as these great historic trade deals are implemented. [1:54:12] I think that's a good point, and I understand the difficulties. [1:54:14] I think I understand the difficulties in getting other, the agreements implemented, [1:54:18] but there's been an announcement of agreements, and people, farmers in particular, are anxious [1:54:23] to see the results. [1:54:25] And I appreciate any attention you can give to that, and also to this issue of phosphates [1:54:31] and fertilizer prices as a result of those tariffs. [1:54:37] Finally, it's... [1:54:40] Just one quick point on that. [1:54:42] Please. [1:54:43] The countervailing duties are through the Court of International Trade, [1:54:47] so they're not really set by the Department of Commerce. [1:54:50] We will do work on those topics, but these are not the kind of tariffs that are set. [1:54:55] They're set by a court, and there's a different process. [1:54:58] So I just wanted to point that out. [1:54:59] But we're on side with it, okay? [1:55:01] That's what I wanted to hear, and we've been engaged with the court as well. [1:55:04] So finally, I think this is my last question. [1:55:09] Senator Reid wants to visit with you, and I want to visit with you when we close this record. [1:55:15] Airlines. [1:55:17] High fuel prices, which is a challenge for our domestic carriers. [1:55:24] I also would highlight the importance, and we had a hearing of this subcommittee, [1:55:28] along with Senator Britt's subcommittee on Homeland Security, about FIFA and the World Cup, [1:55:34] and the Department of Commerce was represented at that hearing, [1:55:37] talking about the importance of making sure that we welcome millions of visitors to the United States [1:55:42] as the World Cup takes place and ultimately the Olympics in Los Angeles. [1:55:47] I'm thinking about... [1:55:49] I chair the subcommittee and the Commerce Committee on Aviation and Aerospace, [1:55:53] thinking about our airline as an industry. [1:55:56] Any thoughts about the challenges they face and what can be done about increasing fuel prices [1:56:01] and making certain that the Department of Commerce utilizes every opportunity it has [1:56:06] to make sure that not only the Department of Commerce, but government-wide, [1:56:10] we're doing the things, the State Department and visas, [1:56:12] and to welcome guests to arrive and utilize our airlines and our travel and tourism industry? [1:56:19] One of the hallmarks of the Trump administration [1:56:22] is our ability to work together across departments. [1:56:27] And each of the topics you raised, there are working groups where we all get together. [1:56:32] We were just doing jet fuel pricing yesterday. [1:56:38] There was a large group together talking about how we can be helpful, [1:56:41] what are the moves we can make, [1:56:43] and what actions can we take for the benefit of our travelers. [1:56:47] So that is a hallmark of how we work together, and we do it all the time. [1:56:52] And I'd be glad to sit and talk to you about how we do it. [1:56:53] I'll tie these two, agriculture and aviation, together and tell you that I chair a caucus [1:56:57] in the United States Senate on SAF, Sustainable Aviation Fuel, [1:57:02] designed to help agriculture producers have another market in renewable fuels, [1:57:07] but also to assist airlines as they try to enter these blends into their aviation fuel. [1:57:13] And in your interagency task force, if you could put a word in for the opportunity. [1:57:18] And mostly there we're talking about a Treasury issue, something called 45Z. [1:57:22] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Anything you'd like to add? [1:57:27] I just want to thank you again for your hospitality here today, [1:57:30] and I appreciate spending the day with you. [1:57:32] Thank you. It's only been a morning. [1:57:36] All right. If there's no further questions, Senators may submit any additional questions [1:57:43] for the subcommittee's official hearing record. [1:57:45] We request the Secretary respond within 30 days. [1:57:48] Mr. Secretary, I'll say that again. [1:57:49] We request the Secretary respond within 30 days. [1:57:52] Subcommittee stands adjourned. [1:57:53] Thank you. [1:57:55] Thank you. [1:58:05] Thank you. [1:58:05] Thank you.