FY 2027 Department of Agriculture Budget Hearing

President's budget request for the Department of Commerce, and I welcome you back. I look forward to hearing about your priorities and how your plans to achieve them under this President's budget request. That request is outlined in brief documents transmitted to Congress earlier this month, further and further clarified in materials published this week, proposes a mix of increases and cuts across several bureaus. The request proposes a twelve point two percent reduction in budget authority for the department and its bureaus including a one point six billion dollar reduction in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It also proposes eliminating Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnerships at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. as well as the phased elimination of Economic Development Administration. The proposed elimination of the Hollings Manufacturing Extinction Partnership is concerning. This is a program that's popular and well-used, that has received bipartisan support, and serves many small and medium-sized manufacturers in my home state of Kansas and across the country. For many of these manufacturers, MEP is often the only on-the-ground support available to them to modernize, compete, and keep jobs in their communities. We need clear answers on how the department intends to support these manufacturers if this program is eliminated. Last week I visited communities in Miami and Franklin County, uh, on the eastern part of Kansas. Uh, that was my visit followed to severe tornadoes. I look forward to hearing more about the steps the department through the National Weather Service is making to ensure full twenty-four seven staffing at local weather forecast offices. We will also discuss increases across the department, including the US Census Bureau as it prepares for its twenty-thirty decennial. and at the International Trade Administration and Bureau of Industry and Security, to support trade enforcement and export controls that protect our national and economic security. Additionally, I look forward to an update. Mister Secretary, I think we should have had an update prior to now, uh, based upon, uh, your commitment, uh, the last time we were together in February. But I look forward to an update today on the remaining twenty-one billion in non-deployment bead, non-deployed bead funding, including what progress has been made since the February hearing, and how the department plans to move forward with these resources. Secretary Lutnik, thank you for your testimony today. I look forward to working with you throughout the appropriations process to ensure the Department of Commerce and its bureaus have the right level of federal resources to carry out its mission. I look forward to working with this subcommittee and the full committee to make sure we accomplish that goal. And Senator Van Hollen, you are now recognized for your opening statement.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, Mister Secretary, I feel compelled to start today where we left off last time you were here in February because you failed to respond to inquiries that we've made since that time. At that time, it had just come to light that you had totally misled the American people about certain aspects of your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I asked you then whether you would provide the committee with all records of your interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. You said you would consider it and that you had, quote, nothing to hide. Senator Merkley and I subsequently sent you a letter on February twenty seventh, asking if you would provide those documents and presenting certain questions. We've not heard a thing since then. I think the American people deserve transparency. You also failed to respond to a letter that I sent you on February twenty fifth, along with Senators Wyden and Warren, regarding the agreement brokered by the Department of Commerce, in which the US government provided funding for and acquired an ownership stake in USA rare earth metals, minerals. The deal was announced in conjunction with a one point five billion dollar private fundraising effort for that company brokered by your former firm, Cantor Fitzgerald. We presented a number of questions to you in that letter, have not gotten a response. You've also failed to answer questions for the record that we submitted after the hearing the chairman mentioned on February twentieth, including basic questions regarding the bead program and export controls. And the committee has yet to receive the FY twenty-six NOAA spending plan, which was due over a month ago. There's obviously a pattern here, failure to respond to basic inquiries, And that means rather than only look forward, we will have to revisit some of the issues that could have been addressed earlier. With regard to the fiscal year twenty-seven budget planned before us today, it is like the re-run of a bad movie. Last year you proposed eliminating the Economic Development Administration, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. You also proposed last year slashing funding for the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NIST, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the International Trade Administration. Congress rejected those proposals then, on a bipartisan basis, because they would have undermined the very economic competitiveness and innovation this administration claims to champion. So what does the fiscal year twenty-seven budget proposal do? The same thing you proposed last year. EDA, proposed to be eliminated. MBDA, eliminated. Maryland, the manufacturing extension program, eliminated. NIST, cut by fifty-four percent. NOAA, cut by twenty-seven percent. ITA, cut by twenty-five percent, even as the trade enforcement caseload is skyrocketing. These proposed cuts to important economic development programs come as consumer sentiment has fallen to forty seven point six percent, the lowest reading in the seventy four year history of the University of Michigan survey, lower than the worst of the Great Recession, lower than the worst of the post-COVID inflation crisis. These proposed cuts arrive as inflation just hit three point three percent, 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 a half a percent. And on trade, the illegal tariffs cost the American people a hundred and sixty-six billion dollars estimated to mean seventeen hundred dollars on average per American family, and they haven't gotten their money back. So, Mr. Secretary, you would think that we would see a budget that supports trade and economic growth, not one that would make things worse, not one that this committee, rejected on a by partisan basis. Uh, so I hope, Mister Chairman, uh, that the committee is once again able to work on a bipartisan basis here and put together a budget that meets the needs of the American people. I do look forward to your testimony, Mister Secretary, and the questions. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Sir, hold on. Thank you. We will in that regard. Uh, Secretary Lutnik, you are now recognized for your testimony. Welcome.

Thank you. Chairman Moran, Ranking Member and Holland and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to join you here today. Over the past fifteen months, President Trump has proven that the American economy is the strongest and most resilient in the world. When businesses look to for places to expand manufacturing, drive innovation and hire more workers, they decisively are choosing United States. Micron, two hundred billion dollar investment, in memory semiconductor manufacturing in idaho upstate new york and virginia tsmc's hundred and sixty five billion dollar advanced manufacturing investment in america's semiconductor logic sector and texas instruments sixty billion dollar investment for seven us semiconductor fabs across three manufacturing mega sites in texas and utah are just a few examples of the trump administration's commitment to driving semiconductor investment and bringing jobs back to the United States. 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. Trillions of dollars of capital investment are pouring into America, led by President Trump and the United States Department of Commerce. 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. Over the past few months alone, the Department of Commerce has announced a multiple, multiple, fifteen billion dollar plus record-setting critical energy investments across the country from Pennsylvania and Georgia to Texas and Tennessee that will accelerate economic growth, ensure US energy dominance, bolster critical supply chains, and strengthen US national and economic security. In addition to the massive historic trade agreements with Korea and Taiwan, the impressive five hundred and fifty billion dollar trade deal with Japan has announced six projects in the last six months. Up to forty billion dollars for small modular nuclear reactors in both Tennessee and Alabama. Thirty-three billion dollars for a nine point two gigawatt natural gas fired power plant in Ohio. Seventeen billion dollars for natural gas fired power generation in Southwest Pennsylvania and sixteen billion dollars for another natural gas fired power generation hub in East Texas. In addition, two billion dollars for deep water crude oil export terminal in the Gulf of America, and six hundred million dollars for the critical high pressure, high temperature synthetic diamond grit facility, which we need in Georgia. Just last month, Secretary Wright and I were in Southern Ohio to break ground on that nine point two gigawatt natural gas facility. This project will develop the largest natural gas facility in history. It'll lower electricity costs 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. Beyond these historic investments, the Department of Commerce continues to around the clock to implement President Trump's America First trade policy. Under section two three two, 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, reassure, and revitalize manufacturing capacity across our critical industries. These actions have led to multi-billion dollar commitments to reassure steel and aluminum manufacturing and reassure American excellence in critical industries. In the first year of his second term, President Trump has dramatically reduced the trade deficit, lowered imports, and increased exports to over three point four trillion dollars, a six percent increase from twenty twenty four. In October twenty twenty five, the trade deficit was the lowest we've had in sixteen years. 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. BIS works hand in hand with the Department of Ho- 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 four hundred billion dollars to America. ITA has helped Boeing and Webtek and led two hundred and forty four billion dollars of contracts for America as compared to the Biden industry's, seventeen billion dollars. 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, outsourced jobs, and paltry investments. 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 fifteen months of this administration. I look forward to working with you as the department continues to spur economic growth and secure unprecedented prosperity for the American people. Dr.

Let me begin with where we left off, uh, in February. Uh, I was expecting something, uh, concrete from the department. At that February hear- ten hearing you committed to using the remaining twenty-one billion dollars in bead non-deployment non-deployed funds, uh, and to conduct listening sessions with stakeholders to determine the best use. So, mmm, my impression from that hearing was that those funds will be utilized to make certain that there is uh connectivity uh broadband availability to uh all uh americans uh and that uh you would conduct listening sessions to to help determine how the best way to accomplish that goal is. During those listening sessions uh staff indicated that guidance would be issued by march the eleventh uh following those stakeholder engagements and however uh that guidance has not yet been released. Additionally, uh, Senator Collins and Senator Fisher and I submitted a letter to you on March the fifth regarding bead funding, uh, and, uh, talking about an available round of broad band deployment. Uh, and we've yet to receive a response. Uh, could you provide us with an update and perhaps something more than soon, uh, in your response?

Sure. i'm glad to talk about the high class problems that we have so the department of commerce re bid the bead program we have fifty four states and territories done forty i think forty six have literally signed the documents or and are drawing money and the rest have the documents they're just finishing up the documents so these are states and territories drawing down on the execution of the plan for the first twenty one billion dollars Right? Then, on the redeployment money, we have twenty one billion remaining. We held listening sessions. Over a thousand people attended. Two hundred and eighty comments. We're sorting through those comments and trying to determine the plan, which we're going to go over with the administration. And, and unfortunately, I am the answer is, it's going to come shortly. But that, that is the plan.

Thank you for not using the word " soon".

We are working on it and doing it.

Thank you for not using the word " soon". Uh, please next time, don't tell me the answer is " soon" or " shortly".

OK.

Uh, Mister 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. But, what do you think the plan is going to be? Is that, is this, are these dollars going to be spent for purposes of deploying broad, broad band in the United States to customers that would not otherwise be served?

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. So we will, we will adhere to the statute that's been written, and it, the monies will be deployed across our great nation.

Well, Mister Secretary, I I worry, um, I worried in the last hearing and I worry in your answer today, that you will follow the laws of the statute. That doesn't sound like something I should be worried about. But there is a catch-all uh provision in a list of things that are permissible. And the very last one would suggest you have significant discretion uh in this regard. And I'm, I will state to you and for the record, I'm worried that you sh- I I would hope that you do not use that last catch-all phrase to do something other than broad band deployment. Uh, and so, when you tell me that you're gonna 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 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 uh a significant challenge in connecting with the rest of the world, if this last twenty-one dollars is diverted someplace else.

i am in complete agreement with you that our objective is to cover american's broadband needs and we set out to do exactly that working with the states and your state did an excellent job uh trying to cover everything 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 but we have a high class problem 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.

i will take you up on your offer for our my team our our staff and your staff to sit down and will will try to give you the examples of where not only the examples but the places in which we think broadband could be improved and it and deployed in our state uh thank you mr. secretary senator van hollen

uh thank you mr. chairman uh i'm informed mr. secretary that last night uh we did get uh the fiscal year's

that is right.

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, uh, and answering the questions that we presented in that letter?

The last time we were together, uh, I agreed and answered every question on that topic with this committee. And I answered each and every topic. I have voluntarily agreed in less than two weeks to sit and answer questions on this topic, fully whatever questions were asked of me, voluntarily, in less than two weeks with your house colleagues. I would ask you if there are any questions that you want me to answer, please give them to your house colleagues and I am going to answer them all. But I am here today to testify about the budget, And I look forward to discussing the President's budget with you today. But I am volunteering within two weeks to answer any and all questions on this topic.

Well, Mr. Secretary, I'm aware of that. Um. We we presented you with questions and requests that from this committee that have not been responded to. So, we're gonna have to continue to pursue that. We will follow closely what happens in that proceeding. Uh, I hope you will provide them uh with the materials um that we hope to secure here as well. Uh, and again, uh, the reason I'm asking this question at this hearing is because we didn't get a response to the letter, no response at all uh to that earlier letter. Uh, the other letter we haven't gotten a response to relates to the um issue, as I mentioned, of the U. S. decision, the Commerce Department decision to take a a stake, a U. S. government stake in U. S. Rare Earth, one point six billion dollars in federal support. And according to reports, the Rare Earth's own CEO publicly said that this deal originated in a November twenty twenty-five conversation between yourself and herself with no formal application, no public solicitation, and no competitive process. Is that accurate?

I met the uh, the executives of USA Rare Earth, uh, introduced to me by a gentleman named Ken Mollis, who is a a famous banker who's has a firm by his own name. And uh, so he brought uh the deal to us. uh because it is well known that china has weaponized rare earths and critical minerals against the country and it is a very important for the united states to uh to unleash our ability to do rare earths critical minerals and magnets and usa rare earth has a mine to magnet integrated model and that was interesting it was presented to me by uh ken mollis And uh, then I introduced them to the chips team to pursue the transaction.

Yeah. So, Mister Secretary, I, I'm not, don't have no complaint with the decision to take some US ownership stake, um, in exchange for the investment. Uh, something that some of us encouraged the Biden administration to do in strategic sectors, like this one, certain others. It's more the complete lack of transparency and process under which this, uh, deal took place because, you know, Before that transaction, I understand that this company's total federal contracting history, uh, was worth less than one hundred thousand dollars. It also, as you well know, coincided, uh, with the fact that your previous firm, um, Cantor Fitzgerald, helped arrange the transaction on the other side of the deal, on the private investment side, uh, which raises considerable conflict of interest. concerns. So, can you, can you respond to the letter? Would you respond to the letter by the end of this month that we sent that lays out some of these questions?

I will take another look at the letter and see if we can work together to resolve your issues.

I, I would, I would appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, because it would, you know, again, it might, I, I, I wanna look at this year's budget too. And the challenge we've got here is when we present you questions, chairman mentioned some of the things he's asked about, and we get no answers. That that's that's a real problem. And it will uh, it means that we are gonna spend more time um focusing on the things that you didn't respond to, when we want to focus on the future. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you, Senator. Uh, Senator Capito.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, uh, Mister Secretary, for being here. Uh, I won't uh ask another bead question, but I will uh, I think every time you've come I've asked you that question, but I do wanna say that I heartily agree with what the Chairman is saying. Uh, I'm gonna be talking with my uh Broadband Council folks tomorrow, and I I wish I could give them something more specific on the non-deployment funds. Uh, so as soon as that comes, and I hope it will adhere to, there are gonna be places that are still left uncovered and there's gonna be infrastructure that still needs to be built and to support uh the new structures of the future to keep uh to keep everybody uh connected uh into the future so i i hope those non-deployment funds can stay within our respective states so i'm anxious to hear how you how you do that so i appreciate that. um i wanted to ask uh about NOAA um you mentioned in your well in your written statement you said uh fifteen a hundred and thirty five million increase above an active level for NOAA's uh shipbuilding and unmanned systems. So, we know they have an aging fleet, they have rising repair needs, they're also new and uh low-cost rapidly deployable technologies, uh unmanned systems that are currently available. Um, how do you, we we asked you to explicitly in the twenty twenty-six bill, directed NOAA to integrate these autonomous platforms. So I'm glad to see you're accelerating that. What kind of uh execution plan do you have here? And what capabilities are you prioritizing?

I mean, we are very excited about the prospects that, that we've been, uh, discussing on unmanned. Uh, the idea of having a hurricane hunter plane fly into hurricanes with people on them that are older planes just didn't make sense. So we explored what are, what is the Department of War, and what are the other agencies of the government using. And what we've done is we've uh, aircraft that they've already ordered, that they're using, that we can fill with our sensors Mm-hmm. and both get better data at wildly less money and have wildly less risk, cuz we don't have to have a person in there. Mm-hmm. So we are we are incredibly excited because these vehicles, uh, can live inside the hurricane and sort of stay there with much less risk and give us much better data. And we are really excited about the way technology is going to improve our safety of the American people going forward. And uh, I'm gonna make sure that that is what, when I leave this office at the end of my term, I'm gonna make sure the American people are much, much safer, and they're using technology the best they possibly can.

Good, good. I think that uh, we'll have great results and I appreciate that. Uh, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, which is used by small and medium-sized businesses, and manufacturers certainly in our state. Uh, it helps us with uh technical specialists and and allows our our businesses to compete globally uh the budget again has suggested severe cuts to the program, I believe it did last year but we restored those uh what can you tell me about the department and about the manufacturing extension program?

So the awards are given out quarterly and they continue uh basically just the same,

Mm-hmm.

right, so every quarter they come up and and we're distributing the money as as you've appropriated correctly the issue with the program is the inspector general's reports were very very critical

mmm

of the way these programs had been run in the past right they said that there was uh you know wasn't accurate what they were saying they were using the money for and it's a fact they were overpaying uh you know these these hubs were overpaying uh the executives and there were all sorts of problems so we want to clean those problems up And remember this program was set up in in the late eighties.

Right.

And really high-tech advanced manufacturing is much better now. I think we need to reimagine it. And I and I'd really like to sit together on talking about how to reimagine that.

Have Yeah.

I think that would be very effective.

Have you begun to do that now, or is that just something into the future?

Well, if if you appropriate funds, we will do exactly that.

Mm-hmm.

So, yes, of course, we have thought about it, uh, because you did appropriate funds last year. And we we need to do it better. If you appropriate funds to us, Uh, I'm because it's advanced manufacturing and America's got eighteen, as you've heard President Trump say, eighteen trillion dollars of advanced manufacturing coming. But if you're appropriate funds, we will do it effectively and efficiently and really think about it. And I'd love to work with your, uh, with your team to, uh, re-examine the way to do that.

That would be great. And, um, I will say congratulations on the announcements of a lot of the energy development. I just noticed one glaring, uh, problem there. Um, you're in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Alabama, there's uh at least one state, two states, three states missing from that list. So uh uh we we look forward to seeing you spread that around. 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 uh bipartisan bill, which I think many of the projects that you're working on and can expand to would really be uh uh would benefit greatly from us coming together on that. Thank you very much.

Senator Cafito uh and others in the committee, my suggestion based upon the secretary's uh response to your question about MEP uh 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. And if uh those as as they exist, we would fix them and and because I think there's broad support for getting map if there's something wrong with that in the in the organization of the program, we wanna fix it. 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. Uh, make sure it's Senator Shaheen. It is. Senator Shaheen.

Yes, thank you, and great idea, Mister Chairman. Thank you, Mister Secretary, for being here today. Last year, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council, the United States saw a five point five percent decline and international visitors, we were the only major economy to see any decline. In my home state of New Hampshire, tourism is the second largest industry both by revenue and it supports seventy thousand jobs. Canada has long been our largest share of foreign visitors, but last year we saw a thirty percent drop in Canadian tourism, largely due to the loss of trust and goodwill because of this administration's rhetoric around Canada. Secretary Letnick, last week you said about Canada's economic strategy and I quote, "They suck." I believe your spokesperson then said this was about Canada's economy leeching off of the US. 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?

Canada's economy leans on the thirty, the incredible thirty trillion dollar economy of America. But the

There's no doubt about that, Mister Secretary, but insulting our closest ally and neighbor, who provides a lot of business. We have a lot of businesses in New Hampshire, small businesses who work on both sides of the border. We have all those Canadian visitors who are not coming because of your comments and comments by the administration. How does that help our economy?

It is outrageous that Canada will not put US spirits on the shelf. It is insulting and disrespectful to America that they won't even put

It is. Absolutely. And my husband has a an interest in a company that has American spirits. And they won't do it because of the insults from this precedent and comments like yours. So I I'm I wanna go on to another question.

But can I have just one small comment, which is dairy is treated so badly and your state cares about dairy, 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. And your state cares about that, and we are fighting for that.

We do, but We are not gonna get agreement when we keep insulting people. When we have allies and partners, we should try and work with them, not insult them. 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. I I wanna move on to Bede and the non-deployment funds because Secretary Letnick, as I said the last time you were here, um, Senator Collins and I have led the negotiations around the bipartisan infrastructure law and those broadband provisions. And we enac- when we enacted bead into law, as Chairman Moran said, we understood that any remaining funds after broadband deployment would be used for adoption. New Hampshire was promised nearly two hundred million dollars in bead funding, yet only eighteen point six million has been awarded for deployment. That means New Hampshire has nearly a hundred and eighty million dollars left for non-deployment activities. So when can we expect guidance from NTIA on how states can spend the estimated twenty-one billion dollars in remaining non-deployment bead funds?

We finished our listening tour. We took the comments over uh two hundred and eighty comments and and thousand people who spoke to us we are narrowing the gap we will make sure that we are uh all broad band access and we will have a plan that we would be happy to discuss with you uh as i said within the coming months

and do you have a deadline for when you're hoping to get that plan to us

my my objective

other than soon

well my objective was to start by getting the money out and getting america the benefit of the bargain which we've done right fifty four states and territories executed and out the door finally, right? This is getting the money out the door. But I would expect over the next two months we will have our plan in place. And uh, we will be happy to discuss it with you.

OK, I only have a few seconds left, but in your confirmation hearing last year, you said that the United States needed to stop China from, and I quote, "using our tools to compete with us". And you specifically called out US companies for advancing Beijing's AI ambitions. Since then, the administration has allowed powerful chips to be exported to China. Can you assure us today that the administration is gonna stop those chip sales to China that would advance its military modernization? We heard yesterday at the Armed Services Committee from, um, Admiral Paparo, who expressed concern about China being able to access those advanced chips.

There is a delicate balance in the relationship with China. President Trump has the best relationship with President Xi, and he balances that. I want to be crystal clear, we are not selling our best chips to China under any circumstance. We are not even selling the best scale of chips, meaning they're, they're called Blackwell, they're not even that brand. This is multi-years ago. And there's that balance, and I understand that balance, but the President understands it the best, and he is trying to balance in between there. I would tell you they have not bought any as of today.

Well, I'm out of time, Mister Secretary, but I would urge you to look at the intelligence on the chips, because that is not what the intelligence says about what we are selling to China. Thank you, Mister S- Chairman.

Sir Shane, thank you. Uh, we're Pleased by the presence of the full committee chairman, I recognize Senator Collins.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Welcome, Secretary Letnick. It's good to see you. It probably won't surprise you that my first two questions for you have to do with the lobster industry. And I wanna thank you for joining with the Department of Agriculture and putting a spotlight on American produce seafood and recognizing the need for more help in that area. As you're well aware, back in fiscal year twenty-two, Congress included language in the appropriations legislation that imposed a moratorium through twenty twenty eight on new NOAA regulations affecting the American lobster fishery. to provide more time for additional research and data collection on the north atlantic right whale and also to prevent essentially what would have occurred the closure of the lobster fishery with the moratorium on right whale regulations set to expire in twenty twenty eight no one must soon begin the rulemaking process i'm asking today for your commitment to ensure that the department will work with the lobster sector they are the best stewards imaginable and also with me and the rest of the main and new hampshire delegation to ensure that future regulatory actions will fully incorporate the most current population data for right whales, real-time monitoring technologies, and region-specific risk assessments, rather than relying on outdated assumptions that may no longer reflect the actual right whale distribution or fishing patterns.

I hope to be, uh, considered the greatest friend of the lobster men. um who are great asset and you know i think that they are great asset to our country i i had the pleasure when i was last over in the united kingdom of going out and having them serve us main lobster in the united kingdom because it was important because we opened that market it had never been done before so this was uh opening that market for our great lobster fishermen We promise you that we will use the best data and the most precise data to make sure that our decisions are right for America and they need to be right for the lobstermen of Maine. That is, uh, clearly we should not be using outdated data. We should use the best data and to make sure that we are protecting and doing the right thing for our great lobstermen.

Thank you so much for that commitment and for what you've already done. i wanna mention a specific technology that the department has been pushing it's called ropeless gear the problem is that it remains prohibitively expensive and it's also very challenging from an operational perspective particularly for our smaller uh lobster boats uh lobster men and women have also stated to me that the technology poses safety risks to them. What investments is NOAA making in alternative scalable risk reduction technologies, such as weak links so that the line can break, reduced time line lengths, enhanced gear marking, and real-time tracking systems which could achieve the kinds of meaningful conservation and protective benefits for the right will without putting our small boat operators at risk or putting them out of business because of the cost of this ropeless gear. My point is we shouldn't just focus on one kind of technology. The industry has all sorts of ideas. And I hope that you will commit to looking beyond just ropeless gear.

That is an easy commitment for us. We will never pick just one winner. That that makes no sense for America. The key to America is great innovation. Someone who comes up with an interesting idea that's very expensive. I understand, and for maybe for some big lobster boats, that would be great. But you need to cover all of America. And we, I am happy to engage with you to make sure we are examining all ways that we can be better. And there needs to be economically reasonable ways to be better. Everything can't just be, well, that's a good idea, but it's darn expensive. That's just not the American way, and it's not the Department of Commerce's way, and it's not NOAA's way.

Thank you so much for those words and that commitment. And finally, uh, the budget, the proposed budget would eliminate the Economic Development Administration. EDA has been such an important source of investment in Maine. It's supported our working waterfronts, it's helped our small businesses, it's been an economic engine in a lot of our smaller communities. particularly in rural Maine. These investments are really critical to sustaining small businesses and poor infrastructure, and thus to support job growth and economic development. With the proposed elimination of the EDA, which I hope this committee will reject, um, but if it is to be eliminated, how would the department plan to ensure continued federal support for rural projects in states like Maine?

I think engaging uh with you and your staff to help us design, if you appropriate it, to design the model the best we can to make sure we are covering the areas, both rural, suburban, and, you know, make sure we're doing the best job we can. So I'd i'd like to engage with you and your staff to make sure the monies that is appropriated is reconsidered reimagined and done the best that it possibly can do

thank you very much thank you mister chairman thank you chairman collin thank you

senator schatz

thank you chairman rand secretary thank you for being here um i'm i have a narrow question about beat i'm not gonna ask the the question about uh timing uh again um hawaii is different a friend of mine who is a political operative uh came to hawaii for the first time and said you know every place says they're different and that's only true in hawaii and louisiana and um uh

and may

and may yeah well see then you get alaska and alabama i understand but but i wanna be precise here for us middle mile entails from island to island 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. And we have technicians who are thinking about the continental United States, who do not acknowledge that the the physical realities of Hawaii are different. Can I have your commitment to bird dog that particular narrow issue?

I think that is a fair issue for us to deeply consider. I I appreciate you pointing it out, and I'll make sure my team is on it, and we have a full discussion on that topic. That makes sense to me.

Thank you. Um, uh, in January of this year the Hinoi Regional Center suffered a significant

i will be happy to examine it together with you and um and make sure we understand the problems and the best way to address it

yeah

thank you um i wanna ask you about the um the executive order tasking the commerce department to evaluate whether state ai laws are onerous and burdensome um and i think the question that i have in my first of all i don't like preemption generally i think if we're gonna do preemption we should at least legislate in the space of ai rather than just tell the states that they may not uh take any action um 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. Like is the 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? Is this not? If we do an AI disclosure requirement here, if we try to protect kids over here, if we're doing um AI education over there, like how do we deter how does anybody in a state legislature or in a uh a state department of commerce equivalent determine what is onerous and burdensome. Do they have to kind of mother may I, the Commerce Department, do they take a swing at it and then find out after the fact? How are we gonna do this?

I, I think the challenge is that if each state comes up with its own set of rules, it becomes a patchwork of impossible outcomes.

Tot- totally understand the point of view. I'm just asking, how does one figure out whether they're in compliance with the EO if you're a state policy maker is the standard basically don't legislate or do any policy making in the ai space lest it be considered onerous and burdensome or do you have a rubric for those considerations like how how does a sincere lawmaker try to um be in compliance with this e o if they're a state uh legislator

i think we should come up with best practices and work together uh to come up with best practices so we don't have a patchwork that makes uh ai execution impossible across america and and we should work together to do that

ok you had a march eleventh deadline outlined by the by the eo directing um the department to come up with essentially a framework here and i'm just kind of wondering how anyone is supposed to comply with this i get the principle everyone talks about a patchwork not working especially in the tech space i i sometimes agree with that sometimes don't but the ea the eo is the eo i just i'm i'm just telling you secretary i'm not sure anyone knows how to comply with this except to not do anything and if that's not your intent then we need to get some clarity here um finally the census um you and i had a very constructive conversation both privately and publicly about the census and i believe um that you wanna make sure that the census counts every person in the united states not every citizen but every person as provides. Um, we may have some sort of minor disagreements about some other things, but I wanna specifically talk about the idea of using the postal service, um, to help to conduct the census. GAO came in and said like, kind of the obvious stuff, which is letter carriers are not trained to do this. Letter carriers have different standards for confidentiality. And also letter carriers get paid reasonably well compared to census workers. And that was my intuition and then I read the GAO study and it confirmed all of that. Why do we think this is a good idea? It seems like it's gonna be very expensive. And and also, I should probably, I should have led with this, it'll probably delay the delivery of mail. So, I I get, I don't understand why we like this idea.

Normally, the census would hire five hundred thousand people. pay them by the hour train them with no training whatsoever they don't wear a uniform and they try to find out where americans live rent them cars pay their gas buy them hand held devices and send them out and then they gonna 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 as compared to the postal service which we have a test case coming in twenty twenty six which we're gonna do together. They wear uniforms, they're already trusted, we already own their cars, they already know where everybody lives, they already have the gas, and they already have electronic devices that we can put the application on. I think this will make the census more efficient, more accurate, pay the postman more money, and be beneficial to all of America, and I'm excited to try it. in twenty six